Tag Archives: Harassment

Roundup: The sudden concern over redistributing asylum seekers

Posted on by

There is a particular strain of ugly anti-immigrant rhetoric which has largely been tamped down in this country but has started to re-emerge thanks to the permission structures being formed by the Republicans in the US, and which are being laundered into Canada by blaming the Liberals for somehow “breaking the consensus” around immigration in recent years with high arrival numbers, ignoring that the vast majority of these numbers have been asked for by provincial premiers. Nevertheless, the issue with asylum seekers (which are not economic immigrants) has disproportionately landed in Quebec’s lap because of the ease of border crossing there, and Quebec has made demands of other provinces to share the load.

Well, the federal minster, Marc Miller, has had discussions with provinces about taking more of these asylum seekers—with federal supports—but that was enough to get New Brunswick premier Blaine Higgs to start lying about it over social media. (Higgs is floundering in the polls ahead of an election and has been turning to Christian Nationalists as his strategy to stay competitive). And while Miller has called out Higgs for his fictitious alarm, it has already spread to other provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, with BC’s Conservative leader also weighing in (and talking out of his ass as he does about many, many files).

https://twitter.com/marcmillervm/status/1834359608481100045

Miller is an effective communicator, unlike most of his fellow Cabinet members, so he’s actually mounting a good defence, but we cannot forget that this particular xenophobic rhetoric has been creeping into the discourse here, enabled by certain premiers and by Pierre Poilievre who have been blowing this particular dog-whistle while the Elder Pundits shrug and insist that it’s not really happening because Canada is different (it is, but it’s not that different), but they see it being used effectively in the US, and in places like Hungary, and they want a piece of that action if it’ll get them the power that they crave. We’ll see if Miller can score enough blows, but I suspect that with the Elder Pundits dismissing the nature of these attacks, the effectiveness of his counters, even with receipts, will be blunted in broader public.

In case you missed it:

  • My Xtra column on the three upcoming provincial by-elections, and how conservative parties all moved further to the right in each of them.
  • My weekend column on the way the Public Accounts committee went from being the best, most non-partisan committee in Parliament to yet another sideshow.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take that explains Supply Days, and why they’re going to be a lot more weighty now that the NDP have reneged on their agreement.
  • My column on the tiff at TIFF over that Russian film, and why Conservatives blaming Trudeau are really telling on themselves about their own censorship ambitions.

Ukraine Dispatch

https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1834204204405039436

 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Anecdotes about emigration

Posted on by

It was a CBC story that caught the attention of Pierre Poilievre, and which his deputy leader brought up in Question Period, being one centred around census data showing a growing number of Canadians who are relocating to the US, and which tries to focus the attention on those who insist that they’re moving because Justin Trudeau has been so terrible. But this is also a story from a particular usual suspect, so it’s thinly sourced and written by a certain usual suspect who had a habit of this kind of sloppy work (and no, it’s not because he has any particular political agenda—it’s because he thinks he’s being edgy and that he’s tackling “big” things, even though he’s been relatively terrible about it.

To be clear, the story has no breakdown in the data to show much of anything useful about just who is moving, particularly from certain age groups and demographics, nor where they are moving to. This could be a case of retiring Boomers heading to Arizona and Florida and saying farewell to Canadian winters for good, but we don’t know. It does point out that a third of those who emigrate to the US were themselves Americans by birth returning home, and less than a third are immigrants to Canada from elsewhere who have since decided to move to the US, but for some of them, that could have been their plan all along. One of the profiled couples are fairly young and say that housing prices are an issue, but given how restrictive their immigration policies are, it’s hard to see how that many people are able to move just because housing is cheaper. This could also be a largely Ontario-driven phenomenon, but again, we have no breakdown in the data.

This is a big issue, but there is no attempt to get more clarity in the data. Instead, the focus is on getting anecdotes about how they hate Trudeau and want to move because of it, which is both an attempt to make this a federal story instead of a provincial housing one (and the usual suspect writing this piece has a history of doing that), but also because he thinks it’s going to get attention to the piece, and that’s exactly what it did, no matter how thin those anecdotes are, and the plural of anecdotes is not data. We shouldn’t need to remind a reporter at the gods damned public broadcaster of this fact, but things are off the rails there, and this is the kind of bullshit we get as a result.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles hit three sites in Kharkiv overnight, as Ukrainian forces work to shoot down seven missiles and 32 drones. While Russians continue aerial attacks on Kharkiv, they have also increased their troop concentration in the region, looking like they will make a push toward the city. Word is coming out that president Joe Biden has quietly given the okay for Ukraine to use American-made and supplied weapons to strike military targets inside of Russia.

https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1796418752411840609

Continue reading →

Roundup: Responding to events isn’t a desperation move

Posted on by

If you’ve been paying attention to Question Period over the past several days, you may have noticed that the Liberals haven’t been asking endless questions about abortion, or rather, asking the government to comment on the Conservatives’ stance about abortion. Throughout this, you had a bunch of pundits, almost all of them located outside of Ottawa, going “The Liberals are desperate! They’re using the abortion move 18 months too early!” The problem with that particular analysis is that it ignores the events going on around them.

