Tag Archives: Fisheries

QP: Deliberately conflating PCO with PMO

Posted on by

The prime minister was busy entertaining the German president, while his deputy was in southwestern Ontario talking about electric busses. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he repeated his line from last week about the “special kind of incompetence” for increasing the size of the civil service while still allowing a strike to happen, and lamented especially the soldiers suffering from heating plant shutdowns and new delays for passports. Mona Fortier praised the work of civil servants and stated the commitment to reach a negotiated solution, but that PSAC’s demands are unaffordable. Poilievre repeated the same in English, and Fortier gave the same response, before Poilievre changed topics to the news story about Trudeau foundation members meeting at PCO. Mark Holland noted that this was a meeting between public servants in a government building and not PMO, and this was just an attempt at being partisan. Poilievre tried to insist that there was a whole strange series of coincidence  that the prime minister didn’t know about it, and insisting this wasn’t credible. Holland started off on a response about Poilievre plugging cryptocurrency, but after heckles and the Speaker calming things down, Holland insisted that Poilievre was delivering a confusing mess that was full of things that weren’t true. Poilievre tried again in French, and Holland reiterated there has been no link between the prime minster and the Foundation for a decade.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he too tried to link the prime minister to that 2016 meeting between the Foundation and five deputy ministers, and Holland repeated that the prime minister was not involved and the implication is ridiculous. Therrien insisted that the Foundation was giving preferential access to the prime minister (never mind that senior officials are not the PM), and demanded a public inquiry. Holland repeated yet again that the prime minster has not had any ties to the Foundation for a decade.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he thundered about the civil service strike and demanded the government capitulate to the union. Fortier read that of the 570 demands from the union, only a few are remaining. Rachel Blaney repeated the same in English, and Fortier repeated her same response.

Continue reading →

QP: Useless responses to bad faith questions on carbon prices

Posted on by

While the prime minster was in town earlier in the morning, he headed off to Montreal for private business instead of attending QP, while his deputy continued her weeks-long absence from QP. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and accused Trudeau’s brother of accepting the dubious Chinese-funded donation to the Trudeau Foundation, and wanted him summoned to committee. Mark Holland insisted the prime minister had no relationship with the Foundation. Poilievre repeated the same in English with some added flourish, and Holland repeated his same response. Poilievre then moved onto the GHG emissions inventory, noted that it did increase in 2021—without noting that the curve has been bent and emissions are falling overall, to which Terry Duguid recited a script about the rebates. Poilievre cherry-picked figures from the PBO’s report that distorted what it claims, insisting the carbon price was useless and costly, and Duguid proved his own uselessness in repeating another good news talking point. Poilievre then demanded the government cut taxes and their “inflationary deficits,” to which François-Philippe Champagne listed priorities that Canadians told them they held, and that the government was acting on them.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and spun a narrative about David Johnston and the Trudeau Foundation, and demanded a public inquiry at once. Dominic LeBlanc disputed that the government has done nothing, and listed some of their actions. Therrien then raised Katie Telford’s testimony at committee and complained about it, to which LeBlanc praised the work that Johnston is undertaking.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and demanded the government “get serious” in negotiating a “fair contract” with public sector workers. Mona Fortier read a script about a good offer on the table and that they expect both parties to act in good faith. Singh repeated the question in French, and got the same scripted response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking Poilievre’s troll bait

Posted on by

I suspect we’re going to get a bunch of wailing and gnashing of teeth today because Twitter slapped the “government-funded media” label on the CBC account, at the behest of Pierre Poilievre. And frankly, we shouldn’t give Poilievre the satisfaction. This is clearly just him being a troll. He wants to spend his time being a shitposting edgelord on Twitter, as do Andrew Scheer and a bunch of other members of their caucus, because that’s who they are.

