Tag Archives: CRA

Roundup: The same government, not a new one

Posted on by

The final results of the BC election started rolling in as the absentee ballots were counted, and lo, it looks like the NDP managed to flip one seat in the final tally, making it a 47-44-2 tally NDP/Conservative/Greens. And while that’s all well and good, the way in which major media outlets described this was a gods damned tragedy, and I was about to lose my mind.

No, the NDP are not going to “form government,” because they are already the government. Only the legislature changes. No, the Lieutenant-Governor didn’t ask Eby to form government, her statement explicitly said “David Evy advised me that he is prepared to continue as premier.” Because she doesn’t sit around waiting to make a decision—she acts on advice, and he never resigned, so he is not forming anything. He will be shuffling his Cabinet, but it’s the same government that carries over to another legislature. That’s it, and it’s a really big problem when neither the national wire service of the national public broadcaster couldn’t actually read what she wrote, and instead wrote their copy based on a falsehood and changed her words to suit their wrong meaning.

Additionally, because I am going to get pedantic here, there is also no such thing as a “majority government” or a “minority government.” Government—meaning Cabinet—is government. What changes is whether they control a majority or minority of the legislature. The legislature is not government. What matters is whether the same government is able to maintain the confidence of the chamber, which is much easier to do when you have a majority of the seats. The fact that Eby has managed to secure a razor-thin majority of those seats means that he has essentially ensured that he can maintain that confidence (though the Speaker issue could remain tricky). But my gods, could our media outlets have a modicum of civic literacy? It’s not only embarrassing that they don’t, but it’s outright dangerous for democracy going forward.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian air attacks killed four in Kyiv and four in Kharkiv, where they also shattered a historic building and celebrated landmark. Critical infrastructure was also damaged in two regions in the north of Ukraine, leading to more power outages.

Continue reading →

QP: Proud of their new housing policy

Posted on by

The PM was ostensibly in town but not present for Question Period, though his deputy was in his stead. All of the other leaders were absent, including Pierre Poilievre, even though he had just launched another policy position on housing. That left Andrew Scheer to lead off, and he raised the plan from said press conference on cutting GST on new house under $1 million, and asked the government to adopt it. Sean Fraser said that it was great that they took inspiration from the policy to remove the GST on purpose-built rentals, but the Conservative plan to pay for this policy, buy cutting other programmes including to existing low-income housing, was irresponsible. Scheer insisted that the current plan was only paying for bureaucracy and photo ops, and demanded again the policy be adopted. Fraser scoffed that their plan was to do less for housing and spend money on a snitch-line for people who don’t like their neighbours’ housing plans. Scheer repeated his “bureaucracy and photo ops” talking points, and claimed housing starts were down. Fraser retorted that housing starts were in fact up, and tens of thousands over when the Conservatives were last in charge, before reiterating that the Conservative plan is to cut housing supports. Luc Berthold took over in French to demand the government match their pledge to cut GST, and this time, Chrystia Freeland responded that at Poilievre’s rare press conference, he accidentally told the truth and said that they would cut two programmes to pay for this, and listed what those might be. Berthold tried again, decrying how long it took people to afford a home, and this time, Soraya Martinez Ferrada gave her own version of the Conservatives will only cut, and that the programmes the would cut included social housing in Quebec.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and worried about an influx of migrants from the U.S. if Trump wins and asked if the government had a plan. Marc Miller repsonded with a single “oui.” Therrien gave another soliloquy that asked the very same thing. Miller repeated that they do have a plan, and that they have always managed the border with the U.S.

Jenny Kwan rose for the NDP, demanded federal action on abortion access, as though the federal government controlled it. Mark Holland got up and gave a rant about the conservatives and that no man should control a woman’s reproductive freedom. Rachel Blaney gave another round of the same, and Patty Hajdu gave her own rant about not standing for attacks on reproductive rights.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Implicated Conservatives and the lack of security clearance

Posted on by

It was quite the day at the Foreign Interference inquiry, as Justin Trudeau was on the stand and dropped this particular bombshell: “I have the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians and-or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada who are engaged (in) or at high risk of, or for whom there is clear intelligence around foreign interference.” He also indicated that where his own party is concerned, he has been dealing with any accusations internally, which includes ensuring that those implicated are not being given certain committee assignments or so on, which to be perfectly frank, is how one should be dealing with it (though he could have said at some point that he was aware of the report and has been dealing with it internally). The implication in all of this was that Pierre Poilievre, who refuses to get security-cleared, can’t do the same and it’s bewildering as to why.

