Tag Archives: Jagmeet Singh

Roundup: Election 2025, Day One

Posted on by
1

Around noon on Sunday, prime minister Mark Carney visited Rideau Hall and advised the Governor General to dissolve Parliament for an election. She agreed, signed the proclamation, and the 45th general election was underway. The election will be held on April 28th, making it a short five-week campaign.

Mark Carney spoke afterward, and immediately promised a “Middle Class™ tax cut,” because clearly what’s needed in a time of economic uncertainty, and when we need to ramp up our defence spending and response to the economic predations of Trump, is a tax cut that will disproportionately benefit top income earners. Carney then headed to St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for his first campaign stop.

Pierre Poilievre got his message out early, and he took a couple of mild jabs at Trump, before doubling down on his usual nonsense about “open border” creating crime (which is completely false), and insisted that his campaign offers hope and change, and insisted that they will “restore” the promise of the country. He then headed off to Toronto for a “Canada First™” rally.

Jagmeet Singh accused the Liberals of letting the country “rot from the inside,” and that he’s about people and not billionaires. (All tens of them in Canada?) From his initial Ottawa launch, he then headed to Montreal for his first stop.

And the Green co-leaders Elizabeth May and Jonathan Pedneault called for unity during the election in order to stand up to Trump and the global oligarchs that are seeking to destroy democracy.

In the background of all of this was an interview that Danielle Smith gave to Breitbart News in the US, where she claims that she told members of the Trump administration to hold off on tariffs in order to help get Poilievre elected, because he would be more in sync with them. This is pretty shocking, if she is indeed telling the truth and not just giving some kind of boast to make herself look good for the Breitbart crowd. Poilievre insists that Trump wants Carney to win because he’ll be a pushover, and I mean, come on. Carney gave his usual points about needing respect from Trump before they’ll talk. Nevertheless, the fact that we have premiers freelancing foreign policy like this is a Very Bad Thing and they need to be reined in.

 

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched 147 drones at several cities across Ukraine overnight Sunday, and killed at least seven. On Saturday, Russian shelling killed three in Pokrovsk. The blaze at Russia’s Krasnodar oil depot has been burning for over five days now.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1903740311689363767

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clutched pearls over a paper move

Posted on by

Because everything is stupid, the Conservatives spent the whole day screaming, both at a media availability and over social media, that Mark Carney “lied” about his involvement with Brookfield Asset Management relocating their headquarters to New York, and tried to tie this to Trump inviting companies to relocate to the US. This is something that the Conservatives have been howling about for months, but they claim that there is “proof” now that Carney “lied” because his timeline of events doesn’t match up. And maybe he was wrong, but this has pretty much been a non-story from the start, because this was largely a paper move to their pre-existing New York office in order to get access to the New York Stock Exchange, while their parent company remains headquartered in Toronto. It’s not an actual scandal, but the Conservatives have been ginning up faux-outrage over Carney for two years now, and this is just the latest example.

But I can’t get over the fact that every single Conservative has been lining up to declare that Carney “lied,” when pretty much every single member of that party has been lying about everything under the sun for years now, because they know they can get away with it. The fact that someone like Andrew Scheer isn’t bursting into flames over the abused irony of him of all people trying to call Carney a liar is just too much. It’s not just projection—it’s a complete lack of self-awareness that they lie so much about everything (especially things they don’t actually need to lie about!) that they don’t even realise that they’re doing it anymore, and then they start running for their fainting couches over this absolute non-issue. Unbelievable.

The Conservatives have also taken to calling Carney “sneaky,” and claiming that he’s hiding the truth about his assets, and whether this business activities were benefitting from his advising the government. But as this fact-check explains, he is under no obligation to comply with conflict-of-interest laws because he is not yet a public office holder, but if he does win the contest and becomes prime minister, lo, he will be subject to the disclosures. Again, this is just more faux outraged being ginned up, and making the Conservatives look like they are desperate.

