Tag Archives: Jagmeet Singh

Roundup: Scheer throws stones at Fergus from his glass house

Posted on by

The saga around Speaker Fergus’ fate is starting to become farcical, as Andrew Scheer brought up more “proof” that Fergus has been engaged in partisan activities, because he went to a party event…for a Quebec Liberal MNA, which, again, is not the same party or the same league. (Honestly, there are a bunch of former Quebec Liberal MNAs currently sitting in the Conservative caucus, much like there are a bunch of former BC Liberal MLAs in the Conservative caucus.). Scheer’s urge to keep finding this “proof” and tattling is becoming ridiculous.

But then, a twist—CBC found out that Andrew Scheer was fined by the House of Commons for filming a partisan video in support of a by-election nomination candidate in his Hill office, which isn’t allowed, and then had that successful candidate pay for the fine out of his campaign expenses, which may run afoul of Elections Canada rules (but those returns haven’t been audited yet because the by-election is too recent). The NDP have also been finding instances of where Scheer attended party fundraisers when he was the Speaker, but Pierre Poilievre’s spokesperson insists this was totally different, while also falsely saying that the provincial party event was a “fellow Liberal’s fundraiser.” But the fact that Scheer is not only a liar but a hypocrite (to say nothing of being a braying doofus) is no surprise to absolutely anyone.

And because the stupid twists don’t stop, we also learned that Fergus had a conversation with former MP Glen Pearson, who went on to write an op-ed in Fergus’ defence shortly after he took the role (before the drama happened) about the decorum in the Chamber. I’m starting to get very tired of this particular back-and-forth, and hope this doesn’t carry into the New Year.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians launched 42 drones and six missiles at southern Ukraine overnight Wednesday, which killed one person. Ukraine and Molodova got the green-light to start fast-tracking their bid to join the European Union, but Hungary remains an obstacle as they held up new aid funding for Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1735378672029167827

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, Kovrig wasn’t a spy

Posted on by

The Globe and Mail kicked off the weekend with an “explosive” report that says that Michael Spavor is trying to sue Michael Kovrig for getting him imprisoned in China because Kovrig was passing along information as part of the Global Security Reporting Program, which *gasp!* gets information that is sometimes of interest to CSIS! The problem, of course, is that this is largely nonsense. Kovrig, who was on leave from Global Affairs at the time, was not a spy. The GSRP is not espionage. It’s diplomats talking to persons of interest out in the open, and their diplomatic reports get read by a lot of people, including CSIS, because that’s what CSIS does—they read reports, and fit them into bigger pictures.

While there is some debate about the GSPR and what role it contributes to intelligence, I would have to once again remind people that we really should take much of the reporting from the Globe with a grain of salt, and a dose of perspective sauce, because they torque absolutely every story that has anything to do with China, because it’s what they do, and they do it without any particular self-reflection. No matter how many times that Robert Fife and Steve Chase were confronted with the facts that in their reporting on intelligence leaks about foreign interference, that they were being fed very selective pieces of information, they absolutely refused to consider the possibility that they were likely being played by their source, who wanted certain narratives put out there for their own reasons. Fife and Chase have been absolutely allergic to any of that self-examination. And it should colour how we read any of their other reporting (which is how media literacy works). So yeah, they took some innuendo and a few facts and spun a big story that got the overall picture wrong, yet again. Let’s keep some perspective.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1725916218987548927

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1725916989477048663

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian drones targeted Kyiv, as well as the capitals of the Cherkasy and Poltava regions over the weekend, while intense fighting continued near Avdiivka, as well as Kupiansk in the Kharkiv region. Ukrainian forces say they are pushing back Russians now that they are on the east bank of the Dnipro river. Here is the tale of an orphaned Ukrainian teenager taken to Russia last year, who has now been reunited with family back home.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The “red line” of pharmacare