Poilievre immediately fired back and accused Trudeau of lying under oath (quite something, especially considering that Poilievre is an avowed liar who lies all the time), and demanded that Trudeau release the names, which denies anyone implicated any due process. After all, some of this is intelligence and not evidence, and subjecting someone who was naïve in an interaction with a diplomat to a kangaroo court is hardly fair and could have particularly profound consequences, especially considering the escalating violence toward MPs, and that they will be tarred as “traitors” when in most cases, as the National Security Advisor said last week, many have simply engaged in bad behaviour or are unwitting because they don’t know better, but it hardly escalates to espionage or sabotage.

Part of the subplot around Poilievre’s refusal to get security clearance is the fact that his chief of staff is cleared and receives briefings—but is not considered “need-to-know” on this, because he’s not the party leader, and that’s a pretty big deal. It shouldn’t be up to the chief of staff to deal with implicated MPs, senators, or candidates, or to do something like rescind a nomination as a result of these allegations. In fact, two former CSIS directors even stated on television that they wouldn’t brief a chief of staff if the leader didn’t have clearance because the leader is the principal actor, and needs to be able to act on what the chief of staff tells him, which again, means needing to be briefed.

Another subplot around that security clearance issue was a delineation between someone who is a Privy Councillor, as Poilievre is, and security clearance, which frankly hasn’t been properly articulated before, and created confusion as a result, particularly because there were instances in the past where opposition leaders were sworn into Privy Council before being given classified briefings. This doesn’t, however, change the fact that Poilievre has chosen not to get a clearance, not that he can’t, which is the difference.

Meanwhile, the Beaverton managed to once again hit on the truth of the matter better than any legacy media outlet.

Ukraine Dispatch

The latest drone strike by Russia saw 136 drones launched against Kyiv and other cities, and 68 of those were shot down, with 64 others unaccounted for, while at least two struck targets. Russians claimed they took two more villages—one in Donetsk, one in Luhansk—but Ukraine says that those attacks were repelled. Ukraine has asked the International Maritime Organization to send a monitoring mission to the ports in Odesa among increasing Russian attacks on grain storage and port infrastructure, which threatens global food security. A former Canadian soldier currently fighting in Ukraine has been injured, but wants to get back to the fight when he recovers. And we finally have details on President Zelenskyy’s “Victory Plan,” some of which hinges on an “unconditional” NATO invitation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another threatened frivolous lawsuit

Posted on by

There is a weird little case of monkey-see-monkey-do happening between different conservative parties around the country that has accelerated with the three provincial elections, and Danielle Smith’s upcoming leadership review, and it would all be childish if the stakes weren’t so high. A few days ago, Scott Moe started claiming that the federal carbon levy was costing the jobs of teachers and nurses in the province—a transparently bullshit claim—but the talking point got picked up in Question Period by Pierre Poilievre, and soon other premiers were doing it, including Danielle Smith. Yes, it demonstrates an intellectual and moral bankruptcy that is stunning to behold, but also just how little imagination there seems to be among parties on the right in this country (not that the NDP has much imagination of their own, as they crib the notes of the “justice Democrats” in the US with alarming frequency).

After Blaine Higgs declared that he was going to launch a fresh legal challenge against the federal carbon levy—which will immediately be thrown out of court—Danielle Smith decided she couldn’t let that one go either, so she is now threatening a new legal challenge of the federal Impact Assessment Act, which has just been through changes after the Supreme Court ruled that the earlier version did not pass constitutional muster. And just like Higgs’ challenge that has no new legal arguments to draw on, Smith is also citing things that are not legislative in nature as she plans to challenge the amended law.