What the Liberals were really doing, if someone bad bothered to pay attention, was responding to things the Conservatives have been doing around them. It started with Pierre Poilievre’s speech where he promised to use the Notwithstanding Clause to “make” tough-on-crime policies and laws “constitutional” (never mind that invoking the Notwithstanding Clause is a flashing red light that what you’re doing isn’t constitutional, and you’re doing to do it anyway—at least for the next five years, anyway. The Liberals were not going to pass up an opportunity to ask Poilievre just what else he planned to use those powers for, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.

From there, Arnold Viersen tabled his petition calling for abortion restrictions, and the March for Life happened on the same week, which the Liberals (and usually the NDP) always put on a big production in Question Period about how important a woman’s right to choose is. This all happened within a few days, so of course they were going to respond to it. And once those events happened, they moved onto other things (like lambasting Poilievre’s “housing” bill). Not everything is a desperation move. They talked about abortion back in December when the Conservatives swapped a bill so that Cathay Wagantall’s backdoor abortion-banning bill could be voted on before they rose for the winter break (so it wouldn’t act as a millstone around their necks, even though the entire caucus voted for it), and everyone wasn’t insisting this was some kind of desperation move then. The moral here is that sometimes you need to pay attention to what is going on around Question Period, because it’s not the only thing going on.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine shot down 13 out of 14 drones launched by Russia on Monday night, with most of the debris falling on the Rivne region. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Belgium to sign another security agreement.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not a corporate workplace

Posted on by

Parliament is back today, and while I would normally be fairly excited, it’s feeling less and less so these days, because this current parliament is a fairly terrible one overall, that feels increasingly toxic to be around. But hey, maybe we’ll actually talk about housing and food price inflation, and some things that matter! But who am I kidding—it’ll be a bunch of complete bullshit coming from Pierre Poilievre, some non sequiturs from Jagmeet Singh about “greedflation” and the like, while Justin Trudeua and his front bench will repetitively deliver some canned pabulum that is supposed to make you feel vaguely reassured and like they’re patting you on the head. Because that’s the state of the political discourse these days, and I hate it.

As with anything this time of year, we’re also getting the usual calls about ways to “reform the workplace” of Parliament, as though this were a corporate office and that MPs are all just middle managers. They’re not, and that’s the problem with framing discussions like this. They’re all elected. They are all equal under the constitution, and in the framework of power dynamics. You can’t impose HR standards because you can’t involve an HR structure like this because power is entirely horizontal.

The other thing that we need remember here, however, is that MPs need to divorce Question Period—which is theatre—from the every day, and I see a lot of that in these complaints, and it goes around and around. Why do people do it and get away with it? Because it’s performance, and it’s confrontational for a reason. Heckling has a place, and some of that is to knock MPs and ministers off of their talking points. And that’s why I have a hard time qualifying all of it as “bullying” or “intimidation” because while that does happen, QP is a different beast and we all need to remember that. We also need the Speaker to do his gods damned job, but that’s also the fault of MPs for consistently choosing weak Speakers and ensuring that he has weak Standing Orders to enforce, because they like it that way.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles have again hit the grain port at Odessa, while another strike at Kharkiv was allegedly targeting a plant where armoured vehicles undergo repairs. Ukrainian forces have apparently carried out a “special operation” in Sevastopol in occupied Crimea, and reclaimed another village near Bakhmut. Meanwhile, a Ukrainian farmer was killed when his plough hit a landmine, while Norway is reporting that the number of Russian forces staged along their borders are now just twenty percent or less than what they were before Russia invaded Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s “grocery rebate” day

Posted on by

Today is the day that the federal government’s so-called “grocery rebate” gets deposited in Canadians’ accounts, but it’s not really a grocery rebate, and once again, a defensible policy gets given a dumb and confusing label for marketing purposes, because that’s what this government does. This is just another GST rebate top-up like the one that happened last year to help deal with the rising cost of living for those who are on the lower-end of the income scale, but of course the government gave it a new name this year just to try and be cute about it.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1676243078833926145