Posted on by

It was the big NDP biennial policy convention this weekend, and amongst litany of policy resolutions that the party was in violent agreement with (waaaaaaay more in lockstep with one another than either the Liberals or Conservatives tend to be at their own policy conventions), the one that everyone kept talking about was the emergency resolution that delegates unanimously adopted was to make pharmacare a red line with their deal with the Liberals. The problem, of course, is that the real problem for the government is that they need nine more premiers to sign onto pharmacare if they want it to actually happen, and the NDP seem oblivious to this fact, and think that they can create an opt-in system which a) won’t work without provincial buy-in from the start, and b) wouldn’t achieve the necessary savings unless every province has actually signed on so that you get the proper economy of scale happening. (All of this is laid out in the column I wrote a week ago). So while it’s all well and good to posture over this “red line” and threaten to go to an election over it, I still have yet to see Jagmeet Singh publicly harangue David Eby about signing onto the programme, like he refused to do with John Horgan before Eby, particularly when Horgan was being obstructionist on healthcare reforms.

Meanwhile, Singh used his speech at the convention to acknowledge the restlessness of the base and to talk about how difficult it is to work with the Liberals, which is kind of funny because the “difficulty” is mostly just pushing on an open door and complaining that things aren’t happening fast enough, because the NDP seem to have little idea about process, or the finite capacity that exists in government to get everything they want done in an unrealistic timeline, like with dental care. They’ve done absolutely none of the heavy lifting, so I find it somewhat risible that they’re complaining about how hard it is.

In her analysis of said convention, Althia Raj hears five reasons from NDP grassroots members as to why they’re sticking with Singh in spite of his disappointing electoral results. Raj also notes the fairly low score that Singh got in the leadership review votes, and has her thoughts on his speech to the membership.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian drone attacks killed six people in attacks on Kherson and the surrounding region, as Russians forces have started pushing forward at the front lines once again. Part of that drive continues to be at Avdiivka, where they pounded it for a fifth straight day, killing two more civilians.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unearned victory lap amidst the Court’s repudiation

Posted on by

Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal Impact Assessment Act is partly unconstitutional, and that the federal government was over-broad in the criteria they used to trigger a federal environmental assessment. Ironically, while Jason Kenney and the federal Conservatives liked to call the legislation the “No More Pipelines Bill,” the section that governs pipelines was found to be entirely constitutional, so it was fairly laughable as they started crowing over social media about their supposed victory. It might have helped if they had actually read it and not just the headlines.

The more important part of the decision, however, was the fact that while it did find part of the federal legislation ultra vires Parliament, it also explicitly repudiated the arguments that the Alberta government and the Alberta Court of Appeal were making, in claiming that the province somehow has interjurisdictional immunity for so-called “provincial” projects. That’s not true, and the Court said so, which means that when Danielle Smith and Pierre Poilievre were claiming that the Supreme Court “affirmed” that provinces have the exclusive right to develop their own resources, that’s wrong. It’s not what the Court said, and in fact they said the opposite of that. Alberta’s “victory” was a pretty hollow one because the Court affirmed the federal role in environmental assessments and that they can assess whatever they want once their ability to make said assessment is triggered—the only real issue was the criteria for the trigger, which needs to be narrowed. The federal government has pledged to do just that, and because this was a reference opinion by the Court and not a decision on legislation, it has not been struck down. In fact, because there don’t seem to be any projects under assessment that would be affected by the decision, it seems to show that the law is carrying on just fine, and that the amendment will be a fairly surgical tweak (and yes, I spoke to several legal experts to that effect yesterday).