Of course, if things were really being fair and scrupulous, then the entire Postmedia chain, along with the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail would get the “government-funded” label as well, because they absolutely get it. (Television broadcasters CTV and Global technically don’t get government subsidies, but that’s only a technical point, because the simultaneous substitution rules that they live by are absolutely a kind of subsidy programme that they pretend isn’t one as they complain about the CBC’s stipend). But nobody actually wants to have a meaningful discussion here. Instead, it’s about beating up on the CBC under the rubric of their supposedly being either controlled by the Liberal government or by Liberal partisans, which isn’t true (CBC News is some of the most scrupulously egregious both-sidesers in the business). This is just culture war bullshit, where facts and logic don’t actually matter. This will be used as another fundraising appeal by Poilievre, and on and on it will go. Nobody should take this bait.

Ukraine Dispatch:

In spite of it being Orthodox Easter, Russians continued to shell areas of Ukraine including Zaporizhzhia, though a prisoner exchange was had over the weekend because of the holiday.

https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1647166252669079552

Continue reading →

QP: Facile questions about the deficit

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town and in his office, he was not available for QP on Wednesday as is his usual practice, as he was instead speaking virtually at the Summit for Democracy, before he and his deputy whisked off to a photo op. That’s right—the day after Budget Day, and the finance minister was also absent from the Chamber. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and both gave several falsehoods about deficits and inflation before complaining there was no path to balance in the budget. Randy Boissonnault pointed out the measures to help, and that this was a budget about hope. Poilievre listed four things that Chrystia Freeland said last year that he deemed false (to varying degrees of veracity), and wondered how anyone could trust anything this government says. Boissonnault listed the declining deficit and low debt-servicing charges. Poilievre returned to French to complain the government has “lost control” of finances, and this time François-Philippe Champagne said that it was the Conservatives who were disconnected because the government did the three things that Canadians were asking of them. Poilievre switched back to English to worry about people living in their parents’ basement while the country “goes broke.” (It’s not going broke). This time Karina Gould got up to decry that the Conservatives had already declared they were going to vote against things like the grocery rebate and supports for families. Poilievre denounced the budget as “tax and squander,” and once again, Gould reiterated the things the Conservatives were voting against.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he listed measures that were not green, and wanted an admission that money was going to oil companies. Steven Guilbeault said that this was not the case, and quoted the David Suzuki Foundation’s praise. Blanchet complained the budget was anti-Quebec because it meddles in provincial jurisdiction on things like dental care, but Guilbeault just kept reading praise for the budget.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, patted himself on the back for the things in the budget he liked, and said that if the government needs more ideas, they can tackle the housing crisis. Ahmed Hussen recited the elements of the National Housing Strategy that he trots out. Singh repeated his backpatting in French, and this time, Irek Kusmierczyk read their plans about reforming EI, and that it is on the way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No actionable intelligence?

Posted on by

The Globe and Mail advanced the allegations surrounding MP Han Dong last night, apparently having received the same intelligence that Global did, and asked the PMO about it two-and-a-half weeks ago. Their sources say that PMO asked for a transcript of the conversation Dong allegedly had with the Chinese consulate, and deemed there to not be enough actionable in there. It does raise further questions about the leakers, and if they are leaking to both Global and the Globe and Mail, or if their sources remain separate.

Nevertheless, both outlets’ reporting lacks crucial nuance or expert checking with former intelligence officials that can provide both context or a gut check. And the fact that a transcript was provided doesn’t entirely tell us if this conversation was in English or Mandarin, and if it was in translation that could lose context or proper nuance in the language, which are all important around how we are to evaluate the allegations. And irresponsible reporting is taking us into witch-hunt territory, which is going to get ugly really fast.

