Tag Archives: CSIS

Roundup: Danielle Smith goes draconian on LGBTQ+ youth

Posted on by

Alberta premier Danielle Smith unveiled her province’s “parental rights” plan in a seven-minute social media video with no written materials, no legislation, and the press conference won’t be until almost 24 hours later, because that’s a responsible way to run a government. And that plan is the most draconian plan this country has seen yet to restrict the rights of trans and queer youth, all done as Smith coos about having empathy and being supportive when the plan is de facto conversion therapy for a generation of youth.

I’ll likely be writing about this more elsewhere in the next day or two, but reaction has been pretty swift, and a couple of notable ones I wanted to highlight, one being Hannah Hodson, who is a former Conservative candidate whom I believe has left the party over this kind of thing. As for federal justice minister Arif Virani, I’m at a loss as to just what levers he thinks he can use to stand up for the rights of these youth, but I guess we’ll see if they announce anything in the next few days.

It is curious just how much the “freedom” and “bodily autonomy!” crowd seems to want to restrict the freedoms and bodily autonomy of people they don’t like and how Smith is going along with it because she doesn’t want the leopards to eat her face like they did Jason Kenney.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine shot down 14 out of 20 drones launched by Russia, but a hospital in Kharkiv was struck. There was a large prisoner exchange, in spite of Russia’s unconfirmed claims that POWs were aboard a downed aircraft. There rumours that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy could sack the country’s top military chief because of disagreements over the handling of the war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to escape child care obligations

Posted on by

Some Alberta daycare operators are starting “rolling closures” to protest the new funding regime that goes along with the $10/day early learning and child care programme, saying that they’re not getting enough to make ends meet. This is 100 percent a provincial problem—they signed onto the agreement with the federal government, knowing what the funding agreement was and that they had obligations for provincial funding, and that included increasing the wages of the people who work in the sector (because there’s no excuse for it being so low, particularly as there is a gendered element to it).

So what’s Danielle Smith’s response? Aside from denigrating the operators doing these rolling closures, she is trying to blame the federal government, claiming that their spending caused inflation to rise, which is what is making these operators face problems. Which is, of course, bullshit. Federal spending has nothing to do with the rise in inflation (as the Bank of Canada has stated many times over), and even more to the point, this child care programme has been disinflationary (at least for the early years, before the base-year effect kicks in, meaning it’ll be a one-time drop in inflation). Nevertheless, because she’s blaming the federal government, she wants to shake them down for more money, because that’s what provinces do every single time. Thus far, federal ministers are holding firm and pointing out that provinces knew what they signed onto, but legacy media, of course, is once again trying to make this a federal problem.

And this keeps happening. We never hold provinces of the premiers to account for anything. Another good example is social housing—as former minister Sheila Copps pointed out, back in the eighties, the provinces insisted that the federal government get out of housing because it was provincial jurisdiction, and just give them the money, and they knew best how to spend it. And happens every single time, they spend the federal money on other things, and then blame the federal government once things reach a crisis because of their under-spending. Same with healthcare. Because we are allergic to holding premiers to account in this country, and that’s a very real problem.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia is refusing to turn over any of the purported POW bodies from that downed plane, because it totally isn’t a psy-op. The head of Ukrainian military intelligence says that he expects the Russian offensive on the eastern front to fizzle out by early spring, by which point they should be exhausted. Lviv in western Ukraine has become the first city to remove all of its Soviet-era monuments.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Federal Court says Emergencies Act didn’t meet the threshold

Posted on by

The Federal Court ruled yesterday that the invocation of a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act didn’t actually meet the threshold for such a declaration. (Full decision here). As a result, some of the uses of emergency powers were overbroad, such as the curtailment of freedom of expression in clearing the occupation, or that the police just kind of made it up as they went along as they froze the bank accounts of the owners of trucks participating in the occupation (and really, only about 57 individuals were affected). The federal government declared immediately that they were going to appeal this decision, citing in part the fact that the public inquiry didn’t come to the same conclusion. While I have a full story coming out later today on this, it’s important to note that the ruling was fairly narrow and technical, rejected a number of the complainants that were part of it, and largely affects future invocations of the Act, having little effect on what happened (because we can’t turn back time).