Ukraine Dispatch

The overnight attack on the Kyiv region overnight Tuesday killed two and damaged energy facilities. Russia claims that it retook two settlements in the Kursk region, as more North Korean troops arrive. Ukraine’s drones have hit Russia’s Tuapse oil refinery. Ukraine’s prime minister says a preliminary agreement has been reached with the Americans on an economic deal that includes access to rare earth minerals.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Gould takes the French debate

Posted on by

It was the French debate for the Liberal leadership last night, and it was a fairly smoothly run affair, with an aggressive moderator, and very few instances of candidates talking over one another. While you can read a recap here, and the Canadian Press liveblog, I watched it in French to get a sense of how well the candidates were actually performing. The biggest blunder of the evening was Mark Carney slipping up and saying that he agrees with Hamas, which the Conservatives pounced on in bad faith, and Freeland quickly caught his error and corrected him, but it certainly coloured the online reaction.

Meanwhile, my thoughts:

  • Karina Gould was the best performer of the night. Her French was the strongest, and she was articulate in her positions, she had something of substance to say in most of the responses, and in her closing remarks, made the very salient point that they won’t win by being Conservative Lite™.
  • Chrystia Freeland’s French was very deliberate and didactic in tone, but that’s not much different from her speaking style in English. She had a bit of a mixed bag in terms of policy discussions, and could identify things the government has done or is doing, because she was there for the discussions and implementation.
  • Mark Carney had the shakiest French, but as he has throughout his entire leadership campaign, he mostly stuck to platitudes and clichés, and gave very few answers or specifics, even when pressed to do so by the moderator. It was not a shining moment for him.
  • Frank Baylis’s French was fine, being as he’s from Montreal, but he pretty much made himself irrelevant the whole evening, by constantly reminding everyone that he’s a businessman, as though that gave him any special abilities or insights, particularly when dealing with Trump, and he had some absolutely bizarre ideas associated with fiscal discipline.

The English debate is tonight, so we’ll see how different the candidates are with the language they are more comfortable in.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s overnight air attacks injured one woman in the outskirts of Kyiv, and Poland scrambled their aircraft because the attacks were targeting western Ukraine, close to their borders. G7 foreign ministers, led by Canada, are still working on a joint statement about the anniversary of the war, because the American position has now shifted into Russia’s favour. At the United Nations, the US voted against Ukraine’s resolution to condemn Russia for their invasion, and joined the ranks of Russia, Belarus, and North Korea.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Foreign interference commission final report released

Posted on by

Justice Marie-Josée Hogue released the final report of the Foreign Interference public inquiry yesterday, and there really weren’t too many surprises involved. While there have been attempts at foreign interference, it hasn’t affected the outcomes of any elections, and that our institutions have held up rather well—though not perfectly. Government has been too slow to respond in many cases, and we don’t have enough transparency around national security issues, nor is there a culture of national security in government to make these issues a priority. There has been progress, but we’re not there yet. In many respects, this report proves that David Johnston’s report was right, and we’ve spent a year-and-a-half duplicating efforts because opposition party leaders decided it was more fun to smear Johnston than take him seriously.

One of the most significant aspects was a repudiation of the NSICOP report that claimed there were parliamentarians that were somehow compromised, and Hogue went through how the intelligence didn’t actually say that, and how NSICOP’s characterisation torqued what had been alleged—and frankly, much of the news reporting torqued further because they didn’t bother to read the context in that report. Hogue also noted that much of the reporting that drove this moral panic and the subsequent inquiry was wrong, though she didn’t necessarily blame the journalists because they only had so much to go on. (Nevertheless, this should be a warning about just how absolutely credulous some of those reporters have been on this file since the beginning, and why they failed to adequately question the motives of those doing the leaking).

A couple of other notables—Hogue noted that transnational repression is probably a bigger threat, but her mandate didn’t give her the latitude to explore that, so that remains a big flag for this or the next government to address. Even more to the point, she flagged disinformation as the most existential threat to our democracy, and called for a dedicated federal watchdog to monitor and intercept foreign meddling that uses social media platforms and “AI” tools like deep-fakes. She also recommended developing digital and media literacy among Canadians, which feels a bit like a “perfect world” wish, or at least something that we may be able to impart onto the next generation but I worry that the current one may be lost in that regard.

