Tag Archives: Foreign Interference

Roundup: Turnabout is fair play in procedural warfare

Posted on by

If you needed yet another example of how the state of the current parliament continues to degrade, yesterday was yet another example. It was the first of the allotted Supply Days (aka “opposition days”) that the Speaker had to intervene in order to schedule, and it barely happened at all. Why? The NDP used procedural shenanigans to delay the debate on the confidence motion that used Jagmeet Singh’s words as the fodder by calling for concurrence debate on a committee report that dealt with abortion access, and the Liberals played along, which meant that the Conservatives’ debate didn’t end up happening until after QP, meaning they only had a couple of hours’ worth of clip-gathering instead of a full day, and boy were they put out about it. But that’s the thing with procedural warfare—if you wage it against others, eventually they will wage it against you.

There were other shenanigans that happened after QP—Liberal MP Jaime Battiste tried to move a unanimous consent motion to get the First Nations water bill out of committee and over to the Senate, but the Conservatives refused. As they did, Battiste took his water glass and started shouting at the Conservatives, and went into the aisle, apparently planning to throw the glass at them before he thought better of it. And then Andrew Scheer tried to move a motion that would have had the same effect, but with language that denigrated the government, and of course that too was shut down, and Scheer had the audacity to play the victim after that stunt.

It’s good that there’s only one sitting week left, because my tolerance for this kind of bullshit is at its end.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Americans have been pressuring Ukraine to lower the conscription age to 18 in order to bolster their fighting force, which is creating dilemmas for those teenaged boys.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fiscal update when?

Posted on by

This year’s Fall Economic Statement is very late—it’s extremely unusual for it to happen in December—but these are not normal times, and the ongoing privilege filibuster hasn’t helped matters any. The government’s attempts to get shame either the Bloc or the NDP into finally voting with the government to pull the plug on it have all been in vain, because they all want to do their part to embarrass the government as much as possible. This being said, I’m not sure what the holdup is with the Public Accounts either, though they have insisted that they’re with the Auditor General and will be released soon. In any case, the government has refused to explain exactly why these releases are so late, because we’re back to the tiresome “If you’re explaining, you’re losing” schtick, so as usual, this government never explains.

Pierre Poilievre decided that he would pretend to be magnanimous and “offer” the government two hours from the Conservatives’ allotted day on Monday to present the update, but Chrystia Freeland rejected it out of hand, calling the offer absurd, and saying “This proposal from the Conservatives is like an arsonist who set the fire in the first place, saying, ‘don’t worry about it, I’ll come with a fire truck for a couple of hours, but tomorrow I’ll be back again with matches’.” Procedurally, I don’t see how the Conservatives could offer up time to government business on an allotted day, but also procedurally, Freeland could use the daily Statements by Ministers slot during routine proceedings to deliver the update (though that may be somewhat more awkward for the associated media lockup because those statements tend to be earlier than budget or fiscal update speeches are traditionally delivered, in part because of any data from those lock-ups moving markets (which is why they are traditionally delivered after 4 PM). They could technically also deliver it outside of the Chamber (Paul Martin once read it at committee, and the Conservatives liked to deliver it off Parliament Hill entirely), but we don’t want to encourage a return to the practice of announcing things outside of Parliament (and the UK Speaker uses very strong language about this sort of thing).

If I had to guess, I would suspect that it’ll be delivered next Wednesday or Thursday, once the Supply votes are out of the way, which makes it extremely convenient for Freeland and every other minister to spread out across the country to deliver the “good news” about the programmes in the budget, whereas Poilievre would want to use the timing of the update to claim that he “forced” the government to “come clean about the numbers,” or some such bullshit like that. None of this is great, but we’re dealing with an exhausted government and a dysfunctional parliament, so nothing is as it should be right now.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine is giving soldiers who deserted or went AWOL a second chance, particularly given the shortages they’re facing on the Eastern front, and lo, some six thousand soldiers have rejoined. News leaking out of the Trump camp indicate that his plan to end the war involve major land concessions, NATO membership being off the table, and cutting military aid, unless Putin refuses, in which case they would provide more. (Land concessions are not really his goal, guys).

