Tag Archives: Irwin Cotler

Roundup: Ignoring the abuse and the banana republic tactics

Posted on by

While on the one hand, it’s nice that legacy media is once again paying attention to the fact that there is an ongoing filibuster in the House of Commons that has largely paralyzed any work for six weeks now, but it would be great if they could actually make a gods damned effort at it. Pretty much every story, and the CBC’s turn was yesterday, just types of the quotes from Karina Gould and Andrew Scheer blaming one another for the filibuster. The current fascination to this story, however, is that the Supplementary Estimates votes are coming up, and every gods damned Hill reporter is dying to use the phrase “American-style government shutdown” to go along with it that they continue to gloss over the actual issues at hand.

There is a legitimate issue about the abuse of the parliamentary privilege to demand documents, because the power is only in relation to Parliament summoning those documents for their own purposes, not to turn them over to a third party. The Speaker and the clerks who advise him should never have allowed this to be considered a matter of privilege because the powers are being abused, but this is too much of a “process story” for them, so they don’t like that angle. There is also the even more pressing issue that these powers are being abused in a manner befitting a banana republic, where the powers of the state are being weaponized against those that the legislature doesn’t like, and that should be absolutely alarming to anyone paying attention.

This kind of abuse sets precedents, and if it’s allowed to happen now, it’ll be allowed to happen the next time someone wants to abuses these powers. The most that media outlets can muster up is “The RCMP says they don’t want these documents, so why are you so insistent?” but never “Why do you think it’s appropriate to behave like this is a banana republic where you are using the state to go after your perceived enemies?” We are in a particular moment in western democracies where autocrats are threatening to take over, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary has provided them a template to dismantle the guardrails of the state to delegitimize opposition and stay in power as long as possible. This is creeping into Canada, and legacy media in this country needs to be alive to the issue and call out these kinds of tactics and behaviours, rather than just both-sidesing it and using words like “polarized” or “divisive,” because that just plays into their hands.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine fired eight US-supplied longer-range missiles into Russia, two of them being intercepted, the rest hitting an ammunition supply location. President Zelenskyy addressed Ukraine’s parliament with a speech to mark the 1,000th day of the invasion.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1858871441032155385

Continue reading →

Roundup: Just which system is privileging the party?

Posted on by

Yesterday morning, the charlatans at Fair Vote Canada put out a press release that, straight-faced, said that Pierre Poilievre’s refusal to let his MPs advocate for Housing Accelerator funding is because the current single-member plurality voting system means that it’s always “party first,” which is hilarious because one of the defining features of proportional representation, which they advocate for, is that it privileges the parties over the MPs—so much so that certain PR systems don’t even allow for independents because of how the voting is structured.

Hilarious nonsense from the charlatans at Fair Vote Canada.PR privileges parties over MPs. This kind of behaviour would be worse under PR, not better, because the party has more control over individual MPs, not less.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-18T14:30:33.890Z

Their argument was more along the lines of “If you have more than one member in a riding, they don’t have to fight to be the sole voice” or something like that, which is only a feature in certain forms of PR (because there are many), but one that is wholly unworkable in Canada. Why? Because of our vast geographic distances. Some ridings are already the size of France, and allowances need to be made for some of these rural and remote ridings to have a smaller population than the median riding size because the distance is just too great otherwise. Each of the Territories is a good example of that. Expanding those ridings to be multi-member is a non-starter, and if you think that means that we can have two different systems—multi-member ridings in cities, single-member ridings in rural and remote areas—well, good luck convincing the Supreme Court of Canada that the inequities are constitutional.

Nevertheless, it will never not be hilarious for Fair Vote Canada to try and claim that the current system puts the party first when in actual fact, it privileges the rights of individual MPs to make their own choices, and allows them the freedom to buck their party lines if they have the spine to do so, because they are elected as an individual, not as a name on a party list. That matters a lot in terms of the rights of an MP, and for them to dismiss it is yet another sign that they’re a bunch of pretenders who don’t actually understand the system, or let alone enough to want to change it for some hand-waving that pretends it will be a panacea to problems when in fact it will just trade one set of problems for a new set that could very well be worse.

