Tag Archives: Gun Control

QP: It wasn’t about sex!

Posted on by

The prime minister was on his way to Montreal with Emanuel Macron, and his deputy was elsewhere, while the Conservatives were mid-Supply Day, moving yet another confidence motion that was doomed to fail (not that it matters because the whole point is to get clips for social media). Before things got started, Speaker Fergus said that per his ruling earlier, he offered the leader of the opposition an opportunity to withdraw words he spoke last week, and because he didn’t get such an offer to do so, he would remove three questions from him in the opening round. Poilievre got up and in French, read off their non-confidence motion, and asked the government to support it. Jean-Yves Duclos responded by chiding Poilievre for not even reading the first chapter of an Economics 101 textbook about the independence of the central bank. Poilievre read the slogan-filled motion again in English, and Karina Gould said the simple answer as to who was opposed to the motion was Canadians.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and wondered how the government could be opposed to increased support for seniors. Steve MacKinnon said that it was funny that the Bloc opposed all other measures to help seniors, including dental care. Therrien said that if the government didn’t want to fall, they should support that bill, and Duclos got back up to point out the supports the government has provided and wondered if they really wanted to support the Conservatives. 

Alexandre Boulerice read a letter purportedly to be from a constituent about the housing crisis, to which Duclos reminded him of how damaging Poilievre’s would be. Blake Desjarlais railed about the delay in providing promised Indigenous housing, and Patty Hajdu pointed to the millions of dollars that have flowed to communities.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Angry over an invented grievance

Posted on by

Two new Senate appointments were made over the weekend, both from Alberta, which naturally resulted in a mountain of utter bullshit, because neither were from the so-called “senators in waiting” that Alberta periodically “elects” as a stunt in order to invent a grievance against the federal government. There was also more of this nonsense hand-wringing that one of the two is a habitual Liberal donor and held roles as an organiser in the party in the past, but hasn’t for well over a decade. Nevertheless, clueless journalists and bad faith opposition members decry this as “partisan,” even though there is no actual Liberal caucus in the Senate for them to sit with, nor any Liberal whip to direct their votes (even though that has only ever really been illusory in the Senate).

The whole “Senate consultative elections” schtick in Alberta has only ever been a stunt—even when Stephen Harper appointed those who won them, because he was trying to make a point about reforming the Senate through the backdoor without actually doing constitutional changes. The logic of how they’re “just consultations” and that they are still appointed and don’t have any additional legitimacy within the Senate was laid bare during the Supreme Court hearings when Justice Cromwell asked the person making the argument “So why isn’t a consultative auction just as legitimate?” and they didn’t have an answer. But really, the whole thing was just to invent one more reason to make people mad at the federal government, at a time when there was a political impetus to stoke such regional divisions and resentments because that always helped them score political points, and lo, it’s still working for them decades later as they continue to get angry about something they just invented for the sole purpose of making them angry. It’s predictable, and it’s childish, and we should expect provincial governments like Alberta’s to behave like adults (but good luck with that these days).

Of course, where would we be without the conservative columnists in this country, making pronouncements about this without actually understanding a gods damned thing about it. “Not representative of Albertan thinking”? What exactly is “Albertan thinking?” If the insinuation is that their appointment is somehow illegitimate because they’re not conservatives, then I have news for you because the Senate is often a place where political outliers in a province can gain representation, such as Liberals in Alberta, particularly during the “bad old partisan days” where they may be shut out of the province electorally but could still have representation in the Senate and be present in caucus to provide that representation. That doesn’t happen anymore thanks to Trudeau’s short-sighted decision to boot all of the senators from his caucus, which is also why Ivison’s comments about Trudeau “renouncing” his reforms are such utter nonsense, because if Trudeau had renounced them, he would invite senators back into his caucus. He won’t (even though he should), but hey, Ivison needs to think of something from his perch in Costa Rica, and reinforcing a bullshit narrative is about the best it’s going to be.