For more, here’s a thread from Stephanie Carvin who went through the report:

In the wake of this, Pierre Poilievre has let it be known that he’s not going to take that CSIS threat reduction briefing after all, because he can’t talk about what it says, so he is once again relying on the false notion that this, or any other security clearance, is somehow going to “gag” him. It won’t, but it would mean he has to be responsible with his commentary, which he does not want to do. He wants to be bombastic, and to lie at every opportunity, and so he will keep refusing a clearance or briefings, because he only cares about “owning the Libs,” not national security or the good of the country.

Ukraine Dispatch

Overnight Russian air attacks wounded eight and damaged residential buildings around Ukraine on Monday night. Ukrainian drones are targeting power and oil facilities in the west and northwestern regions of Russia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Day one depravity

Posted on by

Yesterday was inauguration day in the US, and it was pretty much as horrible as you can imagine, with the pardoning of insurrectionists, and the executive order that made a full-on assault on the rights of trans people (which is always the first target of authoritarian regimes, followed by the rest of the queer communities). Oh, and Elon Musk threw a Nazi salute. So yeah, it was pretty much everything you thought it would be.

What didn’t happen on day one was the tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Instead, word came out early in the morning that Trump wouldn’t sign them on day one, and he would instead order an investigation into trade imbalances, and so on. So that was a reprieve, or a stay of execution, right? Danielle Smith certainly thought so, and started taking credit for it. Her followers and media apologists quickly amplified that self-praise. And then, after a few hours, Trump said that yes, the tariffs would be coming as of February 1st. Oops.

That was day one, and we can only imagine what worse predations are to come. There will be a number of demands for retaliation, but the government is keeping their powder dry for the moment, as is probably best. This may yet come to nothing, because Trump believes he’s an ace negotiator and these are his usual tactics to extract some kind of “win” from us, because that’s who he is. It may yet come to naught, but it could still be a kneecapping of our economy. It’s still too early to say, but nobody should be doing victory laps right now—especially those who tried to obey in advance.

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3lg7y2jnygs2t

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine’s state investigation bureau has detained two generals and a colonel accused of negligence in failing to adequately defend the Kharkiv region last year.

Continue reading →

Roundup post: Expediting a dubious legal challenge

Posted on by

On Saturday, the Federal Court ruled that they would hear an expedited case on the legal challenge of the granting of prorogation, citing the “critical” nature of the Trump tariff threats, and that this somehow requires the legislative branch of Parliament to be operating when in fact it does not.

Part of the problem is that the UK Supreme Court did overturn a prorogation when Boris Johnson requested it in the lead-up to Brexit, which led a bunch of bad actors in this country to decide they could use that precedent to challenge its use here, never mind that prorogations function slightly different in the UK (there, it tends to be an annual affair, separating shorter legislative sessions, which is not how it has operated here in many decades). There should be no reason why that precedent should apply in Canada at all, let alone in this particular circumstance, but we are dealing with people grasping at legal straws because they want to be able to run to the courts when they lose at politics, which is a Very Bad Thing for democracy and our entire constitutional order.

More to the point, nothing was happening in Parliament before the prorogation because of the filibuster, and everyone was threatening non-confidence when it did resume in January, so an election wouldn’t provide Parliament any ability to “meaningfully debate” the Trump tariffs then either. These arguments are specious, and I trust the judge will throw them out of court once the hearings happen, but unfortunately, these are not normal times, and we could be in for a very bad result if government lawyers can’t argue their case well enough.

Ukraine Dispatch

An overnight missile and drone strike killed six, including three in Kyiv. Russia claims to have captured two more settlements between Pokrovsk and Kurakhove. Ukrainian forces claim a pair of attacks on oil depots in Russia’s Kaluga and Tula regions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh’s suck-up to Sanders

Posted on by

While the Liberals are busy with their leadership race, Jagmeet Singh spent part of his Friday doing the biggest virtue-signal of all in NDP terms—having a meeting with US senator Bernie Sanders. It’s no secret to anyone who’s paid attention that the NDP have essentially turned themselves into a branch plant of the “justice” Democrats, and that a number of their policy proposals in recent elections have been irrelevant in the Canadian context, but because they didn’t bother to actually check if this is a Canadian issue, or they merely divided by ten and decided that’s enough to make it Canadian, when it’s irrelevant to our country.