The federal government isn’t having it, and Steven Guilbeault has called her out over this, but I’m not sure her behaviour will change too dramatically once she’s on the other side of her leadership review because, well, she needs to prove to her base that she is doing more than just listening to them, but acting on their batshit crazy desires as well, so we’re going to see more of this nonsense going forward.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian force shot down nine out of nineteen Russian drones targeting critical infrastructure overnight Thursday. Russian advances have knocked out about 80 percent of the critical infrastructure in the logistics hub of Pokrovsk, which they are trying to capture. President Zelenskyy visited the Sumy region, which borders the captured areas in Russia’s Kursk region. Reuters has a photo gallery of the all-female anti-drone mobile air defence unit known as the “Bucha witches.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Why the Bloc’s two-bill demand is actually impossible

Posted on by

In advance of yesterday’s confidence votes, Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet laid out his new conditions for support ongoing—government support for Bills C-282 and C-319, and for them to pass by October 29th. The problem? These are both private members’ bills, and the government has little control over when either can pass, and you would think that as parliamentarians who know the system and who like to pretend that they are the adults in the room would know that such a deadline is an impossible ask, but we are unfortunately in the stupidest timeline.

For starters, Bill C-282, which seeks to protect Supply Management in future trade negotiations, has already passed the House of Commons and is in the Senate, but senators don’t seem keen on passing it with any alacrity because they want a better sense of how this will tie the government in the future. The truth is that it can’t—you cannot actually bind a future government with legislation, so this is little more than a handwavey gesture that a future government can repeal at any point, making this a giant waste of everyone’s time and resources. But more to the point, as a private member’s bill, there is no mechanism in the Senate to speed it along, and certainly not one that the Government Leader in the Senate possesses. In fact, when the Conservatives tried to change the rules of the Senate on this in the Harper years, there was tremendous pushback and the attempt was dropped.

The other bill, C-319, is the bill to increase the OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74, for which there is no reasonable justification for (there are other mechanisms to deal with the needs of low-income seniors), and would cost something in the order of $3 billion per year. It passed the House of Commons at report stage yesterday, but again, it’s unlikely to pass third reading by October 29th even if it gets a royal recommendation, which it needs to spend money (which PMBs are normally forbidden to do). So if the government gives it the royal recommendation, and if they get it passed the House of Commons before the 29th, once again, there is no mechanism to speed its passage in the Senate. None, for very good reason. The Bloc made a big show yesterday of insisting that their demands were reasonable and that the bills were sufficiently advanced to make the deadline reasonable (when it’s really chosen so that an election could theoretically be held before Xmas), but they are in fact impossible, and nobody actually pointed that fact out yesterday.

Meanwhile, the Star has gamed out other demands from both the Bloc and the NDP for potential support going forward, and how feasible or how costly they are, and most of it remains in the domain of fantasyland. Price controls? Giving Quebec full immigration powers? Nope and nope.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian guided bombs struck Kramatorsk in the east, killing at least two and injuring twelve more. As well, 28 out of 32 Russian drones were downed overnight. Also in east Ukraine, Russian forces claim to have captured two more villages on the path to attacking the town of Vuhledar, considered a stronghold.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Calling for price caps

Posted on by

The NDP are at it again, and by “it,” I mean making stupid demands that should get them laughed out of any room they’re in. To wit, yesterday they demanded price caps on certain grocery items, claiming that the Loblaws settlement over the class action for the bread price-fixing scheme as “proof” that government needs to take action. I can’t think of a more economically illiterate argument that is trying to simply base itself on “vibes” that will only do far more harm than it will do good.

The high price of certain grocery items is rarely an issue of grocery chains hiking prices. It does happen, but there has been little evidence of it when margins have been stable. If you bother to actually pay attention to agricultural news or Statistics Canada data, it’s pretty clear that much of those price increases are a result of climate change-related droughts in food-producing regions, with the odd flash flood or hurricane also ruining crops, and driving up prices. The invasion of Ukraine exacerbated issues by throwing world markets for wheats and cooking oils out of whack, driving up prices as exports couldn’t get to market. And even if you have growing conditions that rebound, often price are locked into contracts with producers or processors for several years at a time, which can delay prices returning to lower levels as supply rebounds. But the point here is that most of this is explainable if you actually bother to look, rather than just screaming “corporate greed!” because you are ideologically predisposed to doing so.

More to the point, this just strikes me as a little bit of history repeating the demands for price controls in the mid-seventies as inflation was reaching double-digits, which then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau mocked with the phrase “Zap, you’re frozen!” We’re not there, and frankly the demand for price caps is frankly ridiculous, and if they persist, we should resurrect “Zap, you’re frozen” to mock them as relentlessly.

