Tag Archives: Fisheries

Roundup: Taking Atwood’s unfounded concerns too seriously

Posted on by

I am starting to think that the Globe and Mail has a secret penchant for humiliating Margaret Atwood while pretending to substantiate her concerns about legislation. They did it with Bill C-11 on online streaming, where Atwood read a bunch of utter nonsense on the internet, some of it by a fellow CanLit author who is currently a crank in the Senate, and she got concerned about bureaucrats telling people what to write. It was utterly ridiculous, but what did the Globe do? Write up her concerns as though she knew what she was talking about, including the part where she admitted she hadn’t really read the bill.

And now they’re doing it again—same journalist, in fact—about the Online Harms bill. Atwood again read some stupid things online, this time from the right-wing press in the UK, and is again worried about “Orwellian” consequences because of “vague laws” and “no oversight.” And hey, the Globe insists that because she wrote The Handmaid’s Tale, she’s an expert in Orwellian dystopias. But again, Atwood is operating on a bunch of bad information and false assumptions, and the story in the Globe doesn’t actually do the job of fact-checking any of this, it just lets her run free with this thought and spinning it out into the worst possible scenario, which if you know anything about the bill or have spoken to the experts who aren’t concern trolling (and yes, there are several), you would know that most of this is bunk.

The biggest thing that Atwood misses and the Globe story ignores entirely is that the hate speech provisions codify the Supreme Court of Canada’s standard set out in the Whatcott decision, which means that for it to qualify, it needs to rise to the level of vilification and detestation, and it sets out what that means, which includes dehumanising language, and demands for killing or exile. That’s an extremely high bar, and if you’re a government, you can’t go around punishing your enemies or censoring speech you don’t like with that particular bar codified in the gods damned bill. I really wish people would actually pay attention to that fact when they go off half-cocked on this bill, and that journalists interviewing or writing about the topic would actually mention that fact, because it’s really gods damned important. Meanwhile, maybe the Globe should lay off on talking to Atwood about her concerns until they’re certain that she has a) read the legislation, and b) understood it. Honestly.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed 15 out of 25 drones launched toward Odesa, while a Russian missile destroyed a grain silo in the Dnipro region. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that their frontline situation is the best it’s been in three months as they have improved their strategic position. Here is a deeper look at the Ukrainians’ retreat from Avdiivka, as ammunition was low and one of their commanders disappeared. UNESCO says that Ukraine will need more than a billion dollars to rebuild its scientific infrastructure that has been damaged or destroyed in the war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A dubious Federal Court decision, but right about judicial appointments

Posted on by

The Federal Court ruled yesterday that the federal government must start filling judicial vacancies faster because, which is true, but the judgment itself is something of a mess. It’s hard to see how the Court has jurisdiction here, and the judge seems to have invented a bunch of justification and has handwaved around constitutional conventions, and in the end, declared that the government must fill most of those vacancies “in a reasonable period of time,” which is vague and of little value other than the declaration. Emmett Macfarlane has promised a post on this soon, and Leonid Sirota has a thread here taking issue with the reasoning (though not the underlying issue of not making sufficient appointments—everyone is agreed on that point).

I have been writing on this government’s problems with appointments since probably their second year in office, possibly even sooner than that. While you can look up the myriad of columns I have written, the short version is this: The government wants to make diverse appointments (which is good! This is a good thing!) but they insisted on a system of self-nominations rather than going out and nominating people. We know that women, people of colour, and LGBTQ+ people routinely don’t apply for positions like this because society has drilled into them the message that only straight, old white men get positions like this. Even the Liberal Party itself gets this in their candidate selection process, where they set up systems to be persistent in getting women and diverse people to seek nominations. And even with that, the federal government has utterly dropped that ball and thinks that they can simply say “We’re accepting diverse applications!” and expecting those applications to flood in. They seem to act like the Sesame Street sketch where Ernie simply goes “Here, fishy, fishy, fishy!” and the fish leap into the boat. That’s not how this works, and when they don’t get enough applications, it slows down the process tremendously. And after seven years, they have absolutely refused to learn this lesson. Refused! It’s some kind of giant ideological blinder that they cannot get their collective heads around, no matter how many times the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court warns them, or the Auditor General sounds the alarm about vacancies on port authorities or the boards of Crown corporations, or even their process for appointing senators. They absolutely refuse to learn the lessons of their failures.