Amidst the various reactions, revisionism certainly was on display among the talking heads over the course of the evening, who insisted that the government had more “surgical” tools they could have used instead of invoking the Act, erm, except no, they didn’t. The problem was that Doug Ford washed his hands of the whole thing, and eventually the federal government had no other option than to invoke the Act because nobody else was getting control of the situation. And the Conservatives? They are eating up this decision and spreading shitposts far and wide over their socials about how this was a condemnation of Trudeau, and how “divisive” he was, and so on. This feeds directly into their dystopian world-building where they are pretending that Trudeau is some kind of jackbooted dictator taking away people’s rights, when that’s explicitly not what happened here, or any reflection of our objective reality whatsoever. But they want to create the illusion that this is true for their believers, because when you can get them to stop believing in our objective reality, people are so much easier to manipulate.

In commentary, Emmett Macfarlane makes a reasoned case for disagreement with the decision which is well worth reading, while Paul Wells makes more of a case for this decision over the public inquiry, though I suspect he too falls a little into the trap of revisionism because the existing tools weren’t working precisely because Doug Ford refused to act.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missile strikes on Kyiv and Kharkiv have killed 18 people, which Russia claims are all hits on the military-industrial complex. It is more likely that Russia is probing Ukraine’s defences for weakness as they suffer from shortages because Western arms manufacturers are slow to produce new ammunition and equipment, and the US’ budget deadlock is not helping matters any. On the front lines, the reliability of drones used by Ukrainian troops is of varying quality because many of them are cheaply and hastily assembled.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A ridiculous court appeal

Posted on by

There is a court case in Ontario, now being appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, filed by election reform advocates claiming that the existing single-member plurality voting system is unconstitutional because it violates Charter rights. It was rightfully dismissed by the Superior Court judge, because obviously, but there is something I did want to remark on. No, I’m not going to go into another rant about why I’m not a fan of proportional representation systems, or how most of their arguments deliberately misconstrue how single-member plurality works, but rather about how this is yet another attempt to use the courts when you lose at politics.

Beyond this kind of challenge being just on this side of lawfare, what gets me is how these kinds of groups seem to have zero conception of just what they want the courts to order in terms of a remedy, because that’s a pretty big deal. You want the courts to declare that the current system violates the Charter? Ignoring for the moment that their arguments are specious and jejune, what exactly do they think the courts are going to do? Order the federal government to implement a PR system? Which one? Because that’s kind of a giant sticking point. One of the main reasons why the electoral reform committee in Trudeau’s first parliament failed is because the recommendations in that report were hot garbage—design a bespoke system with a bunch of factors that rendered it virtually impossible to achieve without some major constitutional changes. PR is not one system you can just plug-and-play—there are so many variations of it that can wildly affect outcomes that it’s not inconceivable that it would degenerate into a major fight for years, while the court’s declaration of invalidity hangs over them. How does that work, exactly?

There are similar problems with other court challenges, such as the ones purportedly launched by youth over climate change. What exactly do they think the courts are going to propose as a remedy in that kind of a situation—and if you say “follow the science,” you deserve a smack upside the head, because science is a process, not a declaration. Science is not policy. The courts cannot impose policy, which is why it’s a really dumb idea to resort to the courts when you lose at politics. But that’s what we’re getting a lot of, and it means using the wrong tools and wasting a lot of time and energy to attack the problem in entirely the wrong way.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian drones attacked an oil storage depot in western Russia, causing a massive blaze, as a way of unsettling voters ahead of their presidential election.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exploring a national emergency response agency

Posted on by

Something that caught my eye over the weekend was an interview that Harjit Sajjan had with The Canadian Press over the weekend about building up some kind of national emergency response agency, so that we don’t have to constantly rely on the military for each event as we have been. It would likely be a network of local and regional agencies, but have some kind of federal coordinating role, but we do have some models domestically to draw on, such as the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre. The issue there is that it’s only geared toward one kind of event, whereas floods and hurricanes or tornadoes require different responses.