Especially when it consists of three-word slogans, or feel-good pabulum.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-18T14:18:06.943Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile hit a residential building in Sumy late Sunday, killing 11l and wounding over 89. On Monday, a missile hit a residential neighbourhood in Odesa, killing ten and wounding over forty-four. President Zelenskyy visited the frontline towns of Pokrovsk and Kupiansk. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has found evidence of Russia using tear gas last month in battles in the Dnipropetrovsk region. Here is a look at how the 1000 days of Russia’s invasion have changed the landscape of drone warfare, and what the invasion has cost Ukraine. Here is a look at what the US’ decision to allow Ukraine to use its weapons for strikes in Russian territory could mean.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1858432305305424302

Continue reading →

Roundup: Badmouthing the CBC for grift

Posted on by

Because this is occasionally a media criticism blog, I will mention that piece circulating from former CBC producer Tara Henley, who made a splash by quitting her job and starting a Substack blog (with paid subscriptions!) by badmouthing the CBC on her way out the door. While I was initially planning on not mentioning this, because the complaints she makes in the piece merely reflect poorly on her rather than the CBC, but it attracted some bizarre traction yesterday, from the likes of Jody Wilson-Raybould, and Erin O’Toole, who invited her to call him about plans to reform the CBC (as he promised to slash its budget).

But the piece itself (which I’m not going to link to, but I did read when the National Post reprinted it) was not the stunning indictment she claimed it to be, or the usual cadre of CBC-haters have been touting it as. When you get through all of her prose, it seems that her biggest complaint is that the CBC asked her, as a producer, to ensure there were more diverse guests on panels or interview segments. In Henley’s recounting, this was the booming klaxon of “The Wokes are coming!” and how this is some kind of Ivy League American brain worm/neural parasite import that has destroyed the CBC’s reporting over the past 18 months. Reality is most likely that what she considered “compromising” to the reporting was being asked not to use the same six sources on all of the panels or packages she was responsible for—because that is a very real problem with a lot of Canadian news outlets, where they have a Rolodex of usual suspects who have a media profile because they answer phone calls and make themselves available. There are a number of people, whose credentials are actually terrible and who have zero actual credibility or legitimacy, but because they are easy gets for reporters or producers, and they say provocative things, they are go-to sources time and again. That the vast majority of them are heterosexual white men is problem when a news outlet has had it pointed out to them repeatedly that they need more diverse sources. Henley appears to have balked at that.

There are a lot of problems with CBC’s reporting these days—much of it is either reductive both-sidesing, or its credulous stenography that doesn’t challenge what is being said, even if what is being said is wrong or problematic but has a sympathetic person saying it. There are a lot of questionable editorial choices being made in terms of who they are granting anonymity to and who they are not, particularly if it counters the narrative they are trying to set with the particular story (and there was a lot of this in their reporting on the allegations around House of Commons Clerk Charles Robert). There are problems with its mandate creep around their web presence, and yes, they have made very questionable decisions around some of their editorial pieces—and attempts to alter them once published. None of its problems have to do with the fact that Henley was asked to get more diverse voices. But Henley also knew that there is an audience for her recitation of the “anti-woke” platitudes, and she has a book she wants to sell, and figured that a paid Substack was more lucrative than the Mother Corp. And the fact that O’Toole and others are reaching out seems to indicate that she gambled on media illiteracy for this particular grift, in the hopes it might pay off.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The necessary context on vaccines

Posted on by

Vaccines was once again the talk of the day yesterday, and while there was a whole lot of caterwauling about demanding dates for vaccine arrivals and rollout specifics – something that is impossible to determine at this point considering that a) no vaccine has been approved in any country yet, and b) distribution is a provincial responsibility in Canada, and some of those provinces have not got their plans in place, such as Ontario, which just hired former Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, to help them plan their logistics. So yeah – it’s pretty hard for Justin Trudeau to give any solid timelines with those particular factors in mind.

With this in mind, Maclean’s has a must-read interview with Dr. Supriya Sharma, Health Canada’s chief medical advisor, about the vaccine approval process – because a lot of people have been talking out of their asses about said approval process. And when you’ve finished reading that, here is a deeper dive into the vaccine manufacturing availability in this country – the delays at the planned National Research Council facility because they decided to upgrade it to be a fully-compliant Good Manufacturing Practice-compliant facility that will be more versatile and able to produce more vaccines once it’s up and running (probably later next year). As well, the two early promising vaccines, from Pfizer and Moderna, are both mRNA technology vaccines, and there are no facilities in this country that can produce them – because not all vaccine production is the same, and different vaccines require different technologies to produce them, and nobody seems to understand this basic fact as they demand to know why we’re not producing it here, or why we haven’t acquired the rights to produce it, given that we have nowhere that can produce it even if we did.