It does bear mentioning that there has been an uptick in the pace of appointments in the past few months, and filling vacancies for provincial chief justices and associate chief justices has also picked up speed (and yes, I have been keeping an eye out for this). That said, making federal judicial appointments faster won’t solve the problems with our justice system because a lot more of them involve provinces not properly resourcing provincial courts or superior courts, where you have a lot of cases where there are no court rooms or court staff available, and that causes as many if not more problems. The issue of federal appointments, however, is low-hanging fruit so it’s taking a lot more attention than it should, and once again, premiers are being allowed to skate because of it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians have struck a hospital and apartments in Selydove in eastern Ukraine, killing three people. Here’s a look at how Ukrainians are decoding Russian battle communications to save lives on the front lines. Russia is pulling old tanks out of storage and refurbishing them after having lost more than 3000 in the fighting in Ukraine over the past two years. Ukraine’s military intelligence is now saying that Russia has been buying Starlink terminals by way of “Arab countries.”

Continue reading →

QP: Quoting Trump or Chamberlain?

Posted on by

The prime minister was present today, as was his deputy and most other leaders, save Jagmeet Singh. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and raised the “whistleblower” testimony around the STDC and his accusation that the minister lied about it. Justin Trudeau rose and spoke instead about the supposed $2 million price tag of the vote-a-thon about the things the Conservatives voted against. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the same question, and Trudeau repeated his same response, adding in a “Republican-style” epithet in there. Poilievre responded to the “stone age” quip with saying people were being forced to eat “stone soup,” before demanding the prime minister tell “his Senators” to vote for Bill C-234 (there are no Liberal senators). Trudeau kept reading a list of things the Conservatives voted against. Poilievre insisted that the government’s spending was all useless and didn’t do anything they promised but cause inflation, and Trudeau read some talking points about Putin’s war in Ukraine that was raising food prices, and said the Conservatives were plying into the Kremlin’s hands by voting against Ukraine. Poilievre insisted this was just a distraction and “spreading falsehoods about faraway lands” and demanded the government cut the carbon price. Trudeau listed yet more things the Conservatives voted against.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised jurisdictional questions around dental care, and said that this was just about throwing “sweets and candy” to the NDP. Trudeau said it was funny that he was talking about sweets and candy while he was trying to fix the teeth of people who can’t afford it. Blanchet insisted that the programme “harms Quebec,” and Trudeau reiterated his feel-good talking points about people getting the care they need.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP to demand the government demand a ceasefire in Gaza, and Trudeau insisted that their positions has been “responsible” about protecting civilians and establishing a two-state solution, and that they would continue to help Canadians see eye-to-eye.  Heather McPherson called the Canadian position “appalling,” and repeated the demand for a ceasefire in English. Trudeau reiterate his same points in English, and mentioned the statement he just put out with Australia and New Zealand, but didn’t mention the language of a “sustainable ceasefire” in the statement.

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 premiers want their cut

Posted on by

I have to say that it’s extremely precious to see the premiers getting bent out of shape because the federal government has started taking action on the housing crisis by dealing directly with municipalities and using the Housing Accelerator Fund to incentivise them to get rid of restrictive zoning practices that limit housing development. They’re claiming that the federal government is encroaching on their jurisdiction, but these very same premiers have abdicated this responsibility for decades now. They have the ability to eliminate these zoning restrictions with provincial jurisdiction, and they have time and again refused to. So, the federal government stepped in, and now they’re getting huffy about it. And to their credit, the federal ministers are pushing back on this, as well they should (especially because once again, they’re being blamed for the provinces’ failure to act on this crisis).