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1676243669685506048

You may also have heard complaints that this particular rebate is going to fuel inflation (which is coming down! It’s nearly at the outside band of where the central bank wants it to be!). This is also nonsense, because of how the programme is targeted, and Jennifer Robson has all of the receipts and data to prove it in the thread below.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians attacked a military funeral in Pervomaiskyi in the Kharkiv region, wounding 38 including twelve children.  Ukrainian forces targeted a Russian military formation in occupied Makiivka, which Russian officials say killed a civilian and injured others. Previously over the weekend, Russia launched its first overnight drone strike against Kyiv in twelve days, while a drone attack on the city of Sumy killed two and injured 19. Elsewhere, the reports from the counter-offensive are that it has been “particularly fruitful” over the past several days, with yet more gains around Bakhmut. There have been yet more warnings that the Ukrainians believe that the Russians will detonate something at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, while the Russians are also claiming the Ukrainians will do so in order to blame them (as though that makes any sense whatsoever).

https://twitter.com/kyivpost/status/1676258705422053378

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inviting the politician’s syllogism

Posted on by

As the questions about what to do around the accosting of Chrystia Freeland continued yesterday, several reporters started asking about why the government hasn’t moved ahead with their promised online harms legislation, which is kind of funny because most of these very same reporters know exactly what happened to it—the draft legislation introduced before the election was so roundly criticised from all sides that the government decided to take a more serious effort at consultation and drafting a bill that won’t be deemed too censorious, and it’s a tough task because it’s a very tiny needle to thread. Exceedingly tiny. And these same journalists know this because they’ve either covered the story, or followed the coverage. I’m not even sure if online harms would be applicable in this particular situation because it wasn’t online, and when it comes to criminal threats being directed at journalists and politicians, again, most of that is already criminal and it simply requires police to do their jobs, which Parliament can’t exactly legislate them to do beyond the Criminal Code provisions that are already in statute. Either way, this whole line of questioning is suspect, and I’m not sure why they’re going down this road other than the politician’s syllogism, which is poor form for media in general, but in this case most especially.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 187:

The Ukrainian counter-attack around the strategic city of Kherson has begun, and claim to have broken through the Russian defences in several areas of the front-line around the city. Russians, meanwhile, have been shelling the southern city of Mykolaiv, as well as military and civilian infrastructure near the towns of Bakhmut, Shumy, Yakovlivka, Zaytsevo, and Kodema in the Donetsk region. Meanwhile, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency are now on their way to the Zaporizhizhia nuclear plant, which Ukrainians say the Russians have been using as a military base.

https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1564190989966778368

Continue reading →

Roundup: The fallout from Freeland being accosted

Posted on by

Much of the discourse this weekend was around a video of Chrystia Freeland being accosted at an elevator in Grande Prairie, Alberta, and all that it entails. While Freeland can handle herself—she ran circles around the KGB as a student in Ukraine—it’s the signal that this sends, particularly to women in public office, but most especially racialized women and those of other minorities or diverse backgrounds, who are routinely targeted in similar ways. While there were a number of denunciations of this, and Freeland called it out as wrong, the prime minister called for a united front from political leaders to call for an end to this kind of harassment and violence. Notably, however, a number of Conservative leadership candidates have not said anything, and when Poilievre in particular was asked, he quickly played the victim, that he too is harassed and threatened.

 

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 186:

There has been more shelling around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, and the cities that surround it, over the weekend, because who cares about the risk of the cooling systems being compromised and a radiation leak happening? Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces say that they beat back the Russian advance on Bakhmut in the Donestk region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A newer, worse compromise

Posted on by

The Speaker engaged in a bit of procedural housekeeping after Question Period yesterday, and ruled that the Board of Internal Economy’s vote on a vaccine mandate for MPs in the House of Commons was in fact a violation of MPs’ privileges—which most of us expected, because that’s pretty much what it was. It’s a moot point, however, because the motion passed that re-authorized hybrid sittings included the vaccine mandate for the Chamber, so there remains a vaccine mandate regardless of this outcome. It sounds like the Conservatives are satisfied with this ruling in that it doesn’t create a precedent for expanding the BoIE’s powers, so that’s not necessarily a bad thing in all.

At the same time, the government house leader proposed a compromise for the Winnipeg Lab documents, which had been floated before dissolution but is back on the table now—which is procedurally dumb because the committee that requested those documents is non-existent, as is the order to produce those documents. If said committee were reinstated and they vote on a new motion to produce documents, then the government should have floated this compromise then, but no, they’re going ahead with it unbidden, which is silly. This compromise would see the creation of a new committee that would be advised by a panel of three former senior judges who would vet materials—but again, this is stupid.