https://twitter.com/chercywong/status/1638869879351808000

Meanwhile, the House of Commons voted for a motion to launch a public inquiry immediately, but it’s non-binding, and the government is waiting on recommendations from David Johnston. It was noted that Dong voted for the motion, while Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith abstained, later explaining over Twitter that he supports an inquiry but wants to wait for Johnston’s recommendations.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces are gearing up for their spring counter-offensive as Russian forces are flagging in their assault on Bakhmut, but president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is warning European allies that unless they step up weapons shipments, the war could drag on for years. Zelenskyy visited the region around Kherson, and vowed to repair the damaged Russia had caused. Here are stories of Ukrainian fighters wounded in the fighting in Bakhmut, as they repelled Russian attacks. Seventeen children previously deported to Russia have been returned to Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: We all got played on the Telford gambit

Posted on by

Yesterday morning, we saw an exhausting series of manoeuvres that made the Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives all pretend like they were playing 3D chess against one another, but it was none of that. First thing was that the Liberals released the final mandate of David Johnston in his role as special rapporteur on the allegations, and he has until May 23rdto make a recommendation around a public inquiry, and until October 31st for his final report (but I see the possibility for shenanigans if the recommendation for a public inquiry won’t actually be acted upon until the final report so that it can be fully informed, etc.) And if there is a recommendation for a public inquiry, Sikh organisations in this country want India to be included in any examination of foreign interference

In the meantime, Justin Trudeau said that no, the vote on the motion to send Katie Telford to committee wasn’t going to be a confidence measure (because frankly that would be stupid), and that they had decided to send Telford to the Procedure and House Affairs committee after weeks of filibustering to prevent it, just as Singh was announcing he would support the Conservative motion to bypass the filibuster by instructing the Ethics committee hear her testimony instead (which the Conservatives chair). This just blew up three weeks of trying to trying to prevent her from appearing under the principle of ministerial responsibility and not calling staffers to committee, because they didn’t have an end game for the filibuster, and we’re just going to throw centuries of Westminster parliamentary principles on the fire for the sake of scoring points—and that’s what this all is about. Scoring points, as the Liberals also used this as a test of their agreement with the NDP, which shook it.

And while all of this was taking place, Mark Holland got up in the House of Commons to apologise for misspeaking yesterday in saying that Pierre Poilievre was offered a briefing and declined it, but his confusion was that Poilievre had publicly stated he would refuse such a briefing on classified information. (Are you following?)

So while Jagmeet Singh spent the day insisting that he was the one who ended the filibuster (he wasn’t), the NDP their own procedural game they were trying to play, which was to force a concurrence debate and vote on the PROC report recommending a public inquiry into these interference allegations, but the Conservatives beat him to the punch and called for a concurrence debate on a different committee report, which just points out how nobody is actually taking this issue seriously. It’s a pissing contest and point-scoring. And at the end of this, the NDP voted against the Conservative Supply Day motion to send Telford to the Ethics committee, because it was now a moot point.

And in the end? We’ve torched more parliamentary principles and weakened our parliamentary system further, and Trudeau has spilled more blood in the water, which is only going to make things even worse because there is now a frenzy around him. The Conservatives and their bad faith politics have played all of us in this whole affair because this was never about Telford and her testimony, but merely trying to set a trap so they could claim a cover-up, and the Liberals walked right into it and flailed for weeks. We’ve set more bad precedents, and democracy is worse off than it was before, because everyone needed to score points instead of being adults over this whole situation. Everyone keeps making it worse, because they can’t help themselves. What a way to run a country.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Japan’s prime minister made an unannounced visit to Ukraine yesterday to meet with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and to tour the massacre site at Bucha. Meanwhile, police in Avdiivka are trying to evacuate holdouts in the town, as Russian forces continue their attempts to encircle it.

