Tag Archives: Inflation

QP: The “courage” to manufacture misleading clips

Posted on by

The prime minister was in town but elsewhere, while his deputy was present for a change. Most of the other leader were also absent, save the Leader of the Opposition. After the Speaker had to read a statement about decorum and calling one another liars, Pierre Poilievre led off, and stated—falsely—that the finance minister had said that the deficit was fuelling inflation, and raised the defeated policy motion at the Liberal convention on the weekend about balancing budgets. Chrystia Freeland said that what the party really said at the convention is that they’re the optimistic party, and the party that believes in Canada. Poilievre accused the prime minister of not having the courage to answer, when he’s not here, and praised the “courageous” Liberals who raised the policy proposal. Freeland said that Liberals were courageous for doing what needed to be done in the pandemic and raised the country’s Aaa credit rating. Poilievre insisted the prime minister stand up and be “courageous” in kicking out that Chinese diplomat who was involved in the Chong threats. Freeland insisted that it was beneath the dignity to say that nobody stands for threats against elected officials. Poilievre tried again, demanding to “bring home” security—because he has to get his new tag line in there—and demanded the diplomat be expelled. Marco Mendicino reminded him that the foreign minister summoned the ambassador last week and let it he know that interference will not be tolerated. Poilievre repeated the question in French, and got the same response from Mendicino.

Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc, and raised the so-called “century initiative” to increase immigration by the end of the century, but didn’t have regard for Quebec or the status of French, and demanded to know if this is government policy. Sean Fraser said that they can bring in immigration and protect French, and noted the increased Francophone immigration last year. DeBellefeuille repeated her concerns, and Fraser said that the government makes policy, not Dominic Barton, before repeating his same points.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and demanded to know if any other MPs were being threatened like Michael Chong was. Marco Mendicino said that 49 parliamentarians had been briefed by CSIS. Alexandre Boulerice worried that big corporations want to introduce GMO foods into schools, and that voluntary compliance was not enough. Francis Drouin said that the government has been working with the organic food sector.

Continue reading →

QP: Threats against an MP’s family taken seriously

Posted on by

Both the prime minister and his deputy were present today, somewhat unusually for a Monday, but we’ll take it, and as a result, most of the other leaders were absent. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he raised the Globe and Mail story that there was apparently a briefing prepared two years ago that started that Chinese officials were prepared to threaten Conservative MP Michael Chong’s family back in Hong Kong, and that they consider Canada an easy target for interference, though the story state that it wasn’t clear if the prime minister actually saw this briefing. With this in mind, he railed at the prime minister for allowing this to happen (though again, we don’t know if he saw this) and demanded to know why the implicated diplomat at the consulate in Calgary hasn’t been expelled. Justin Trudeau responded that these threats are unacceptable, and that when he read this story, he tasked officials to find out more about it, and that they would take action. Poilievre repeated in English with a bit more incredulity, and got much the same answer. Poilievre insisted that this couldn’t be the case because it happened two years ago, and demanded that the diplomat named in the piece be expelled immediately. Trudeau repeated again that they are following up and will take action. Poilievre went back again to the fact that this was two years ago, and then demanded to know the date when the foreign interference registry would be created. Trudeau said that they are consulting on the registry to do it the right way, after listing the measures they have taken. Poilievre called this “administrative mumbo-jumbo,” and then said that two of the so-called Chinese “police stations” are still allegedly in operation, and Trudeau noted that the RCMP are dealing with this.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed about Morris Rosenberg’s alleged involvement in the Chinese donation to the Trudeau Foundation, to which Trudeau recited that he hasn’t been involved with the Foundation for ten years and the government has taken measures to deal with interference. Therrien tried to spin a conspiracy theory even harder, and Trudeau told him to wait for David Johnston’s recommendation. 

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, he returned to that Globe story said that China considers Canada uniquely vulnerable to interference, and demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau repeated that they are taking this seriously and have measures that are in place. Heather McPherson repeated the demand in English, and Trudeau replied that there is a variety of opinions on the value of a public inquiry which is why David Johnston has been tasked with the job.