This comes across to me as “Notice me, Senpai!” pleading from Singh, and looking for an obliging pat on the head from the figure that his party is currently drawing their inspiration from, no matter if Sanders’ prescriptions have little relevance for Canada. Even more hilarious is the part where Singh is seeking praise for pharmacare and dental care when neither programme is fully implemented, nor are they likely to be because he’s decided to start talking tough about bringing down the Liberal government, which will merely sign the death warrant for these plans that he is trying to take credit for.

Honestly, if it’s possible to die of cringe, Singh is in serious danger of doing so.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine downed 33 out of 50 Russian drones overnight Thursday, with damage reported in five different regions. A Russian missile killed at least four people and damaged an educational facility in Kryvyi Rih. Russia claims it retook 63.2 of captured territory in Kursk region. A Ukrainian drone set an oil depot ablaze in Russia’s Kaluga region, south of Moscow.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Putting a stake in pharmacare

Posted on by

In the wake of his announced departure, it sounds like Justin Trudeau made calls to Jagmeet Singh and Yves-François Blanchet to try and secure votes on the Supplementary Estimates in order to extend the life of this parliament a little further, and both of them told him no. What is particularly curious here however is that Trudeau pointed out to Singh that more time would give them time to extend the dental care programme beyond seniors and children, and give them time enough to get the nascent pharmacare up and running (as so far, there is only cooperation from one or two provinces). Per the CBC, “An NDP source with knowledge of the conversation said the government already has all the powers it needs.”

*sighs, pinches bridge of nose*

It’s not a question of not having power, it’s a question of time. Implementation takes time to do properly, and with dental care, they went slowly on the groups eligible to ensure that everything was going to work before they rolled it out to the majority of the population, and they haven’t felt that they worked out all of the kinks yet. They want time enough to so. And the nascent pharmacare plan needs cooperation with the provinces, which takes time to negotiate, but also requires some assurance for those provinces that if the government does fall, that they have some guarantees for funding for a set period of time so that they’re not left holding the bag. Singh and the NDP should know this, but, well, they don’t actually know how government works because they’ve never formed it. They have now guaranteed that the premiers won’t bother to sign a deal because Poilievre will just kill the programme as soon as he’s in power, so why set up expectations?

What is most ironic in this is that by refusing to give the government more time so that he can look tough, Singh has doomed the very programmes that he was so insistent that the government set up as part of their agreement with the Liberals (which I will remind you, the Liberals fulfilled in good faith only for Singh to tear up the agreement for the sake of optics). And because the NDP insisted that dental care be a fully federal insurance programme rather than a cost-shared programme with provinces, they have guaranteed that it will be an easy kill for Poilievre, because they’re actually incapable of long-term or strategic thinking. I am reminded of how Jack Layton extracted all kinds of concessions from Paul Martin’s budget, but then brought him down before the budget implementation bill could be passed, and they spent years patting themselves on the back for a hollow victory that didn’t achieve anything they said they did. It’s looking an awful lot like there’s going to be a repeat of that particular folly.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia attacked Ukraine with 72 drones overnight, and five struck buildings in Chernihiv in the north, another fell on a building in Kyiv.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1877669181153304715

Continue reading →

Roundup: More threats about annexation

Posted on by

It was yet another day that we have to become used to once again, where Donald Trump said something that was all at once boneheaded, insulting, and vaguely disturbing, as he talked about using economic forces to annex Canada (while also threatening Denmark/Greenland and Panama), and of course, that made every two-bit pundit and wannabe in this country light their hair on fire, yet again, because of course they did. And our political leaders were forced to respond, and I’m not sure what’s worse—Trump’s chaotic insanity, or the fact that our political leaders have to come up with something in response.

While threats to our sovereignty are one thing, it also goes to show that all of the obsequious scrambling to strengthen border measures—to say nothing of the boot-licking and obeying in advance of certain premiers—are pretty much for naught because Trump is not about to be mollified by any of this. He doesn’t have any tangible demands, because he wants a win, and today, he’s fixated on annexation as that win, but in a week’s time, he’ll likely move onto something else, because he is likely to lose interest, especially if something is difficult (and you’d better believe that annexation is incredibly difficult, particularly because it involves some near-impossible constitutional wrangling). It’s one of the reasons why we should probably be keeping our powder dry rather than freaking the fuck out every time he says something stupid and insane, but certainly be preparing retaliatory measures, and that’s going to likely mean the big guns like broad-based retaliatory counter-tariffs rather than selective ones like the last time, or export taxes on things like energy products, even if Scott Moe starts to throw a tantrum about it.