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Speaker imposes the last of the Supply Days

Posted on by

Yesterday began with the government’s attempt to let the opposition parties have their remaining Supply Days (aka “opposition days”) that remain in the supply cycle before the Estimates votes next week, and even though the Conservatives had indicated they were going to move a confidence motion that would force Jagmeet Singh to eat his words about the Liberals, being one giant dare. But when the Government House Leader Karina Gould moved the motion that would let this happen, that would give them a chance to move this confidence motion, the Conservatives decided against it in order to continue the privilege filibuster.

Later in the day, Speaker Greg Fergus decided to step in, given that the ability for the parties to work this out for themselves had clearly failed. To that end, he has imposed that the Supply Days will run Thursday, Monday and Tuesday for the Conservatives, with the Friday for the NDP, and that because Tuesday is the last day of the Supply Cycle, the Estimates votes will happen then. This ensures that the parties get their allotted days (the Bloc already had theirs before the privilege filibuster began), and the Conservatives will have their chances to try and embarrass the other opposition parties into voting non-confidence, the NDP won’t oblige them, and the NDP’s motion will likely be something related to abortion in their own attempt to embarrass the Conservatives, because nobody can be mature about any of this.

I will say that I’m a little surprised that Fergus made this move, because he very well could have used this as something of a “learning opportunity” for the parties—that because they refused to come to a deal about these days that they would lose them because they didn’t use them. But that actually would have been the bigger surprise, because Fergus isn’t exactly a very strong-willed Speaker. As for the Conservatives, one suspects that they turned down the motion in order to push the envelope, so that they could cry foul and try and challenge Fergus if they did lose those days, and send out more fundraising emails that he’s being partisan (which is against the rules), and to try and play the victim. Andrew Scheer was already trying to denounce these moves, but nothing he says has any semblance of truth, so that’s no surprise. Nevertheless, there won’t be a crisis of Supply, government departments won’t shut down, and Canadian journalists won’t get the opportunity to excitedly write about a “U.S.-style government shutdown.”

Ukraine Dispatch

Another Russian drone attack on Trenopil has left it without electricity. And while president Zelenskyy is hoping for quick NATO membership as an avenue to ending the war, NATO members are unlikely to take him up on it.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1863186805463437571

Continue reading →

Roundup: The virtual meeting with the premiers over Trump

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau had his virtual meeting with the premiers yesterday evening, and it has been a really interesting divergence in reactions. Jagmeet Singh is panicking and demanding performative forcefulness, while Pierre Poilievre is trying to leverage the moment for his own political ends, claiming that the solution is to do everything he says (conveniently!). Premiers have been all over the map, going from caution to outright boot-licking (looking at you, Danielle Smith), and this was one of the messages that emerged from that meeting. I also find it particularly crass the number of premiers who set up American flags for their backdrops before their media availabilities before and after the meeting. Seriously, guys?

Chrystia Freeland met with reporters and spoke about the need for a united front and not to be seen to be squabbling with one another, but premiers with their own agendas haven’t really seemed to warm to that necessity, because they’d rather score points against the current government with boneheaded accusations that they were “blindsided” by the threats, and that they don’t have a plan. (They’ve had a plan for over a year, guys. You might want to actually pay attention). And after the meeting, most of the premiers made their own individual points about how they want so many more resources poured into their province (such as more RCMP members that don’t exist because they can’t recruit and train them fast enough, or retain them in the toxic culture of the Force), but Smith remains particularly stubborn in trying to leverage this into foregoing the emissions cap and trying to say that Trudeau shouldn’t be leading the effort to defend Canada (again, to her benefit).

Meanwhile, Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, took a much more aggressive stance with threatened retaliation (which Trudeau has thus far not threatened, preferring a “methodical” approach). Sheinbaum had a call with Trump and basically pledged to keep doing what they were already doing, and Trump declared victory, so maybe Canada will do the same? Trudeau has talked about strengthening border measures, which has been an ongoing process, particularly since the amendment of the Safe Third Country Agreement, so maybe that too will be enough to get Trump to declare victory? I guess we shall see, but in the meantime, we’ll see how many premiers can keep their cool.