Programming Note: I am taking the next week or so off. Columns will continue on schedule but blogs and videos will be taking a bit of a break.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched drone attacks against power facilities in two regions, prompting more power grid disruptions. Another drone attack appears to have overshot and struck down in Romania, but NATO doesn’t believe that this was an intentional attack. A leaked UN report is pointing to Russia as the culprit of an explosion at barracks housing Ukrainian POWs two years ago that killed fifty.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An incoherence of premiers

Posted on by

The premiers have been meeting in Halifax, and they rode into town full of bluster and declaring that they had a message for Justin Trudeau, and that it was to stay in his lane (constitutionally speaking). But because these are provincial premiers in Canada, they couldn’t even keep a coherent agenda because even as they were arriving, Doug Ford had a grand idea about trying to focus on speeding up pharmaceutical drug approvals, which is explicitly a federal power. Meanwhile, Scott Moe is refusing to remit a perfectly legal federal levy, breaking federal law in the process, because that’s respecting jurisdictional boundaries. I mean, come on.

Possibly one of the most incoherent and possibly obtuse is BC Premier David Eby, trying to sound tough on the eve of an election, as he insists that he just wants the prime minister to sit down with the premiers and that it’s not about money—before complaining that BC isn’t getting their “fair share” of money, and that he wants to join Newfoundland and Labrador’s doomed court challenge around equalisation (because there’s nothing like pissing away millions of dollars to be performative rather than spending that money on fixing healthcare, starting with paying doctors and nurses better). Eby’s appearance on Power & Politics should have been embarrassing as he was being obtuse about his own positions, such as insisting the federal government is “imposing” programmes in their jurisdiction, using the school food programme as an example, and when it was pointed out that the programme is to literally give the province and existing programmes money, he prevaricated. Possibly the most telling was his exasperated “The federal government should just give us the money and not tell us how to spend it,” which is the real issue here. The federal government has been doing that for decades, and nothing is getting fixed while the federal government continues to get the blame. That’s why they’re putting strings on things, and having separate application processes for funding, because just giving money to the provinces isn’t working. When Eby says that working with Ottawa can feel like “beating our head against a wall,” how exactly does he think the federal government feels when the provinces keep saying they’ll spend the money to fix things and then don’t, putting it toward their bottom line or tax cuts instead while the initial problems persist? The absolute lack of any self-awareness on the part of the premiers is utterly infuriating if you’ve paid the slightest bit of attention. (Not to be outdone, Newfoundland and Labrador premier Andrew Furey came up with a cute slogan about how he wants to work with the feds, not for them, and kept repeating it on television while being specious in his complaints. Politics in 2024).

In other news out of Halifax, the premiers say they want to ensure they maintain trade ties with the US, regardless of who wins the next election (but good luck with that because one is a protectionist and the other is looking to apply tariffs to everyone). The northern territorial premiers say they want a greater focus on Arctic sovereignty, which has pretty much the government’s hook for their latest defence policy.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia and Ukraine are expected to exchange 90 prisoners of war today. Ukraine and a Czech ammunition maker signed an agreement to build a munitions factory in Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is proposing legislation to strip honours from those found to be “traitors,” like certain pro-Kremlin businessmen.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Oh noes! Diplomatic residences!

Posted on by

The absolute worst instincts in Canadian politics—and Canadian political journalism—are being indulged, being that of hairshirt parsimony. This time it’s about the decision by Global Affairs to purchase a new condo in New York for the consul general, because the current residence is no longer fit for purpose, and it’s cheaper to buy a new one than to refurbish the existing residence, and the new unit is expected to come with additional savings in terms of other maintenance costs. But lo, it’s worth about CAD$9 million, so immediately we need to frame this as being “luxurious” and “elite” while Canadians can’t find places to live.

It’s a diplomatic residence in New York. Real estate is expensive there, but it’s important to have a residence where our diplomats can entertain, because that’s what diplomacy is and diplomacy costs money. Nevertheless, there is a pervasive (and poisonous) attitude in the Canadian discourse that the Elder Pundits nevertheless reinforce is that spending money on this kind of thing is terrible, and there is an absolute attitude (which was more prevalent during the Conservative years) that Ritz Crackers and ginger ale is good enough for a church social, so it’s good enough for diplomats, which makes us as much of a laughingstock internationally as the prime minister’s (former) decrepit plane did, and they only just retired that one. And it’s why the media keeps indulging astroturfers like the “CTF” who phone them up to complain that the embassy in Tokyo wasn’t furnished by IKEA. (No, seriously). It’s absolutely ridiculous.