Ukraine Dispatch

It was a bloody day in Ukraine as Russian missiles struck a military academy and a hospital, killing over fifty people and wounding more than 200. In the hours since, Russia has since launched missiles and drones against Kyiv and Lviv. This as children are returning to school, and in Kharkiv, those schools are now underground because of constant bombardment. Meanwhile, president Zelenskyy continues to call on Western countries who haven’t yet allowed their weapons to be used for long-range strikes inside Russia to not only allow them, but to supply further weapons so that Ukraine can make crucial hits. It also looks like a major government shake-up is on the way after a wave of resignations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Senate criticisms that miss the mark

Posted on by

The Globe & Mail wrote an unnamed Editorial Board missive on Friday, about how the “Trudeau Senate” is not a better Senate overall. While long-time readers may not be surprised to know that I actually agree with this, I do not, however, endorse the thinking or methodology behind the Globe editorial, because it’s sloppy, lazy, and ultimately doesn’t understand the Senate and what it’s supposed to be, but that shouldn’t be a surprise given that the Elder Pundits have never actually understood the Senate or its function.

To wit: They start out with the concern trolling from that shoddy CBC article last week about how recent appointees to the Senate include former party donors, which I dismantled in my column last week, so I’m not going to repeat it here. Suffice to say, anyone who clutches their pearls at this misses the mark at the bigger danger of only appointing people completely divorced from politics. They misjudge what the rules changes recently passed mean (or that they were largely about changing the names of everything), and try to make them sound ominous when they don’t have a grasp on the internal dynamics. They raise the costs of the Senate, but compare it to a base year when the Senate was about twenty senators short, but they also seem to not understand that senators need to organise themselves internally, and that costs money for staff and infrastructure. And no, an “independent” senate should not be comprised of about 100 “loose fish” with a Speaker and a Government Leader, because that would be complete chaos.

The only genuine point they make is that the Senate is producing fewer substantive reports, which is true. And why? Because when there so many type-A people appointed who feel that they have earned this position because they applied for it (which again, is a Problem with how Trudeau’s process), the majority of them feel like they should be off doing their own projects, which has meant an absolute explosion in Senate public bills (which are their equivalent of private members’ bills), and you have a bunch of Senators doing things like commissioning polls, or trying to fly to international conferences and justifying it on their expenses (even when they were denied permission by Internal Economy) because they’re important Senators. Trudeau’s Senate is not a better Senate than the one he inherited—which had its problems!—but not for the reasons the Globe’s Elder Pundits imagine.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian missiles and drones struck the Kharkiv region, killing two and damaging energy facilities and rail infrastructure. Russia’s Black Sea Tuapse oil refinery was damaged by a Ukrainian drone attack. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is again calling for long-range weapons to protect the country after another drone attack on Kyiv, the fifth in two weeks.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1814560384864412036

Continue reading →

Roundup: A question with the intention to intimidate

Posted on by

Conservative MP Chris Warkentin has put a question on the Order Paper asking whether a number of economists have received any government contracts, and for any information about those contracts if they have been the recipient. While Stephen Gordon responds for himself below, it was also noted that all of the economists listed (who include names like Kevin Milligan, Andrew Leach, and Mike Moffatt) are all male, which I’m sure is just a coincidence and not indicative of a mentality that they think there’s no such thing as a “lady economist.”

This having been said, I think it’s important to point out that what Warkentin is doing here, on behalf of the party, is directly out of the authoritarian playbook. Number one of the seven key tactics in that playbook are to politicise independent institutions (and university academics would qualify), while number four on that list is about quashing dissent, and many of these names are economists who signed onto that open letter about the value of carbon pricing (which, to reiterate, was not defending the Liberal policy because it’s not actually carbon pricing, but a carbon levy plus regulation and subsidies). The Order Paper question is a shot across the bow that they are looking for anything to discredit these economists as partisan hacks whose expertise can be discounted for that reason. It’s about as subtle as a ham-fist, but they don’t care because they’re riding high in the polls. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be alive to what they’re doing, because it absolutely matters.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A missile strike in Kharkiv has killed at least seven civilians, as the Russian assault continues. Russians have also taken control of the village of Andriivka, southwest of Bakhmut. Russian jamming has also prevented many of Ukraine’s newer glide bombs from hitting their intended targets.