Ukraine Dispatch

Explosions were heard in Odesa, Kropyvnytskyi, Kharkiv, Rivne and Lutsk amid reports of a cruise missile attack last night. Three were wounded in a drone attack on Kyiv the night before. Russian forces claim to have taken the settlement of Nova Illinka in Donetsk region. Germany’s intelligence chief says that Russian sabotage in NATO countries could trigger Article 5.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1861772687229501452

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clapping back at the provinces and their JPs

Posted on by

Justice Minister Arif Virani has been honing his responses to the cries for bail reform lately, both in pointing out that the provinces are not living up to their responsibilities—whether that’s with properly resourcing the court system so that trials are conducted in a timely manner, or in dealing with overcrowded remand centres where people are locked up awaiting trial, and because of the overcrowding and poor conditions, many accused are being given bail rather than subjected to those conditions. Even more recently, he has started pointing to how certain provinces, and Ontario especially, have been appointing Justices of the Peace, to decide on most bail hearings.

Ontario in particular had this whole song and dance about how great it was that they were appointing JPs who weren’t all lawyers, because it gave them greater breadth of experience or whatever, but if it’s true that they’re not actually applying the law of bail properly, that’s a problem. It could simply be that their training is inadequate, which again is a provincial responsibility, because if they are being expected to read, understand and apply case law that the Supreme Court of Canada has laid out when it comes to the law of bail, then again, that is a problem that the provinces need to solve.

And yes, there are going to continue to be voices chirping that the law is the problem, and that the Liberals created an “open door” through two pieces of legislation, but this has been an orchestrated disinformation campaign. The one law that the Conservatives refer to codified Supreme Court jurisprudence, and actually toughened bail in certain respects, especially around domestic violence; the other law they refer to had to do with doing away with solitary confinement in federal penitentiaries, which has nothing to do with bail in the slightest, but repeated lying that has not been pushed back against by both-sidesing media has led a whole lot of credulous people to believe the bullshit. The law of bail is not the problem—it’s everything else that is, and the provinces are once again being allowed to get away with not doing their jobs.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian security services have detained a special forces unit commander accused of being Russian mole. Russian air defences claim to have downed a series of Ukrainian drones in a number of different regions. There could be another mass displacement of Ukrainians if energy systems continue to be damaged over the winter. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had a call with Putin, asking him to withdraw his troops and negotiate, which of course Putin won’t, and now Zelenskyy is angry with Scholz because these kinds of calls decrease Putin’s isolation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The capacity to spend

Posted on by

One of the constant refrains since the Trump election is that Canada needs to get serious about increasing out defence spending faster, or he’ll be mean to us in NATO, or something like that. While I would note that he’ll be mean to us regardless because that’s who he is, and that he’s never understood how NATO actually works, so whether or not our spending is above 2 percent of GDP or not is almost a moot question. But the biggest consideration is actually whether we actually have the capacity to spend more.

The thing is, defence spending has gone up significantly, but the military lapses some of that spending on a yearly basis because they just can’t get that spending out of the door, for various reasons, including the fact that they simply don’t have the personnel to do everything that needs to be done, and you can’t just hire someone off the street in most of these cases—military personnel is just that, and they take time to train and rise up through the ranks appropriately. Add in the recruitment and retention crisis (thanks to sexual misconduct and abuse of power in the General Officer and Flag Officer ranks), and it makes it even harder.

Nevertheless, here’s Philippe Lagassé with some thoughts on building the capacity to spend more.

Ukraine Dispatch

It appears that Russia has fired cruise missiles against Kyiv for the first time in two months, not just drones. The US confirms that North Korean troops are now fighting alongside Russian forces.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO’s new NATO numbers

Posted on by

The PBO is at it again, and he released a report yesterday on his particular calculations about how Canada could get to our stated NATO goals of 2 percent of GDP by 2032-33, and that we would need to double defence spending to get there, and what that looks like if the government remains committed to its deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio targets. Fair enough, but there are a number of capital commitments in the works that include new submarines, and one has a pretty good bet that these costs will only increase as time goes by, for what it’s worth.

While this is all well and good, there was some particular language in the report that should raise some eyebrows, because Yves Giroux is talking about how other economic forecasts are “erroneous” and he is insisting therefore that his aren’t, which is…a choice. In his previous report on defence spending, Giroux went on a whole tangent about how the OECD figures used as the baseline weren’t correct and his numbers were, but NATO uses those OECD figures for their purposes, not the PBO’s. For the sake of an apples-to-apples comparison, you would think that he would use the same denominator as NATO does, but of course not. Giroux has a particular sense of hubris around his figures, and we all know what happened when he got them wrong with his first report on the carbon levy and then he tried to prevaricate and rationalize them away, and insisted there wouldn’t be any real changes when lo, there were some pretty significant ones.