Of course, when I tweeted about this, all everyone complained about was Bob Fife which largely misses the point, other than the fact that he is one of the voices of the Elder Pundits, who must enforce the set narratives. Others went back as far so the Duffy Diaries to suggest that Fife is grinding some kind of axe with Tom Clark because he spilled that Duffy was leaking information to the press and Duffy complained to Fife (then the bureau chief) and the president of CTV about it, but that doesn’t make any sense either because Fife is amoral, and only cares about the scoops, not about the ramifications. (Seriously, did you see him get misty-eyed when he told Vassy Kapelos that he doesn’t like being called “Fife the Knife”?) What’s more concerning is that Andrew Scheer started going around saying that this purchase is furthering “Liberal insiders,” which is patent bullshit, but every story was going to reprint that because both-sides.

Ukraine Dispatch

Six people were killed and thirteen injured in a Russian missile attack on the town of Myrnohrad in the Donetsk region. Reuters profiles president Volodymyr Zelenskyy and how the war has changed him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Target 2032

Posted on by

The government’s slow rollout of NATO announcements continued apace yesterday with the formal announcement that their roadmap to meeting the defence spending target of two percent of GDP was expected by 2032, at which point that would include not only the submarines, but some other air defences as well. But because the details on that roadmap remain scarce, it allowed the usual narratives to carry on, while the Conservatives took to their socials to insist that the government had no intention of really following through on this promise, with no evidence at all (unless it was an admission that they have no intention of sticking to any of these plans, because they have already admitted that they have no intention of meeting the two percent target, merely “working toward it.”)

There was also an announcement that Canada and the US would work with Finland on icebreaker capability, with the details to be worked out in the next six months.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched two missiles and six drones at Ukraine, mostly at the Sumy and Mykolaiv regions. US intelligence reports that Russian agents tried to assassinate the CEO of a German arms manufacturer sending weapons to Ukraine. And Ukraine’s former army chief, who clashed with president Zelenskyy, has begun his new role as ambassador to the UK.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s not logistically impossible

Posted on by

For the past week-and-a-half, it has been nothing but handwringing over the Toronto—St. Paul’s by-election results, and the demands that Justin Trudeau either step aside, or to at least meet with his caucus. I took a full week for Trudeau to finally take questions from the media and said that he’s “committed” to staying on the job. And in response to the demands for an in-person caucus meeting now and not in September, Trudeau said he’s having one-on-one conversations with members of the caucus, and some of them are saying he needs to change “key players.”

And then comes along Liberal caucus chair Brenda Shanahan, who insists that it’s “logistically impossible” to have an in-person caucus meeting before September, to which I call bullshit. MPs can all get on a plane to Ottawa at any point, even if it means they have to cancel a barbeque appearance at some point. It’s not impossible, it’s a choice, and that choice is to not respect the members of the caucus, because frankly the leader doesn’t feel the need to be afraid of caucus because we have trained MPs to believe the falsehood that they are powerless and that the leader can push them around. That’s not actually true, and the caucus collectively has the power to vote non-confidence in the leader if they actually had the intestinal fortitude to do so. But therein lies the problem.

I’m also going to point out that all of the breathless reporting on Thursday about Chrystia Freeland saying that the Cabinet is fully behind Trudeau—of course they’re fully behind him. If they weren’t, they’d be out of a job. This isn’t rocket science, guys.

In case you missed them:

  • My weekend column where I talked to the author of the book Theatre of Lies about the situation we find ourselves in Canadian politics and what to do about it.
  • My column points out that one of the problems the Liberals face is how they choose their leaders, and that a proper Westminster system would have solved this by now.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take wonders just what Danielle Smith thinks she wants to “opt out” of around dental care.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces shot down 21 out of 22 Russian drones overnight Thursday. Ukrainian troops were forced to retreat from one neighbourhood in Chasiv Yar after their defensive positions were destroyed, risking further casualties. A Russian missile strike in Odesa killed a woman, while a guided bomb in Kharkiv region killed a man. Russians have started targeting Ukrainian air bases in advance of the delivery of F-16 fighter jets. Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán went to Kyiv for a frosty meeting as Hungary assumes the rotating presidency of the EU. Orbán then headed to Moscow, no doubt to get fresh orders from Putin.

Continue reading →