To that end, Sajjan is looking at different models and how different countries manage their agencies, so he’s not immediately jumping on an American FEMA model, but if there is one particular note of caution to sound it’s that we can’t rely on the premiers not ballsing this up or making ridiculous demands because none of them want to spend money on this kind of thing if they think they can get away with forcing the federal government to spend instead, while at the same time not willing to cede any jurisdictional sovereignty so that the federal government can actually do anything other than just give them money that they totally promise will be spent on this and not on tax cuts (really, we promise this time, for reals!)

There’s a reason we’ve come to rely on the military for this kind of work, which is that provinces don’t want to spend the money, and the federal government has so far refused to make provinces reimburse the Forces for doing the work (because they would be massacred in the headlines if they did), and provinces know that. It doesn’t help that the NDP think that this is really the only kind of thing that the military should be doing either. But something has to give, and let’s hope the federal government, of whichever stripe is in power if this gets off the ground, doesn’t simply roll over for the premiers’ usual nonsense on this.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians launched a massive drone attack on early Sunday aimed at the southern and western Ukraine, while Ukraine launched a drone attack against a Russian airbase in Russia’s Rostov province. As Russia presses to try and capture Avdiivka, Associated Press has seen drone footage in the area that shows at least 150 bodies in Russian uniforms littering the treeline.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scheer throws stones at Fergus from his glass house

Posted on by

The saga around Speaker Fergus’ fate is starting to become farcical, as Andrew Scheer brought up more “proof” that Fergus has been engaged in partisan activities, because he went to a party event…for a Quebec Liberal MNA, which, again, is not the same party or the same league. (Honestly, there are a bunch of former Quebec Liberal MNAs currently sitting in the Conservative caucus, much like there are a bunch of former BC Liberal MLAs in the Conservative caucus.). Scheer’s urge to keep finding this “proof” and tattling is becoming ridiculous.

But then, a twist—CBC found out that Andrew Scheer was fined by the House of Commons for filming a partisan video in support of a by-election nomination candidate in his Hill office, which isn’t allowed, and then had that successful candidate pay for the fine out of his campaign expenses, which may run afoul of Elections Canada rules (but those returns haven’t been audited yet because the by-election is too recent). The NDP have also been finding instances of where Scheer attended party fundraisers when he was the Speaker, but Pierre Poilievre’s spokesperson insists this was totally different, while also falsely saying that the provincial party event was a “fellow Liberal’s fundraiser.” But the fact that Scheer is not only a liar but a hypocrite (to say nothing of being a braying doofus) is no surprise to absolutely anyone.

And because the stupid twists don’t stop, we also learned that Fergus had a conversation with former MP Glen Pearson, who went on to write an op-ed in Fergus’ defence shortly after he took the role (before the drama happened) about the decorum in the Chamber. I’m starting to get very tired of this particular back-and-forth, and hope this doesn’t carry into the New Year.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians launched 42 drones and six missiles at southern Ukraine overnight Wednesday, which killed one person. Ukraine and Molodova got the green-light to start fast-tracking their bid to join the European Union, but Hungary remains an obstacle as they held up new aid funding for Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1735378672029167827

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pre-approved housing plans?

Posted on by

The federal government is planning to revive an old post-war CMHC programme to create a list of pre-approved housing designs as a way of speeding up the construction of new housing. The aim is to have these available for builders by the end of 2024, with various sizes and options available, in the hopes that it makes zoning and permitting decisions run smoother and faster.

One of the things this shows is that the government is listening to experts, who have been calling for this as a way for the federal government to use what levers they have to demonstrate leadership, and that’s a pretty good start. One would also have to wonder if this couldn’t also spur a movement to pre-manufacture components of these designs in order to make construction go even faster, particularly if there is an element of modularity to these designs. There does also need to be a recognition that these shouldn’t be limited to single-family dwellings, but to multi-family units including four-plexes, now that the rules around those are being relaxed in many municipalities as part of the Housing Accelerator Fund conditions, and rules around use of these designs could be conditions for future funds.