While we’re on the topic, the 2 percent figure remains a bad one because the denominator—Canada’s GDP is much larger than many NATO members’, making that figure incredibly hard to reach, particularly as the economy grows, and the fact that any country could exceed that target if their economy crashed. Not saying we don’t need to spend more, because we do (and I would not expect the Conservatives to meet the target either as they pledge to cut significantly should they form government next), but we also need to keep some perspective.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces shot down 33 out of 62 drones plus one missile overnight, which killed at least four in various regions of the country, while Russia claims they downed 25 Ukrainian drones, as North Korea’s foreign minister travelled to Moscow. Last evening, a guided bombs struck a high rise in Kharkiv, killing a child. Russians claim to have taken the village of Kruhliakivka in the Kharkiv region.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1851612628021318115

Continue reading →

Roundup: Toxifying a committee

Posted on by

The ongoing denigration of this Parliament continues, as the toxic swamp that committees have devolved into has claimed another victim. Liberal MP Anita Vandenbeld, who has a resumé full of doing work with women and civil society engagement in other countries, removed herself from the Status of Women committee after relentless harassment from Conservative members of the committee, in particular Michelle Ferreri, plus the actions of the Chair, Shelby Kramp-Neuman, in facilitating it, all of it stemming from the set-up that the Conservatives engineered over that so-called “emergency meeting” in the summer where the Chair abused her authority to summon witnesses with no agreement for a study that had not been agreed to, which was being used to try and embarrass the government.

The Status of Women committee used to be one of the most functional and non-partisan committees in the House of Commons, but Poilievre and the Conservatives couldn’t have that. They insisted on replacing the previous committee chair for Kramp-Neuman, who has been doing their bidding, and have made it toxic and dysfunctional, like everything else in this current parliament, because that is part of their overall plan. They need to break everything in order to blame the government, justify an election and to tell people who don’t follow politics and don’t understand what’s going on here that they need to come to power so that they can fix things, when really, the plan is that once they are in power, they will start dismantling the guardrails of the state. None of this is subtle, or novel, and it’s been done in plenty of other countries where their democracies have been dismantled by far-right parties, and it’s happening here while our media stands idly by because both-sides and “We don’t care about process stories,” while the Elder Pundits keep tut-tutting and insisting that it won’t be that bad. We’re getting into some seriously dangerous territory, and nobody wants to sound the alarm.

Big #cdnpoli energy.We are headed in a very bad direction.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-10-29T14:16:59.724Z

Speaking of committees, the public safety committee heard from top national security officials, who were there to talk about the foreign interference including violence and homicide commissioned by the Indian government, and they made some pretty important revelations, but MPs didn’t really want to hear it, because once again, they were too busy grinding partisan axes. The Conservatives only asked about the embargoed briefing to the Washington Post, which has been falsely termed a “leak,” when it was confirmed that they were contacted by writers from the Post to confirm certain details from their reporting, which they agreed to under the embargo, in part because it was seen as a credible newspaper that could counter the coming disinformation from Indian sources (and we know that certain newspapers in Canada had swallowed Indian disinformation whole on previous occasions). And the Liberals? They were too busy gathering clips of these officials explaining why Pierre Poilievre should get his security clearance. Honest to Zeus, this shouldn’t be this difficult, especially for such a sensitive topic, but nope. MPs have once again beclowned themselves.

Ukraine Dispatch

At least nine people were injured and several apartments set on fire by a drone attack on Kyiv. Russians claim they have seized control of Selydove and are moving to encircle the town of Kurakhove in the east. Also facing imminent Russian threat is Pokrovsk, where the coal mines that fuel the steel mills are still operating as Russians close in.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1851276298242466109

Continue reading →

Roundup: Calling for the moderates to re-engage

Posted on by

Over in The Line, former provincial Progressive Conservative (and former federal Conservative) comms staffer Chisholm Pothier goes though Blaine Higgs’ downfall in New Brunswick, and in particular how his obsession with “parental rights” as a cover for oppressing trans youth was one of the main drivers of that collapse, particularly because the Liberals in that province were talking about the things people were worried about, like housing and healthcare. He eschewed the usual partisan nonsense and congratulated Suan Holt on a deserved win. But that wasn’t the important part.