Meanwhile, the reporting on the decision largely ignored this repudiation of the provincial argument. The Canadian Press, the National Post, and the Star all missed that point entirely in their reporting. Only the CBC caught it—in the main story it was given a brief mention amidst the egregious both-sidesing, but Jason Markusoff’s more nuanced analysis piece did get a little more into it, but again, it did not really point out that Kenney’s crowing over social media was for naught, and that Smith’s victory lap was not really deserved. (Smith later went on Power & Politics and lied about what projects that the Act supposedly impacted, such as the Teck Frontier mine—that project was assessed under the Harper-era regime, and was shelved because the price of oil couldn’t justify the project’s viability). It would be nice if we had more journalists actually talking to more experts than just one while they both-sides the ministers and Smith, because they would find that they missed a pretty significant part of the decision. (My own story that does precisely this analysis was delayed in publication, so it should be up on Monday).

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces pounded Avdiivka in the Donbas region for a fourth day in a row as they try to make gains in that area. Ukrainian authorities say that Russians have destroyed 300,000 tons of grain since they started attacking Ukrainian port cities in July (because they’re trying to weaponise hunger).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A rate hold and inappropriate reactions

Posted on by

The big news of the day was that the Bank of Canada opted to maintain their headline rate at five percent, but warned that future rate hikes are still possible, depending on how the data look with future decision dates. This was a decision based entirely on the data—and the very mild contraction in the second quarter are certainly pointing to the fact that the economy is finally starting to slow so that maybe it can start to take the air out of excess demand. Nevertheless, I’m still expecting those three premiers who sent open letters to do a victory lap as though they had any say in the matter.

The bigger problem was Chrystia Freeland putting out an official statement saying that she was pleased with the decision, and while she respects the Bank’s independence, the government will use all of its tools to help bring inflation down (though one is a bit more dubious about that part). Why Freeland’s statement is a bigger problem is because she has a much bigger stick to wield with the Bank, and she has the tools that could force the governor to resign, which we haven’t seen since the Coyne Affair in the fifties, which led to the Bank shoring up its institutional independence. Freeland should know better, but I suspect that with all of the attention being paid to those premiers and their boneheaded open letters that she felt she needed to say something, and to offer some kind of reassurance to the public about the slowly improving state—because this government loves nothing more than reassuring pabulum. To compound that, every gods damned talking head over the past few days has been saying how great it was that the premiers were grandstanding like they way they are, because messaging politics just corrodes and rots our system.

Meanwhile, Jagmeet Singh decided he wasn’t getting enough attention, so he decided to embarrass himself and insist that the federal government can order the Bank to stop raising rates, because he thinks that interfering with an independent institution and forcing the resignation of the governor (which would be the outcome of such a move) are somehow winners for the economy. Singh would also apparently rather see inflation continuing to rip through our economy rather than the short-term pain in wresting it back down, because that is the counterfactual here. His “greedflation” insistence doesn’t bear out in the data, and a windfall tax won’t solve inflation. His suggestion here is beyond amateur hour, and shows that he remains unprepared for prime time.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians attacked a market in the eastern city of Kostiantynika yesterday, killing at least 17 people. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has recorded 26,717 civilian casualties in Ukraine so far, including 9,511 deaths. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Kyiv, and praised the progress in the counteroffensive to date.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1699405764983415077

Continue reading →

Roundup: A resignation that won’t solve the problem

Posted on by

A couple of days after everyone declared ministerial responsibility dead for Ontario housing minister Steve Clark’s refusal to resign over the Integrity Commissioner’s report and his own gross negligence and dereliction of his duties, Clark did resign, at 9 AM on Labour Day, pointing to an attempt to take the sting out of the messaging. Ford later announced changes to his Cabinet which would put Paul Calandra in the housing file, in addition to Calandra’s existing role as House Leader.

Ford, however, insists that the tainted process for those Greenbelt lands will carry on, and while he is promising a “review” of the process, he won’t do the one thing the Auditor General and Integrity Commissioner have said, which was to cancel this process and start over. In fact, yesterday morning, Ford left open the possibility of reviewing all Greenbelt land and opening it up for development, which is unnecessary for housing needs—he hasn’t even implemented the recommendations of his government’s own housing task force, which explicitly stated they don’t need to develop those lands because there are fifty other things they should be doing instead.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1699015630316360078

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1699103206893056279

And that hasn’t been all. As this sordid affair continues to drip out, the identity “Mr. X” from the reports has been identified as a former mayor and developer who Ford has ties with, and his operation is practically stuffed with Batman villains. The jokes write themselves, but just make the corruption all the more hard to take.