Amidst this, there was no end to people who should know better throwing a tantrum that the prorogation should be “rescinded” (no, it doesn’t work like that) and that Parliament needs to be recalled over these threats. Which would do what, exactly? The government continues to function, and no, it’s not a “caretaker” government. What would MPs actually do about this situation? There is no legislation that requires passage to counter any of this. The most that we would get are a unanimous consent motion condemning Trump’s words (maybe, if certain parties don’t balk and say we shouldn’t antagonise Trump), or a take-note debate where MPs spend six hours reading prepared speeches into the record. Oooooh! That’ll show Trump!

Ukraine Dispatch

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau’s slow exit

Posted on by

And Monday morning, the inevitable happened. Prime minister Justin Trudeau summoned the media outside of Rideau Cottage, and first announced that he had been granted a prorogation until March 24th, and then stated that he had told his children and the president of the Liberal Party that he intends to resign as leader and prime minister once a successor has been chosen in a robust national competition. While he was tinged with sadness, there were still some elements that rankled—he blamed the decision on “internal divisions” in the party rather than a self-aware recognition that he was dragging them down, and that his time had come (or had come months ago and he refused to listen). When asked about Chrystia Freeland, he implied that her version of events was not what happened and that he offered her a chance to work on the most important file but she turned him down (and no, a portfolio with no department, staff, or levers of power, is not a promotion). When asked about his biggest regret, he said that it was that he couldn’t implement ranked ballots (which he never actually tried to do during the whole bloody Electoral Reform Committee process).

Response from other parties was quick. Jagmeet Singh was first out the door with a statement devoid of class or graciousness, and Pierre Poilievre soon followed on with the same. In a video message shortly thereafter, Singh said that he plans to vote non-confidence no matter who the leader is, but well, his mind changes with the cycles of the moon and the phases of the tide. Poilievre also delivered an absolutely psychotic video message about how the “dark days” are nearly over, and near sweet Rhea, mother of Zeus, that is absolutely divorced from reality.

The party now has to come to decisions about the length of the contest, the rules, and how they plan to deal with the potential for any foreign interference that comes with such an open system that doesn’t even have paid memberships (which, I will reiterate, was always a stupid move, and the Alberta Liberal Party, which instigated this kind of scheme, is now pretty much extinct). Those rules will help determine the shape of the race, and who may throw their hat into the ring, to take what could very well be a poisoned chalice.

Here is a high-level look over Trudeau’s political career. The Star has assembled a list of possible candidates for the job, but that’s going to start changing rapidly. There are concerns about what this will do with the response to Trump tariffs.

In reaction, Emmett Macfarlane sees no issues with the prorogation call (which is not unexpected). Susan Delacourt looks back over Trudeau’s political career and the air of inscrutability he has cultivated around himself. Althia Raj wonders about where the party goes next after Trudeau, and if they have enough runway to make a difference. Paul Wells lays out the four main challenges that Trudeau’s announcement has unleashed.

In case you missed it:

My weekend column on Poilievre and the lessons he seems to be eager to take from the “tech broligarchy” that is flexing its muscles around Trump.

My column on how Poilievre’s plan for a “massive crackdown on crime” is predicated on repealing laws that don’t do what he claims.

My weekend column on why there’s no such thing as an “interim” prime minister, and how the Liberals need to consider their next steps in replacing Trudeau.

My Loonie Politics Quick Take points out that the Conservatives’ plan to use the Public Accounts committee to call for non-confidence is a non-starter.

My year-end column on the four main political lessons that we’ve learned (or in some cases, refused to learn) over 2024.

My weekend column on the considerations around prorogation, now vs 2008, and what’s changed and what hasn’t since them.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian forces claim to have taken the stronghold of Kurakhove, but Ukraine says they are still fighting. The fighting appears to have intensified in the Kursk region of Russia with a possible new Ukrainian offensive, and they are saying that Russia and North Korea has suffered 38,000 casualties, with nearly 15,000 of those dead.

Continue reading →