Meanwhile, check out this thread from Mike Moffatt on this particular policy move (which he was an early champion of), and we’ll see what elements the government announces as part of it later today.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1734354682837918043

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia attacked Kyiv with eight ballistic missiles before dawn on Monday, which were all shot down but debris did injury people. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will be in Washington today to try and convince Republicans to vote for the aid package as time runs out for Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another useless vote-a-thon over

Posted on by

After about thirty hours, the vote-a-thon “filibuster” was complete (it wasn’t a filibuster), and MPs went home. Well, probably not home, as they all missed their flights, so a bunch will either be trying for a weekend flight only to turn around and fly back 24 hours later, or they’ll stay in Ottawa for the weekend, and fume about missing family and constituency events, and it’ll be Conservatives fuming as much, if not more so than anyone else. It bears noting that Justin Trudeau was present for much of the voting in person, and most of his front bench was as well—François-Philippe Champagne arrived directly from his flight from Dubai and immediately headed to the Chamber to vote, with some jokes that he didn’t know what time it was supposed to be after the flight. Pierre Poilievre, on the other hand, was absent for nearly all of it. After taking off for a Hannukah event in Montreal (there is a whole sub-plot of Conservative MPs going to Hannukah events where Liberals didn’t because these were confidence votes on a money bill) and then a fundraiser, he arrived late in the night bearing fast food, tried to move a motion to end the vote-a-thon if the Liberals would accede to his demands and “axe the tax,” which they wouldn’t, and then he took off again and was mostly absent the rest of the vote-a-thon. Because he’s a leader like that. (Coverage of the votes from The Canadian Press, CBC, the Star and the National Post, each making different observations).

This vote-a-thon technique has been done before, and it’s failed before, because it never connects to whatever the Conservatives are demanding. They are merely exploiting the fact that for Supply, they can engineer to vote on individual line-items, so they force these vote-a-thons as some sort of “punishment” for the Liberals, but this has all of the same logic as being mad at your partner and withholding sex. The end result is that you really only end up punishing yourself. The Liberals treated this as a big team-building exercise at a time of great caucus unrest and division, and according to all of the reports, morale was high throughout, while Poilievre is going to be hearing about this from his angry backbenchers. Not to mention, the whole logic of thinking that the minor discomfort of a thirty-hour vote-a-thon is going to force the Liberals to abandon a signature policy that they won three elections on and is supported by every other party in the Chamber is ludicrous. That the Conservatives are trying to spin this as a pressure tactic is risible.

And spin is what they are indeed trying to do. Scheer tried to spin this as a “victory” because they made the House lose a sitting day, even though that was a Friday, so not very many hours of debate were really lost. Poilievre has since been insisting that he’s going to prevent the government from going “on holidays,” but he has no power to do that. The Standing Orders have a fixed date to rise, and changing that would require a unanimous consent motion, which he’s never going to get. This was just an impotent exercise in wasting everyone’s time for a temper tantrum based on the lie that carbon pricing is what is driving unaffordability (that has been debunked so many times), but these are the times we live in, where this is all for performance and clips—which the Liberals have been making their own of, where Conservatives voted against line items about the very things they claim to care about, and in particular things like NATO exercises and support for Ukraine—votes that will be going into dossiers in the capitals of our allies, as they know just who Poilievre will be should he ever form government.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians conducted missile strikes against the central part of Ukraine, with 14 missiles shot down outside of Kyiv and Dnipropetrovsk, while they again pressed the attack at Avdiivka and Kupiansk. Media were invited to see Ukrainian troops training for winter combat at facilities in Poland. Here is a look at the attempt to get better casualty figures for the war, particularly from the Ukrainian side, where they aren’t published for fear of harming the war effort.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1733078163360477582

Continue reading →

Roundup: The empty threat to sit over the holidays

Posted on by

Yesterday began with Pierre Poilievre announcing at the start of his caucus meeting that the Conservatives would keep the government from going on their Christmas holidays—because they had allegedly ruined the Christmases of Canadians—unless the government lifts the carbon price from “farmers, First Nations, and families,” which is pretty nebulous, and would seem to mean the consumer carbon price and not the industrial one. Their method of warfare? Thousands of amendments that would force round-the-clock votes on things like their budget implementation bill or the bill to amend competition laws.