One of the excuses is that Quebec had a deal for money that flows to the province and not municipalities, because the province has legislation that forbids the federal government from cutting such deals. Okay, but what’s the motivation here? Are they sore because they’re not being invited to the photo ops when these deals are signed? Or are they sore because they can’t take a cut of those funds and use them for their own purposes, you know, like they have done with health transfers for decades now, or how they took funds meant for pandemic supports and simply applied them to their bottom lines so that they could run surpluses while letting their health care systems collapse around them? Because neither is a good look.

Even more to the point, the provinces keep insisting that Ottawa should be the one to pay for things cities need, like transit, or social housing, or major infrastructure, because they don’t want to have to spend the money. They keep crying poor and saying Ottawa has all of the money, but that’s also bullshit because the provinces have the same ability to raise revenues as the federal government does, but they choose not to because they don’t want to be the bad guy by raising taxes, even though it’s all the same taxpayer in the end. But this is how federalism has degenerated in this country, and it’s time people start holding the premiers to account for their failures (for a change).

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say that they repelled more pushes along the various front lines and in particular around Avdiivka. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling for unity as he dismisses the notion of wartime elections, and when he has been publicly disagreeing with his top general about the current phase of the war.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1721960135759741409

Continue reading →

Roundup: A game of chicken over a public inquiry

Posted on by

A game of chicken is shaping up around the demands for a public inquiry into allegations of foreign interference, that started with Dominic LeBlanc throwing it into the opposition’s lap to come up with a name they could agree to that could head it, along with terms of reference, knowing full well that it is going to be incredibly difficult to do, particularly because they all have competing goals, and some their demands are literally impossible, such as having an incredibly wide-ranging inquiry that could somehow complete its work in but a few months. Not going to happen.

Pierre Poilievre has decided to try and turn the tables and says that he wants the government to commit to said inquiry before he starts sharing names, which risks letting the government sit back and say that they already stated their terms. Committing to a public inquiry is one thing, but drawing up the Order in Council for it is quite another, and that requires having the commissioner(s) and terms of reference already decided.

This being said, the deadline of having this declared before Friday is wholly artificial. The government doesn’t need to table this in the House, and they can draw up the Order in Council at any time. If the aim is for the House of Commons to vote on the proposal, that’s a bad idea because then it launders the accountability for what happens, and lets the government off the hook if things go sideways, and MPs should know this because it’s fundamental to their very jobs, but they have become completely blinkered in this. At this point, I’m not expecting an announcement before Friday, and for this to drag on for several more weeks because there won’t be any agreement on names or the scope of the inquiry. That said, I do fully expect that we’ll have a summer full of “emergency” committee meetings on this and other topics, so I doubt the story will go away—just the daily demands in Question Period.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians fired another 35 Iranian-made drones into Ukraine, with some 32 being shot down, but a “critically important facility” in Lviv was struck, with no further clues as to what it was. There are also competing narratives at play—president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that they are destroying Russian forces in both the east and south, while the Russians claim that they are repelling the offences. Here is a look at some of the Canadian soldiers training Ukrainian troops at Camp Sapper in Poland.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1671118296374976513