Continue reading →

QP: The provocation and the restraint

Posted on by

After all of yesterday’s drama, it was a real question as to what was going to go down today, with the prime minister present, and there to respond to (but not necessarily answer) all questions. His deputy was absent, but all other leaders were present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, worrying about the public health director suggesting decriminalisation in Montreal and Quebec, and demanded the government deny the request. Justin Trudeau said that they should take a moment to reflect on what happened yesterday, and said that the government takes the tragedy in BC seriously and they work with science and compassion, and will work with BC on adjusting their pilot project. Poilievre demanded to know if he would reject a request from Quebec, and Trudeau said that they worked with BC when they made the proposal, and he has received no other proposals. Poilievre switched to English, dropped the Montreal angle and demanded he reverse course on BC’s decriminalisation. Trudeau repeated that they will work with BC to adjust their pilot project. Poilievre insisted that Trudeau still hasn’t answered the question, and went into six British Columbians dying every day, and Trudeau repeated that BC approached them with the pilot project, and they worked with them to develop the project, and they looking into the modifications of the project they have asked for. Poilievre very slowly demanded that he reverse decriminalisation, and Trudeau again said they were working with BC.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, needled the Bloc for declaring they will support the budget, before going on about Amira Elghawaby making comments about the challenge to Quebec’s Law 21. Trudeau said that they build bridges by funding infrastructure and by helping communities come together. Blanchet railed about Elghawaby and halal mortgages, somehow, and insisted that some communities were getting other privileges. Trudeau said that in a pluralistic democracy, it’s important to talk to communities in order to meet their concerns.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he raised the Loblaws boycott, and the fact the grocery task force has done no work. Trudeau says that they are concerned with Loblaws not signing onto the grocery code of conduct, and they have given the Competition Bureau new powers. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Two ejections and a walkout

Posted on by

Tuesday, and both the prime minister and his deputy were present, which is a nice change. All of the other leaders were present as well, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and blamed the federal government’s “radical drug policies” (which aren’t federal) for tripling overdose deaths and claimed Bloc support, and cited newspaper reports about safe consumption sites near schools in Montreal. Trudeau insisted that they need solutions grounded in compassion, healthcare and science to fix the problem. Poilievre switched to English to repeat that the “radical” drug policy has resulted in even more deaths, and demanded the prime minister listen to the NDP to re-criminalise these drugs, which is not the demand—the demand is to re-criminalise public use only. Trudeau said that he already answered this and called out Poilievre consorting with white nationalists. Poilievre said that he denounces extremists and racists including the guy who spent the first half of his adult life dressing up in racist costumes, meaning the prime minister, and after he was cautioned by the Speaker, Poilievre changed his denunciation of the prime minister for funding Laith Marouf and not condemning the IRGC. Trudeau got up and pointed out that Poilievre was spineless, and in the ensuring uproar, Rachael Thomas wound up being named and kicked out for the day. Fergus warned Trudeau, and he re-started his response, saying Poilievre is courting radicals and gave a denunciation of Diagolon. Poilievre got back to calling Trudeau a “radical” for not banning drugs, and Trudeau retorted that Poilievre is still not denouncing groups like Diagolon, Poilievre accused Trudeau of killing 25,000 British Columbians by way of his “extremist” policies, and called him a “whacko prime minister.” Fergus again got up to ask Poilievre to withdraw the term, and Poilievre said he withdraws “whacko” and replaces it with “extremist,” which did not satisfy Fergus. Poilievre said he would replace with “radical,” and Fergus said that wasn’t the request. Poilievre still didn’t withdraw the remark, and after consultant with the Clerk, Fergus asked one last time to withdraw the comment. Poilievre pushed again, did not withdraw, and Fergus named him too, and Poilievre left the Chamber to great  applause on his side, followed by most of his caucus, who started screaming at the Speaker on their way out. After everything settled down, Trudeau started his last response, again calling out Diagolon, during which Michael Barrett screamed that Trudeau was endorsed by Hamas, and after yet another disruption, Trudeau finished by saying Poilievre’s plan to overturn Charter rights is dangerous, and by this time, every Conservative had left the Chamber.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, congratulated the Speaker for his good sense, and then decried government management and told them to stay out of Quebec’s jurisdiction. Trudeau said that his responsibility is to take care of Quebeckers everywhere. Blachet raised the premiers’ letter about staying out of their jurisdiction (but still giving them money), Trudeau dismissed this as the Bloc just picking fights.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he raised the report that 25 percent of Quebecker are in poverty but tied this to Big Oil, somehow. Trudeau noted that they have prioritised creating equal opportunities for all generations in the budget. Heather McPherson railed against Danielle Smith’s attack on pensions and demanded support for her private member’s bill on protecting pensions. Trudeau thanked her for supporting them in standing up for Canadians but did not commit to supporting the bill.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau taking on populism?