The problem is that, despite the threats that Conservatives like Melissa Lantsman are making, is that they can’t actually force the House to sit past December 15th. MPs long ago put the fixed calendar into the Standing Orders, and it would take a unanimous consent motion to change that date, which they’re not going to get. And if they think they’re going to exploit the loophole of keep voting going for days on end (which would technically be one sitting day that lasts beyond twenty-four hours), well, Poilievre is going to find his own MPs are going to start getting pretty upset with him because they have families, and constituency business to attend to, and this kind of thing gets pretty tiresome really quickly.

It’s an empty threat, and it’s the same kind of thing that happens every June, and every December without fail. The opposition parties start thumping their chests because it’s their last chance to flex their muscles and look like they’re being tough on the government, and without fail, they go home on time, if not a day or two early, because everyone is tired, cranky, and just wants to get the hell out of there. I would be incredibly surprised if the House didn’t rise for the holidays by the end of the 14th. Of course, this will be a different matter for the Senate, who will once again complain bitterly that these amendment vote-a-thons will delay their getting the bills, which will mean rushed passage, and that same song and dance will play out yet again, as it does at the end of every session.

In short, everyone needs to grow the hell up, and frankly, MPs need to go home sooner than later and think about their atrocious behaviour.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces shot down 41 out of 48 Russian drones in a major overnight attack. Russian forces pressed again on Avdiivka, with both sides each claiming they made gains. It was Armed Forces Day in Ukraine yesterday, with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy insisting they would win a fair peace “against all odds,” while his defence minister was in Washington to try and secure more aid from the Americans, who are holding it up to try and force concessions around their border. A former Ukrainian MP who was regarded as a traitor was shot dead outside of Moscow, and sources say that Ukraine’s security service was responsible.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Letting delay tactics happen

Posted on by

The childish games continue in the House of Commons, as the Conservatives have been using dilatory tactics to avoid debating the Ukraine trade treaty implementation bill. It’s back from committee and was ready for report stage debate yesterday, but the Conservatives decided that instead, they really needed to debate an eighteen-month-old committee report on food security, and insisted that this wasn’t delaying at all. *cough*bullshit*cough* The Liberals were performatively outraged, Mark Gerretsen marching out to the Foyer to decry the move to the camera stationed there (I was the only reporter around, mostly because I was socialising with Gallery staff). There wasn’t a vote called before the Conservatives proceeded with this dilatory debate, meaning I’m sure the Liberals let them go ahead with it so that they could further bludgeon the Conservatives and question their support for Ukraine, and talk about how they’re playing into the hands of the Kremlin, or MAGA Republicans, or what have you. Because remember, everything is now for clips.

Meanwhile, can I just point to how ridiculous the both-sidesing is in that Canadian Press piece? The other parties “accuse” the Conservatives of stalling, and quote the party spokesperson as denying that they’re stalling, while getting reaction from the other parties. It’s an obvious, transparent stall tactic. The spokesperson is obviously lying. And I get why CP thinks they need to both-sides this so that they can be supremely neutral about it all, but this is why the Conservatives learned that they can get away with lying all the gods damned time. They know they won’t be called on it, because performative neutrality demands it, rather than doing the job of simply pointing out the truth.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians have claimed to have captured the villages of Khromove as well as Maryinka, though Ukraine’s government won’t confirm anything. Here is an explainer about what is at stake with Avdiivka. Ukraine’s spy agency says that the successfully staged two explosions along a rail line in Siberia that serves as a key conduit to China. Associated Press had a fairly wide-ranging interview with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in which he talks about what they need in order to win the war.

Continue reading →