Continue reading →

QP: Some half-hearted swipes around the by-election results

Posted on by

The prime minister was present for one of the final Question Periods of the sitting, but his deputy was away in Toronto, and only a few of the other leaders were present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, claiming that trust in democracy has been “shattered” and that he has been working with opposition parties about a public inquiry, but demanded the inquiry be declared before he shared names for who to lead it. Justin Trudeau read a script about working with stakeholders and opposition leaders about next steps in this issue. Poilievre then pivoted and cited a letter to the Journal de Montreal about someone losing their house, and demanded a balanced budget, as though there were a correlation. Trudeau patted himself on the back for the “tangible investments for families” with things like dental care. Poilievre switched to English to worry about household debt and again demanded a balanced budget. Trudeau acknowledged that Canadians are struggling which was why they have supports for them, while the Conservatives only promise cuts. Poilievre reiterated the story of the woman losing her house, trying to tie this to the deficit, which is false, and demanded a balanced budget yet again. Trudeau again reiterated that the Conservatives only proposed cuts while Canada has the lowest deficit and debt-to-GDP in the G7, and then took a swipe at Poilievre’s underwhelming by-election results. Poilievre again tried to tie housing and rental price increase to deficits, which is specious, and Trudeau again took a swipe at the by-election results before patting himself on the back for his positive vision.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and as expected, he demanded a public inquiry immediately. Trudeau insisted that the opposition turned this into a partisan issue rather than taking this seriously. Therrien repeated his demands, and Trudeau repeated his same points about working to establish the next steps.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he worried about the rental prices in Toronto and blamed corporate landlords—never mind that this is an issue of provincial jurisdiction. Trudeau recited the housing measures that they have taken or are planning to take. Singh insisted that they were not acting with urgency and in French, noted that July 1st is Moving Day in Quebec and that families were under stress. Trudeau reiterated that they are there with projects and plans to help people.

Continue reading →

Roundup: You’re not going to get a royal recommendation

Posted on by

Another day, and another warning from the Speaker that a private member’s bill is going to need a royal recommendation before the final vote, and it won’t get it, so be prepared to waste everyone’s time on a doomed bill that won’t go anywhere. This is becoming increasingly routine in this parliament, where MPs keep advancing these bills that have no hope of passage up for debate, apparently because they want to be seen talking about the issue, and maybe shaming the government for not supporting it, as with this particular bill on enhancing OAS and GIS benefits for seniors between 65 and 74 (ignoring that they are enriched for seniors over 75 because many of them have exhausted their savings by that point).

But seriously—a private member’s bill cannot spend money. Only a government bill can do so, because they’re the government, and they need that expenditure approved by Parliament. This is fundamental to how parliamentary democracy works. These clear delineations in roles exists for a reason, and the role of MPs who are not in Cabinet is to hold Cabinet to account, and the primary way to do that is through the power of the public purse. You cannot hold them to account if you too are spending public money with abandon because you have at that point blurred the responsibilities and the lines of accountability. This shouldn’t be difficult for MPs to learn and grasp, but unfortunately, they have picked up a lot of bad habits and wrong-headed beliefs over the past number of years, and it’s becoming quite obvious that they either refuse to learn how the Chamber and the institution work, or they simply don’t care and would rather waste everyone’s time.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The Ukrainian commander in the ruins of Bakhmut says that Russian Wagner Group mercenaries have stepped up their attacks in recent days, while Russia is denying claims that Ukrainian forces have made advancements in Bakhmut over the past couple of days. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that the spring counter-offensive is being delayed because they need more western weapons. This while the UK has opted to send newer cruise missiles to Ukraine, who have the longest range of any of their arsenal to date. Zelenskyy also says he has approved a plan to reform criminal and law enforcement systems, which is a requirement for future EU membership.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1656535955338063873

Continue reading →

Roundup: Andrew Scheer, media critic

Posted on by

In the wake of Bill C-11 receiving royal assent, Conservatives have been doing a full court press on social media to denounce this supposed “censorship” bill (which is nothing of the sort—it obligates web giants and streaming services to report Canadian revenues and pay into media creation funds based on a percentage of those revenues). And because he’s a wannabe fourteen-year-old shitposting edgelord, Andrew Scheer is taking shots at the media about the reporting on this.

What you might notice is that Scheer is calling The Canadian Press newswire “CBC’s news service” because CBC is one of CP’s clients and the content they buy from the wire funds its operations. This, of course, taints CP in the Conservatives’ estimation, and Pierre Poilievre bullied a CP reporter about this at a press event a couple of weeks ago, and tried to insinuate that this means that they somehow fit stories to the government narrative in order to get that CBC money. It’s a complete fabrication, but it’s intended to be—this is all about flooding the field with bullshit.