Posted on by

On Monday, prime minister Justin Trudeau was on Vox’s “Today, Explained” podcast, and one of the topics was how he is fighting populism in Canada. While you have to wade through a bunch of sales pitches about the budget in there, you get to the part where Trudeau does talk about trying to counter populism by doing the work rather than just complaining (the “everything is broken,”) and while I take his point, there are plenty of examples in this very budget where they aren’t doing the work (like the Canada Disability Benefit), or where they are promising things years down the road.

“Democracies don’t happen by accident, but need work,” is something Trudeau did say during the interview, and it’s great that he recognises that, but at the same time, his track record is littered with broken promises around accountability and transparency, and it’s pretty hard for a government to engender trust when they are allergic to candour and keep trying to feed happy-clappy pabulum lines to people in lieu of honest conversation, which doesn’t help. If democracies need work, then try to be a little more frank and honest with people, rather than whatever the bullshit comms strategy has been for years now.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre stopped off at the New Brunswick/Nova Scotia border where a bunch of so-called “sovereign citizen” nutbars have been camping out for weeks, and glad-handed with them, and went on to recite his “axe the tax” nonsense, demonstrating a complete ineptitude, either in understanding just who this group is and what they represent, or that he doesn’t understand extremism and how to handle it. Quite the warning sign.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian drone attack on Odesa injured nine, some of them children. The head of Ukraine’s national guard says that they are expecting Russians to try and attack unexpected parts of the front line in the coming summer offensive. Ukraine is also suspending consular services for military-aged men abroad, saying that they have an obligation to return home and help defend their homeland.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1782678144538829206

Continue reading →

QP: Sniping in advance of the eclipse

Posted on by

The first day back from the Easter break, and Eclipse Day, and neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, having spent the morning in Trenton making the defence policy update announcement. Most of the other leaders were present today, for what it’s worth. After the introduction of Jamil Jivani as the newest Conservative MP, Pierre Poilievre led off in French, reciting his slogans and accusing government of being “pyromaniacs” fuelling inflation. (That’s not what was driving inflation). Jonathan Wilkinson read a statement about investing in Canadians. Poilievre recited a bank report to claim the government was stoking inflation, and Wilkinson read more talking points about those investments. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his pyromaniac line, and Wilkinson again read lines about investing in Canadians. Poilievre went on about a “carbon tax election,” and recited more slogans. Sean Fraser got up to scoff about the lack of seriousness of Poilievre’s supposed plan. Poilievre insisted that his plan would lower prices for farms, food and homes, and Fraser responded by listed Poilievre’s record a “housing” minister (even though he really wasn’t).