The most important takeaway from the piece, however, is that Pothier calls on Tories in New Brunswick to get memberships and get engaged with the party if they want to take it back from what Higgs turned it into, which is a narrow little cult catering primarily to Christian nationalists. This is something I have written columns about in the past—that it’s extremely important for ordinary people and moderates within a party to take out a membership and get involved at the grassroots level, because if you don’t, the crazies absolutely will and they will take over your party. This is what happened with the UCP in Alberta—when Jason Kenney engineered the hostile takeover of the PC party there, and then its merger with the Wildrose to form the UCP, it was done very much by getting the swivel-eyed loons to engage with the process at the expense of the moderates, whom they didn’t want in the party. This was to be a small-c conservative party and not the amorphous centrist mass that the PC party in Alberta had become, constantly reshaping itself and its beliefs to follow those of each successive leader. And now, it’s a party of hardcore fanatics, who turned on Kenney, and whom Danielle Smith is terrified they will do the same to her, so she is becoming increasingly radical in how she is governing as a result.

I cannot stress enough that ordinary people need to be engaged with parties at the grassroots level, or things get really bad. A party that only consists of Kool-Aid drinkers, regardless of the party, becomes toxic pretty fast (especially if they start going on with the purity tests). While the PCs in New Brunswick have a chance to reclaim their party, which is probably too late in Alberta (and couldn’t happen at all with the sudden capitulation of BC United to the BC Conservatives). It also may not be possible for the federal Liberals, who did away with party memberships altogether in favour of sign-ups that will populate their voter database while all power centralized in the leader’s office. Pothier’s advice should carry for all parts of the country, not just New Brunswick—if you want to keep your party from falling prey to fanatics of any stripe, you need to get involved as a member to push back against them.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched two waves of drone attacks over Kyiv, and one of them struck an apartment building, killing one and injuring five. A missile attack struck residences and a medical facility in Dnipro, killing three. G7 leaders announced $50 billion in loans to Ukraine to be repaid with seized Russian assets.

Continue reading →

Roundup: So he is hiding something?

Posted on by

Over the past couple of days, Justin Trudeau and Karina Gould have been intimating that Pierre Poilievre has “something to hide” by not seeking his security clearance. It’s a stupid talking point, it trivialises the seriousness of the issue, and it descends to the same childish accusations that the Conservatives are lobbing at the government over the refusal to turn over certain unredacted documents related to SDTC as part of a banana republic production order (as the subject of the current privilege filibuster). It’s not cute, and it doesn’t make them look like the adults in the room.

And then along comes Michael Chong, who gave this cockamamie story to the Globe and Mail that because security clearances can involve invasive questions like sexual partners or past drug use, and that Trudeau is “so desperate” that he would use that information to publicly undermine Poilievre. But, and former CSIS director Ward Elcock made the point in the same piece, CSIS would never turn that information over to the PM, no matter the political pressure, so not only is Chong just making up conspiracy bullshit (as he has been wont to do increasingly of late), he is actually adding fuel fire by making it look like Poilievre does indeed have something to hide. Like, my dude, did you even think about your stupid conspiracy for five whole seconds before you blurted it out to Bob Fife? Honestly.

Remember when Michael Chong was a man of principle and didn't just constantly make up shitty conspiracy theories to suck up to his leader? #cdnpoli www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/art…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-10-24T17:20:23.744Z

We all know that the reasons Poilievre won’t get the clearance is because it would require him to lie slightly less than he does currently. Poilievre even tacitly admitted this when he declared in QP “This prime minister will not gag me!” (Phrasing!) But by trying to take this “hiding something” schtick across the board is just tiresome when everyone should be striving to be grown-ups about this.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians launched a thermobaric ammunition attack on Kupiansk in the Kharkiv region, while Ukrainian forces shot down 40 out of 50 drones overnight. Russian forces have been making a fast advance into the town of Selydove, which they have been trying to take control of. Ukrainian intelligence suggests that North Korean troops are already in the Kursk region.

Continue reading →