In other pandemic news across the country, Doug Ford’s government got raked over the coals by the province’s Auditor General when she examined the province’s early pandemic response (and while I have some issues with the fact that she seems to be straying outside of her lane, it is nevertheless reassuring to see that she has called out a lot of Ford’s lies about his actions or lack thereof). Ford also started the process of telling Ontarians that Christmas isn’t going to be one with large family gatherings, so at least he’s not trying for the same kind of “social contract” nonsense that Quebec is pushing in spite of the fact that it’s likely to cause more spread of the virus. (Then again, people seem to want to obstinately get together anyway, if Thanksgiving is any indication, so it may not matter). Meanwhile in Alberta, experts are calling out the half-measures of Jason Kenney’s “mockdown,” which is only going to lead to more deaths, and longer and deeper shutdowns to get the virus under control.

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1331654772282298369

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1331657172137238529

Continue reading →

QP: Calmly upset versus storming out

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh still at D-Day commemorations, and Andrew Scheer at a family event in Regina, there were no major leaders present. Lisa Raitt led off, and she made a statement about D-Day, and offered the government a chance to say how they are commemorating the event. Bill Blair read a statement about service and sacrifice in response. Raitt then moved onto affordability and a plea for a government to “stop the taxes” without specifying which ones, to which Ralph Goodale stood up and reminded her of the Middle Class™ tax cuts and the Canada Child Benefit. Raitt moaned about the loss of boutique tax credits, and Goodale noted that the net of the government’s changes mean that most families are $2000 better off than before. Alain Rayes then cited the false Fraser Institute figure that taxes were raised by $800 per year, to which Jean-Yves Duclos recited in French the same measures that Goodale listed. Rayes tried again, with added theatrics, and Duclos cited that he was upset that the opposition was painting a false picture (in his calm demeanour). Ruth Ellen Brosseau was up next for the NDP, and she read a lament about the settlement that CRA reached with KPMG clients, to which Diane Lebouthillier stated that she had asked the CRA for more transparency around settlements going forward. Daniel Blaikie repeated the question in English with added outrage, and Lebouthillier repeated her response. Blaikie then moved onto a demand for additional aid for homeless veterans, and Blair read that their whole of government approach was getting results with homeless veterans. Brosseau then read the French version of the same question, and Duclos repeated the same response in French.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1136701597906558977

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier goes full tinfoil hat

Posted on by

Maxime Bernier appears to be going full tinfoil hat, with a Twitter thread about a supposed move to create some kind of UN parliament that will erase borders, and that Canada will be absorbed into, and I can’t even. I literally cannot.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1082829073922093057

As Carvin points out, this is a campaign that is orchestrated by Neo-Nazi sympathizers in Europe, and it’s the very same thing that Andrew Scheer was also have been touting this very same conspiracy theory as part of their attempt to push back against the UN global compact on migration. But then again, Scheer and company also gave succour to racists in order to try and paint Trudeau as some kind of bully, so it shouldn’t be a surprise, and they’re being wilfully blind and deaf to the white nationalists and xenophobes that are infiltrating the “yellow vest” protests that they like to promote, so there’s that.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1082252207234473985

Meanwhile, Bernier has tapped an anti-abortion, anti-trans “Christian pundit” as his party’s candidate in Burnaby South. And he’s being accused of running a campaign in that riding that is trying to depict Jagmeet Singh’s efforts as being one that is running only for the Indo-Canadian community, so, you know, the xenophobia tuba instead of the dogwhistle.