Scheer goes on to complain about how the story is covered—because he’s a media critic, don’t you know. The story doesn’t quote a Conservative source, but it cites their (misleading) position that the bill is “censorship” (again, this is a lie), but because it’s CP, it rather obsequiously both-sides everything. It doesn’t actually call out the Conservative position as the bullshit that it is, but because it’s not complete stenography of the Conservative line, it must be “bought media” and advances this farcical notion that the government is “shutting down dissent.” Hardly.

But truth doesn’t matter to Scheer. He’s been trying to delegitimise mainstream media for years now (recall that he called True North (aka Rebel Lite™) and Post Millennial “credible” sources, which should tell you everything you need to know about Scheer’s media literacy skills and judgment). Even though the Conservatives have learned how to manipulate mainstream outlets with their persistent both-sidesing, and knowing that it lets them get away with lying, it’s not enough, because occasionally, that both-sidesing can showcase how much the Conservative narrative is full of falsehoods, and they couldn’t possibly have that. Best to have their own stenographers and ensure that only their narratives get out.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians made an overnight attack against civilian targets in a variety of cities, leaving at least five dead. Russian forces are also trying to cut off supply lines to Ukrainian forces in Bakhmut, but the Ukrainian forces have managed to resist these attacks, and take back some other sections of the city that Russians have been occupying. Ahead of the spring counteroffensive, some 98 percent of promised NATO aid has arrived in Ukraine, amounting to over 1550 armoured vehicles, 230 tanks, and “vast amounts” of ammunition. Here’s a look at mental health supports available for Ukrainian soldiers.

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1651785146142453765

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1651456287408832512

Continue reading →

QP: Rocketing up the repetitive talking points

Posted on by

Not only were the prime minister and his deputy present, so were all of the other leaders, and the benches were full. This while we had astronauts—the crew of Artemis II—in the Gallery to watch proceedings, along with the head of NASA, the US Ambassador to Canada, the head of the Canadian Space Agency, and other handlers. Even though MPs aren’t supposed to call attention to people in the Gallery, the final Members’ Statement of the day did praise said astronauts, and they got much applause, and the Speaker let this breach of the rules slide.

Pierre Poilievre led off in English for a change, comparing that the costs of the bureaucracy are “rocketing up,” and then lamented the civil service strike, wondering how much it would cost to end it. Justin Trudeau said that they believe in the importance of the bargaining table, which is why they are negotiating to reach an agreement that is good for civil servants and fair to taxpayers. Poilievre repeated the question in French, minus the pun, and Trudeau reiterated his response. Poilievre returned to English, and listed a serious of events that he incredulously wondered how anyone he could believe Trudeau was not involved with the Trudeau Foundation. Trudeau stated that he hasn’t had any contact with the Foundation, directly or indirectly for ten years. Poilievre focused on that meeting with the Foundation members and deputy ministers, and Trudeau recited his too-worn line that while the opposition focuses on him, he is focusing on Canadians. Poilievre quipped that nobody focuses more on the Trudeau than Trudeau himself, and that he seemed to think people were too dumb to see the links with the Foundation. Trudeau said that it was amazing to see the lengths to which the Conservatives would go to avoid talking about the budget, and listed about how great it was.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, recounted a storybook character that reminded him of Trudeau, and went after that PCO meeting again. Trudeau shrugged off the attack and said that he was focusing on helping Canadians. Blanchet insisted that there was all kinds of coordination in an office to have five deputy ministers hold a meeting os he must have known it was taking place, and Trudeau again listed the measures in the budget that was helping people.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded the prime minister “show leadership” and capitulate to the public sector union demands. Trudeau praised the work of civil servants but said that taxpayers also need to be respected, which is why they were at the negotiating table. Singh repeated the question in English with added emphasis, and Trudeau gave a more robust and melodramatic version of the same response. 

Continue reading →