Continue reading →

QP: Stop saying New York

Posted on by

While the prime minster was off to conferences in New York, his deputy and most other leaders were similarly elsewhere. Pierre Poilievre, however, was present, and he led off in French, worrying about the cost of bureaucracy rising while the strike happening, but then accused the prime minister of going “on vacation” to New York with “fancy people,” and demanded the prime minister go back to work. Mona Fortier said that they were working hard at the negotiation table to get a fair and reasonable deal. Poilievre repeated the question and false assertion with added misleading bluster in English, and Fortier repeated her same response. Poilievre scoffed at Fortier’s efforts before demanding that the prime minister return to Ottawa to “do his job,” to which Randy Boissonnault called this “bluff and bluster” before praising the economic recovery and lifting people out of poverty. Poilievre scoffed once again at this, using his tired line that the government was telling people they’ve never had it so good, before pivoting to the Glendore bid for Teck Resources, and demanded the government block it. Jonathan Wilkinson said that there was no formal bid, and praised Teck as being headquartered in BC. Poilievre accused the government of shipping off jobs, before he demanded the government remove “gatekeepers” for projects like LNG and more hydro dams in Quebec, to which Wilkinson suggested that Poilievre should do his homework. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and raised testimony from senior Liberal party official Jeremy Broadhurst at committee on foreign funding in the election and not having time to replace Han Dong as a candidate, and accused the prime minister of misleading the House. Dominic LeBlanc suggested they wait for David Johnston to weigh in. Therrien insisted that the prime minster’s version couldn’t be true, but LeBlanc repeated his response.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the Bloc, and he accused the prime minister of constantly being missing in action—got warned by the Deputy Speaker about it—and he restated his question to accuse the PM of doing nothing for two years and demanded he resolve the strike. Fortier insisted that they were at the table looking for creative solutions but would not give into unaffordable demands. Leah Gazan gave a somewhat confused question about the prime minister giving money to women’s institutions internationally but abandoning them at home, while phrasing this with the strike as well, and then accused him of fake feminism. Marci Ien pointed out that they gave emergency funds for shelters during the pandemic, and that she is currently negotiating with provinces on the plan to end gender-based violence.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The optics ouroboros

Posted on by

So, that big CBC/Radio-Canada “scoop” that dominated the news yesterday about Justin Trudeau’s Christmas vacation. Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, I figured I would make a few remarks, because there were some very obvious things about it that were just being shrugged off, or actively ignored by some of my fellow journalists. To begin with, there is not a lot of substance to the story. It’s some typical cheap outrage—how dare the prime minister go on a luxury vacation on taxpayer dollars when there are people struggling in Canada—mixed with a specious connection that doesn’t mean anything in substance, but which looks bad when you make it sound sinister in order to fit it in with the current nonsense around the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. Fit those two in a particular frame that makes it sound salacious, and you have the makings of a story that dominates Question Period. Congratulations! You’ve set the agenda for the day, you can pat yourselves on the back to your heart’s content.

But the whole connection to the Foundation is a construction that implies a relationship that doesn’t exist. Yes, the Trudeau and Green families have been friends for 50 years, but the donation to the Foundation was a bequest after the death of one of the Green family members, and it was done two years ago, which was eight years after Trudeau stepped away from any involvement in the Foundation. Implying that there was something untoward about the donation and then vacationing with Trudeau—who has been family friends his entire life—is simply scandal-mongering. And this gets justified with the pearl-clutching about “optics!” But you’re the one creating the optics with the distorted framing of the situation, so you’re literally inventing a mess that doesn’t actually exist, so that you can report on the invented mess, and then report on the follow-up reactions from other political leaders who will tut about “optics.” Which you created in the first place with your framing, like some kind of ouroboros. Very convenient, that.