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed that the government was trying to tell Quebeckers how to build housing, and listed all of their supposed failures along the way. Pablo Rodriguez was incredulous that the Bloc was against housing, child care, or school food. Therrien railed that federal government was holding Quebec hostage, and Rodriguez reminded that that they were not the Quebec government. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and railed about corporate handouts, and went on a tangent about Conservative corporate handouts and if the Liberals would carry them forward. Wilkinson read more of his talking points about investments and fairness. Singh repeated his question in French, and this time Fraser got up to talk about some of their housing announcements from last week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reasons to oppose a bad judgment

Posted on by

After the federal government filed their appeal of that Federal Court decision that…strongly suggested to them to appoint more judges (because it certainly wasn’t an order), the lawyer behind that suit has filed a cross-appeal because he wants tougher language and more teeth to it, but it’s not something that the courts can really force a government to do because it’s a Crown prerogative. They have no enforcement mechanism, so I’m not sure what the lawyer here is hoping to accomplish other than to keep getting his name in the papers.

Speaking of papers, I do find it to be a problem that in both the National Post and Toronto Star stories about this cross appeal that neither of them referenced the fact that the primary reason the federal government is appealing the decision is not because it’s useless, but because it’s a complete dog’s breakfast that makes up a constitutional convention from whole cloth and then runs with it. There is plenty of commentary from constitutional scholars out there, Emmett Macfarlane’s being one of the most accessible, but this is a real issue, and no government that is the slightest bit responsible wants bad precedents sitting on the books. It’s one of the reasons why they fought the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision on compensation for Indigenous families—they were willing to pay the compensation, but the Tribunal exceeded its authority and they didn’t want that to stand lest it create a precedent (and why that was one of the points of negotiation in the settlement).

Bad precedents, if left unchallenged, create bad case law, and that creates all kinds of problems in the future. Nobody is arguing that this government doesn’t need to make faster appointments, because they absolutely do, and even they recognise that. But this was a bad decision that shouldn’t be allowed to stand.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia subjected Kyiv to intense bombardment for the third time in five days, and once again, damage and injuries were mostly from debris from intercepted missiles and drones. Russia also attacked an underground gas storage facility, at a time where there are already rolling blackouts because of attacks on power supplies, as engineers work to restore power, in particular at Kharkiv and Odesa. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to make drone attacks on Russian refineries.

Continue reading →

QP: An exhausted slugging match over Ukraine

Posted on by

The prime minister was present today, while his deputy was away doing pre-budget consultations. All other leaders were present as well, and it was the day where they decided it was going to be all about them. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, rattled off his slogans, and then worried about the increase in auto thefts, as though that wasn’t a policing issue at the provincial and municipal level. Justin Trudeau noted that the previous government cut budgets for policing and that his government has re-invested, that they’re working with provinces, and that Poilievre’s slogans won’t do anything. Poilievre insisted that they got better results for fewer dollars, and again blamed federal policies for this rise. Trudeau read from a script that they will be holding a national summit on the issue, and that they are getting results from investing in border officers. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question with added rhetorical flourish, and Trudeau dismissed Poilievre’s “whipping out empty slogans,” and reiterated the success of CBSA stopping more stolen cars from leaving the country. Poilievre quoted from the press release the government put out, and blamed the federal government for the rise. Trudeau reminded him that in 2015, Harper slashed funding for the RCMP and CBSA, and that he had to clean up the mess, before he got drowned out by the applause on his own side. Poilievre taunted that Trudeau was “losing control of himself” by screaming and yelling, before dismissing the notion of the auto theft summit. Trudeau shrugged off the attacks, said that they included facts in the release and that they were “rolling up their sleeves” to work with partners rather than just making political attacks.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and raised the pause on the MAiD extension, and wanted Quebec to be able to move ahead. Trudeau trotted out the line of this being a “deeply personal issue” and said that they were trying to find the right balance, and that they would be open to suggestions. Blanchet wanted advance directives to be allowed, and Trudeau reiterated that they were continuing to consider this issue.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he tried to call out a Liberal MP for her remark about the housing crisis in Toronto, and wondered if the prime minister would listen to front line workers instead. Trudeau recited that they are working with partners and listed the actions they are taking. Singh switched to French to decry a woman being kicked out of her apartment and said that the government has the power to resolve the real estate crisis. (How? With a Green Lantern ring?) Trudeau repeated his same response in French.

Continue reading →