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1638100893856944128

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1638272233054392327

Continue reading →

QP: The repetitive demands for a public inquiry

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town, he was not in QP, nor was his deputy. Most of the other leaders were absent, Pierre Poilieve was present, and he led off in French, saying that China has been trying to influence Justin Trudeau for ten years, starting with the donation to the Trudeau Foundation (which Trudeau had already stepped away from when the donation was made), and then said that Trudeau did nothing about China trying to interfere in two elections to support the Liberal Party (which is not really what the allegation was) before he demanded an independent public inquiry. Dominic LeBlanc got up and disputed that the government did nothing, when in fact Poilievre did nothing about the concerns when he was the minister in charge of democratic institutions. Poilievre switched to English to say that they didn’t do anything because the Communist Dictatorship in China wasn’t trying to help the Conservatives (that’s not an excuse for inaction), before repeating his same allegations that he made in French. LeBlanc repeated that they take any foreign interference seriously, which is why they took unprecedented steps when they formed government, including creating NSICOP, and the panel of senior public servants to monitor elections. Poilievre delivered a smear about Morris Rosenberg before insisting that the Liberals benefitted from the interference (not really) and then tried to call out the NDP for not being tougher on the government. LeBlanc said it was good news that top-level officials did already testify at committee and that he would be at committee himself on Thursday to answer questions. Poilievre noted the upcoming announcement coming later from the prime minister before suggesting that Trudeau would appoint a Liberal insider to hold a secretive process and not get to the truth, and he tried again to call out the NDP before demanding a public inquiry. LeBlanc reminded the House that Poilievre was the minister of democratic reform and he was aware of foreign interference allegations and did nothing. Poilievre went on a rant about the Liberals not being forthcoming about Chinese donations pre-2015, before demanding that the NDP force the government to allow PMO officials and Liberal Party figures appear at committee about the allegations. LeBlanc retorted that even if the leader of the opposition keeps repeating a falsehood, it doesn’t make it real, before he once again listed the measures they have taken.

Alain Therrien took over for the Bloc, and he demanded that everyone stand up for the confidence in the democratic system, and took his own turn to demand an independent public inquiry. LeBlanc agreed that it should be a non-partisan issue, and reiterated the “strong” measures that the government had taken. Therrien listed those who demanded an inquiry, and demanded it once again. LeBlanc again reiterated that they took measures, and gave more praise for NSICOP and other monitoring agencies.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and he too took a turn to demand a public inquiry, and LeBlanc recited the “unprecedented steps” that the government took to combat this problem. Alexandre Boulerice took over in French to repeat the demand and he got the same answer one more time from LeBlanc.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inquiry report and influence reports

Posted on by

Justice Paul Rouleau delivered his final report from the Emergencies Act public inquiry yesterday, and in it, he concluded that the government was justified in invoking the Act, albeit somewhat reluctantly because of failures at every level, particularly with policing, but also most especially from Doug Ford and the Ontario government, whom he reserves some particularly even-toned scorn for. There was also some blame apportioned to Justin Trudeau for his “fringe minority” comments as having hardened the resolve of occupiers (erm, except it was true what he said). There was plenty of blame apportioned to the Ottawa police, as well there should be, and he did reject the occupiers’ claims that they were peaceful.

Rouleau made 56 recommendations, including better intelligence coordination and coordination among police, as well as to make changes to the Act, which Trudeau has promised to study and come up with a response to, and that he regrets the phrasing of his “fringe minority” comments (which, I repeat, were true). Pierre Poilievre, predictably, went before a microphone and insisted that Trudeau created the whole mess by “attacking his own population,” and went on a tear about inflation (which was not a pressing concern when the occupation happened), and then went on a rant about the CBC for daring to ask him a question, and around and around we go.

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/1626702909017554945

In pundit reaction, Susan Delacourt filters the report through the weaponization of the term “freedom,” and what it represents and misrepresents. Paul Wells offers some of his initial thoughts on the report. Justin Ling has his own perspective of the report based on his own reporting of the occupations’ membership and the role of disinformation that fuelled it. And of course, the Beaverton gets the last word.

Chinese Interference

The Globe and Mail published a story where their two journalists had been shown CSIS documents (illegally!) to show how Chinese officials were trying to interfere in the last two elections, and how their Vancouver consul was claiming to have defeated two Conservative incumbents in the last election. And it sounds concerning…but details don’t add up for me. The Chinese say they wanted a Liberal minority, but targeting eleven ridings cannot give you that kind of outcome. And the section on political donations doesn’t make sense given the rules around them, so I have a lot of questions that this story doesn’t answer.