None of this is to say that Trudeau shouldn’t know better than to take these kinds of trips, because he knows full well that there is an intrinsic culture of petty and mean cheapness in Canadian media, and that his opponents will take full advantage of it. And lo, the story also quotes unnamed Liberal Sources™ who are once again shocked and dismayed that the prime minister once again did something with poor optics, because that’s who he is. And Trudeau then made it worse, as pointed out in my QP recap, by not answering about the gift of the accommodations, which just perpetuates the story rather than cutting it off at the start. “Yes, I accepted the gift of the accommodations. Yes, the Ethics Commissioner cleared it. Yes, I paid the equivalent commercial rate for the flight.” And it stops their ability to try and stretch this into a scandal. But Trudeau and the people who advise his communications are so tone-deaf that they keep doing this. They keep stepping on every rake in their path, every single gods damned time.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited troops in the eastern city of Avdiivka, which is facing an advance like Bakhmut, which itself is facing an increase in Russian shelling and air strikes. Ukraine has reached a deal with Poland about grain and other food products transiting that country, but the future of the Black Sea deal remains in doubt.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1648431809200553985

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: Han Dong exits caucus over anonymous allegations

Posted on by

Global News was at it again yesterday, and citing two anonymous sources, accused Liberal MP Han Dong of meeting with Chinese consular officials to counsel them against freeing the two Michaels, because doing so would somehow assist the Conservatives. Buried in the story is a throwaway line that CSIS has been tracking Dong’s calls with the consulate, which is a pretty big deal if true. But there’s a whole lot in this report that is troubling and suspect.

First of all, that there are two anonymous sources doesn’t really mean much because they could be using the same intelligence report. Intelligence is not evidence, and we’ve been over this time and again. Also, if Dong is an agent of the Chinese government, why would he be giving them advice on the matter rather than relaying Beijing’s lines in Canada? And how exactly would Beijing freeing the two Michaels help the Conservatives? (One Conservative strategist tweeted that having the two Michaels detained gave the Liberals cover to avoid making any decisions on things like Huawei, which still doesn’t make sense because the signals to industry were crystal clear at this point). The fact that he called the consulate without informing PMO or the minister of foreign affairs is the potentially problematic thing here, but even then, it makes it hard to use this as some kind of proof that he is an agent of their interests. But there is a pattern in this reporting about making salacious claims that are very hard to square with how things operate, particularly in the political sphere.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1638701542525087747

In the wake of these allegations, Dong has resigned from caucus and will sit as an independent (and the video of his speech is pretty devastating to watch), and it’s because he was not afforded due process, or any kind of fundamental justice or the ability to face his accusers. One would hope for a bit of reflection when it comes to the media ethics (or lack thereof) on display here, but sadly I doubt that’s going to happen.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited troops near the front lines at Bakhmut yesterday, while Russians rained more missiles down on the country, hitting an apartment building in Zaporizhzhia and a university dorm near Kyiv.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1638659920831606784

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1638495718640893953

Continue reading →

QP: A strange Poilievre-Trudeau show

Posted on by

In spite of it being a Wednesday, the benchers were not as full as they might have been but all of the leaders were present, for what that’s worth. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he accused the prime minister of failing on affordable housing over the eight seven years he has been in office. Justin Trudeau responded with some back-patting on the investments they have delivered to Canadians. Poilievre gave the average monthly housing rate in 2015 and demanded to know what it is today. Trudeau deflected by saying it varies across the country and launched into more back-patting. Poilievre accused Trudeau of not answering because he’s out of touch, and asked a similar comparison question. Trudeau again simply listed good news talking points about what they have delivered. Poilievre gave his “he wants you to believe Canadians have never had it so good” line and complained about how much more things cost now than in 2015. Trudeau again listed good news back-patting, but acknowledged that people are still struggling which is why they moved on like child care and dental care, which the Conservatives voted against. Poilievre noted, correctly, that Trudeau would not respond to the question on housing, and railed about how much the prices have increased. Trudeau noted that in the last election, the only Conservative plan was to give tax breaks to landlords.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised concerns about China, people crossing on Roxham Road, the Biden visit, and then demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau said calling a public inquiry shouldn’t be up to him which is why they got an unimpeachable advisor to recommend next steps. Blanchet listed sins of the Chinese regime, and took a swipe at David Johnston. Trudeau said for an important issue it should need more partisanship but less, which is why they brought in Johnston.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he railed about food price inflation and blamed grocery chain CEOs. Trudeau listed measures they have put forward to help those who need it. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same response.