Continue reading →

Roundup: In danger of losing the plot

Posted on by

As Nigel Wright’s testimony wrapped up in the Duffy trial yesterday, I am going to confess that I have pretty much lost the plot at this point. I’m having a hard time seeing what the point of Donald Bayne’s cross-examination was, and how anything Wright did somehow excused Duffy either claiming those expenses, or accepting the cheque in the end. Trying to establish a broad conspiracy that may or may not include the prime minister’s current chief of staff is salacious political gossip, which may or may not go to the prime minister’s judgement in the people he surrounds himself with, but for the life of me, I can’t see how this is relevant to the trial. Yes, people lied and covered up what happened – politically relevant, perhaps, but legally? I’m still having a hard time following where Bayne is going in this. Meanwhile, Aaron Wherry offers some ideas about what may constitute political scandal in the whole ClusterDuff affair – seeing as some are starting to express doubts that there is one – while Andrew Coyne expresses faux sympathy for Harper, who has been deceived by those closest to him for so long.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, they’re not new powers

Posted on by

I’ll admit that there has been some terribly naïve punditry about Michael Chong’s Reform Act, and a lot of touchy-feely optimism about the fuzzy notion of “reform,” but perhaps one of the most gallingly maladroit to date has come from Campbell Clark, who wonders if MPs will actually get the will to confront party leaders with their “new powers.” Yes, that was the sound of me sighing deeply. “New powers.” For those of you keeping score, Chong’s bill did not give MPs any new powers. MPs had all the power in the world thanks to the way our system of government is designed – elected as an individual MP under the first-past-the-post system, they are empowered to give or withdraw confidence, whether it is to their party leaders, or to the government of the day in the Commons. That’s an incredible amount of power because confidence is how our system runs. The problem is that they stopped empowering themselves to exercise their power, deferring first to leaders who were no longer accountable to them after we broke our leadership selection system to make it “more democratic” by taking away that power from MPs and giving it to the party membership (a convention which Chong’s bill now cements into law), and later to leaders who gained the power to sign off on their nomination forms (a measure designed to prevent spoofing on ballots and hijacked nomination races). Sure, MPs still had power and they could exercise it – but it generally meant that enough of them had to defy the leader all at once to ensure that the spectre of group punishment didn’t draw further questions, and few MPs had the intestinal fortitude to risk their necks. They still, however, had that power. For Chong to claim that his bill grants “new” powers is bogus. As I’ve stated before, it actually takes power away because it did not actually do away with the nomination sign-off power in a meaningful way, and it raised the bar by which MPs can openly challenge a leader so it can no longer be a small group who has the gonads to go forward, but will now see the media demanding the 20 percent headcount. So will MPs have the will to use these “new” powers? Probably not, because the bar has been set higher. But in the meantime, we’ll have the pundit class praising Chong for his efforts and his “courage,” rewarding him for the campaign of bullying and attempting to disenfranchise an entire body of parliament along the way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Backfiring Conservative traps

Posted on by

Once again, Conservative operatives – and their friends at Sun News Network – have been too clever for their own good. While trying to get the Liberal candidate from Banff–Airdrie on tape saying something incriminating, a Conservative staffer recorded someone else talking smack about their childcare tax credits, and then tried to claim it was the candidate. This made the Twitter and Facebook rounds, Members’ Statements in the Commons, and even backbench suck-up questions about this “beer-and-popcorn” statement made by said candidate. Only, as it turned out, it was someone else who said it, and admitted to saying it, even after said candidate was mocked for denying that he said it, and how we have cabinet ministers with egg on their faces – though I have yet to see an apology for any of the insinuations or mocking made over social media. Given that Conservative – and Sun News Network – operatives have been trying this record-and-embarrass tactic a few times before (such as the nuanced explanation that retired General Leslie made on the situation in Gaza which they tried to spin completely to distortion), one has to wonder about the detrimental impact this will have on open political discourse in this country. Nobody wants candidates to turn into scripted robots, but these kinds of “gotcha” tactics are encouraging just that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An interim process

Posted on by

The Commons Board of Internal Economy met yesterday and adopted the House of Commons administration policy on harassment as an interim measure going forward, but noted that they didn’t have any mandate to deal with the harassment incidents in question, and that they should be referred to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee instead (as only MPs can discipline themselves. Parliament is self-governing after all). That leaves the two suspended MPs in limbo for the time being. The NDP meanwhile are saying that one of the incidents may have actually been sexual assault and not harassment, according to Craig Scott who was in one of the meetings with one of the complainants. But the NDP’s justice critic, Françoise Boivin, said that Trudeau should have delivered a verbal warning to the two MPs and left it at that, because they didn’t want to lay charges or file a formal complaint. So they could then turn around and claim that Trudeau didn’t do anything about the incidents once he was made aware of them? Especially if they waited until the election to make that particular reveal? Trudeau maintains that he had a duty to act, which he followed up on.

Continue reading →