In response, Justin Trudeau says that whatever Chinese officials claim, the election result was unaffected (and given how the alleged Chinese scheme doesn’t make much sense, I am giving this a bit more weight). Pierre Poilievre says that Trudeau turned a blind eye because the interference was to his advantage (again, how?) One of the defeated Conservatives says he fears the country has become an “open market” for foreign governments trying to sway elections (again, how?)

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 360:

Ukrainian soldiers fighting near Bakhmut make the direct plea to western countries to send more weapons, while president Volodymyr Zelenskyy made similar requests of assembled allied leaders in Munich. American intelligence is estimating that Wagner Group mercenaries (most of them convicts) have suffered more than 30,000 casualties in Ukraine, with about 9,000 of them killed in action.

Continue reading →

QP: Pierre Poilievre, anti-corporate defender

Posted on by

Even though the prime minister was in town, he was away from the Chamber and QP, as were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre was present, and he led off in French worrying about the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s criticism that the “government” decided it’s not worth going after $15 billion in overpayments received by wage subsidy recipients, none of which is true. The CRA Commissioner, who is arm’s-length from the government, said that the $15 billion figure is over-inflated, and that it’s not worth it go after every case—he didn’t say it wasn’t worth it go after any of it. Peter Fragiskatos responded by saying that the Commissioner said verification work for COVID programmes is ongoing. Poilievre turned to English to repeat the question, calling the CRA Commissioner the “prime minister’s chief tax collector,” and repeated the same complete bad faith framing, insisting that it was about letting friendly corporations keep ill-gotten gains. Fragiskatos hit back by saying that Poilievre was talking about cuts and austerity when Canadians needed help during the pandemic, and that the Conservatives previously voted to stop the CRA’s verification work. Poilievre insisted that he told the government not to pay wage subsidies to wealthy corporations, and insisted that 37 corporations who received the subsidy paid shareholder dividends, to which Fragiskatos insisted that the subsidy was about keeping small businesses afloat, and the Conservatives cut the CRA’s budget to do the work of combatting tax avoidance, while the current government restored it and audits are up. Poilievre insisted that the Conservatives were able to collect taxes from corporations more efficiently using fewer CRA employees—seriously?—while the current government lets the CRA complain they don’t have the resources to go after these corporations who took the wage subsidy, and insisting that the government goes after the “little guy” instead of the corporations (which is not what people at the Public Accounts committee are saying). Karina Gould got up and insisted that she talked to small businesses who thanked the government for the help they gave in the pandemic. Poilievre insisted this wasn’t about small businesses, which he supported, but this was about “fraud” and corporations who illegally received these subsidies (which, again, is not really true). Randy Boissonnault took a turn and listed measures that the government undertook, such as the return on investment in the CRA, and that there were regulations in place so that companies who took the subsidy and put that money to profits would have those funds clawed back, as well as implementing their windfall tax on banks and insurance companies.

Alain Therrien led for the NDP, and he railed about the statements that certain Montreal Liberal MPs made about Quebec’s language laws, calling it misinformation and that the prime minister approved of it if he doesn’t announce it. Ginette Petitpas Taylor stood up to give a trite defence of the official languages bill. Therrien thundered about all of the ways in which Trudeau supposedly “divides” Canadians, especially around this bill, and Petitpas Taylor reminded him that she is an Acadian from 

Rachel Blaney rose for the NDP, and complained that the contract to a Loblaws-owned company to support veterans was not working out. Darrel Samson read a statement about getting veterans the help they need. Gord Johns accused the government of not delivering on their promised mental health transfer, and Bennett said that was part of the proposed bilateral agreements with provinces so that they could be ensured of transparency and accountability for those dollars.

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 →