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: Fighting to take credit for the Telford decision

Posted on by

After a morning full of rapid-fire decisions around what was happening with Katie Telford heading to committee and David Johnston’s mandate being released, the prime minister was present, as were all other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, took credit for pressuring Trudeau to change his mind in letting Telford testify, and took a swipe at Johnston before demanding a public inquiry starting today. Justin Trudeau responded that this should’t be a partisan issue, which is why the appointed Johnston and were waiting for his recommendations. Poilievre switched to English to again take credit, and took several more swipes at Johnston before demanding a public inquiry right now. Trudeau repeated that this shouldn’t be a partisan issue which was why they appointed Johnston, and that they would abide by his recommendations while they moved forward on other measures. Poilievre then switched topics to inflation, blamed rising food prices on carbon prices (it’s not the cause) and demanded the planned increase be cancelled. Trudeau said that when he sat down with farmers, they underlined their real problems and leadership on climate change, before he listed climate rebates levels. Poilievre went on his usual talking points about carbon prices, and Trudeau listed how much the climate rebates were going up in Poilievre’s riding. Poilievre spouted some disingenuous bullshit about the ongoing heating costs at 24 Sussex and Trudeau’s flights, while Trudeau shrugged off the personal attack while patting himself on the back for dental care and rental benefits.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he demanded a public inquiry be called right here and now. Trudeau insisted that appointing Johnston was the first step and that they would follow his recommendations. Blanchet was talked around the appointment of Johnston, before again demanding the inquiry. Trudeau read some praise for Johnston and insisted he rejected the attacks against Johnston.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he too took credit for forcing the government to make Katie Telford appear at committee, and then tried calling out Poilievre for blocking their attempt to move a motion on calling a public inquiry. Poilievre theatrically got up to answer, before the Speaker stood up to remind everyone what Question Period was for, which is holding the government to account, and Trudeau took the opportunity to denounce personal attacks and praise Johnston. Singh said that his proves neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals wanted a public inquiry before he switched to French to demand said inquiry right here and now. Trudeau insisted that they appointed Johnston to who could make recommendations about next steps, while NSICOP was doing their work.

Continue reading →

QP: Attempts to call out the NDP

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town, neither he nor his deputy was present, and neither were most of the other leaders, save Pierre Poilievre. After a moment of silence for the two police officers who were killed in Edmonton over the weekend, Poilievre led off in French, and said that he was prepared to let any Conservative staff to testify at committee and wanted the Liberals to do the same, particularly Katie Telford. Dominic LeBlanc said that they have taken steps to combat foreign interference, which Poilievre didn’t do when he was minister for democratic reform. Poilievre switched to English to accuse the Liberals of getting help from the communist regime in Beijing, and demanded Telford appear at committee, and called out the NDP for possibly helping the Liberals. LeBlanc said that repeated that they were always transparent, and that they had appeared before committee, and that they looked forward to Johnston’s recommendations. Poilievre said that the question was for the leader of the NDP saying he’s “part of the government”—which is more of his bad faith bullshit—made an un-clever quip about coalitions, and called the NDP out again. This time Pam Damoff recited the lines about taking interference seriously. Poilievre switched back to French to demand that there be national licensing for foreign-trained doctors and nurses—which is not federal jurisdiction. Jean-Yves Duclos said that as part of their new transfer agreement included language about credentials recognition. Poilievre returned to English to ask the same question again, and Duclos repeated that they were already working on this with provinces.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded a public inquiry into foreign interference. LeBlanc praised David Johnston’s credentials. Therrien took several swipes at Johnston before repeating his demand, and LeBlanc insisted that Johnston will work independently to determine next steps.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he too demanded that Johnston be directed to recommend a public inquiry—which undermines his role. LeBlanc returned to the recitation of talking points about what they have done to combat interference to date, and praise around Johnston. Leah Gazan railed about wages for child care and personal support workers—which is provincial jurisdiction—and Karina Gould said that recruitment and wages are part of their agreements with provinces.

Continue reading →