The compromise was the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. That was the point. It was the right venue for these documents to go to, and that’s where those documents were sent, before the Conservatives decided that theatre was more important (and the other two parties decided that embarrassing the government was also the point). All this is doing is muddying the waters even further, duplicating efforts, and making MPs even less trustworthy to Canadian security and intelligence services. Because our MPs are not interested in actual oversight or accountability—they are only interested in theatre, and that diminishes our Parliament for everyone.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1466554090452762626

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sitting on money, waiting for ICU to collapse

Posted on by

In case it had escaped you that the incompetent murderclowns who run Ontario are incompetent, we learned yesterday that Doug Ford and his merry band of murderclowns sat on the entire $2.7 billion additional health transfer from the federal government that was supposed to go toward the COVID response, and, well, didn’t. This was during the second and third waves, which didn’t need to happen, and they were explicitly warned that reopening would mean disaster, and they did it anyway. They had money to help them improve testing, tracing, and doing things like improving ventilation in schools, and they didn’t. They sat on it to pad their bottom line.

Is there a lesson here? Yes – don’t give provinces more money without strings attached. You would think that this should be obvious, given that before Jim Flaherty unilaterally changed the transfer escalator from six percent to a minimum of three or GDP growth, we know that provinces were not spending that health transfer only on health – the growth in health spending was far below the growth in the health transfer. For them to demand yet more money with no strings attached – particularly for outcomes – while we have examples like Ford here, who are using the money to reduce their deficit in spite of all the lives that could have been saved it was actually deployed meaningfully, there should be no argument. If they want the money, they need to have metrics and outcomes to ensure that it’s being spent on what it’s supposed to be.

Meanwhile in Alberta, the COVID situation has been allowed to deteriorate so badly that ICUs could be overrun in ten days, forcing doctors to triage who gets ventilators and who will be allowed to die. With this in mind, Jason Kenney finally relented and started re-imposing public health restrictions, but in a byzantine and complex manner, and has said they will allow vaccine certificates or a “restriction exemption program,” because they can’t actually call it a vaccine passport or certificate. Kenney also both apologised for the situation and then did not apologise for lifting the restrictions when he did, so that clarifies things. I’m curious to see if this ricochets through the federal campaign – some Conservatives seem to think it will. In either case, Jason Kenney, his health minister and chief medical officer of health all should be resigning for letting this foreseeable tragedy happen on their watch, but we all know that they won’t, because what does accountability matter any longer?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Grading the parties’ sincerity on climate

Posted on by

One of the great things about the policy landscape in Canada are the number of professors out there who are willing to devote their time and energy to providing advice to political parties, or who will be willing to evaluate their proposals. We had an example of this as professor Mark Jaccard at Simon Fraser University went and checked over the parties’ environmental platforms and did the modelling on them, and then graded them – and the Liberals came out ahead by quite a margin (and in the interest of trying to look “balanced,” the CBC declared that the Conservatives were “not far behind,” though it was literally the difference between an A- and a D).

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1433770709730344962

The full study not only evaluates the targets, but the policies and costs as well – because there are economic costs to some of these plans. Interestingly, he also tests the sincerity of those plans, which is not only a sense of how feasible they are, but also their history as a party of a willingness to do the heavy lifting, and that’s a pretty important measure. “Beware of politicians who promise big but have not subjected their promises and plans to assessment by independent climate policy modellers. In this regard, the NDP and Greens are suspect,” Jaccard writes, and it’s worth reading through why he gives them the scores he does. The economic damage that the NDP plan promises to do would never be agreed to by their union base, and the fact that it would require a police state for them to set the kinds of binding carbon budgets that they propose are demonstrations about how unserious the policies are.

What is disappointing in this is that the NDP in particular started making personal attacks against Jaccard, and trying to build lame conspiracy theories that he is somehow being paid off to pump up the Liberals and talk down the NDP, which is both ridiculous and is the kinds of sore loser tactics that we’ve come to expect. (Seriously, my reply column on a daily basis is full of Dippers with hurt feelings because I have the temerity to point out the reality of things like jurisdiction or the fact that you can’t willpower things into existence). Elizabeth May was among those who took swipes at Jaccard, for the temerity of being an economist and not a climate scientist – which is also ridiculous because economics is literally the science of allocating scare resources, and the fact that climate scientists are not offering policy solutions. Science is not policy, and that’s why it’s important to understand the difference between the two and how they complement one another – providing that you’re willing to listen and not get in a huff because someone pointed out that your implementation plans don’t belong in the real world.

https://twitter.com/MarkJaccard/status/1433891783524720641

Continue reading →