My latest:

  • My weekend column looks at how ministerial responsibility changed in the age of message discipline, but how Doug Ford and Steve Clark can’t do the bare minimum.
  • At National Magazine, I look at the number of “secret trials” that we have seen come to light recently, and what could be behind them.
  • Also at National Magazine, I get some reaction to the Competition Tribunal’s cost award to the Bureau and the signals that they are sending by it.
  • My column points out just how inappropriate it is for premiers to write open letters to Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem, and how it corrodes our system.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian strikes damaged more grain warehouses at the Danube port of Izmail. Ukrainian forces say that they have taken more ground in both the eastern and southern fronts, as president Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited two front-line areas. Ukraine’s defence minister is being replaced by Rustem Umerov, a Crimean Tatar, who headed a privatization fund. Ukraine’s parliament passed an anti-graft law that contains a loophole, and many are urging Zelenskyy to veto it as a result. A parts shortage and a dispute over intellectual property rights is hobbling the ability to repair the Leopard 2 tanks we sent to Ukraine. And Ukrainian intercepts show Russian soldiers complaining about poor equipment and heavy losses.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh’s curious housing assertions

Posted on by

It looks like Jagmeet Singh is going to make another attempt at overplaying his hand, as he promises to use his “leverage” to try and squeeze more concessions from the government, particularly around housing. And sure, he can try, but part of this is going to go back to his absolute inability—or unwillingness—to understand how process works, and that’s kind of a big deal when you’re trying to demand the federal government do things.

For example, Singh was on Power & Politics the other day and insisted that the federal government can “rapidly” build new affordable houses, because they have “the land, the money, and the power” to do so. But I’m not sure this has entirely been thought through. Yes, the government has been going through their property portfolio to identify lands that can be sold for housing purposes, but that’s been ongoing for a couple of years and there hasn’t been a lot of traction because I suspect there isn’t a lot that’s available that is suitable for housing, and even if there was a glut that could be released, could they get it re-zoned for housing in short order by municipalities? I have my doubts. Yes, they have money, but that’s not infinite, and spending too much can have impacts on inflation, which they are trying to bring down (which is not helped by Singh’s stubborn insistence that only corporate greed is fuelling inflation, which is not true, and that a windfall tax will fix it, which is also not true). I’m also not sure what he means by the “power” to build homes—housing is primarily a provincial and municipal jurisdiction, where the federal contribution is mostly financial. Does he envision that they tender the construction of these houses? Because if that’s the case, a federal procurement process is neither simple nor quick (and just wait for the losing companies to sue the government, like what happens with defence procurement). Do they hire site planners, architects, and construction workers directly? Again, do you know what a federal hiring process looks like? And more to the point, there is a very tight labour market, which means that this will increases costs (and money is not infinite).

So, again, what process does he envision that the federal government can use to “rapidly” build these houses? Because remember, the timelines that the NDP are insisting on with their supply-and-confidence agreement have created their own problems, such as with the construction of the dental care programme, which has relied on a very poor kludge to get out the door within the deadline, and bad programme design just creates headaches, especially if it’s to meet an arbitrary deadline. Pharmacare is going to be similar—they’re insisting on particular timelines, but even if enabling legislation is passed this year, it’s not really going to matter unless nine other premiers sign on (and I haven’t seen Singh publicly haranguing NDP premier David Eby to do so). Process matters, and Singh pretending it doesn’t is a sign he’s not a serious person.

(As an aside, could every gods damned person who interviews Singh please stop asking why he hasn’t taken the nuclear option of tearing up the agreement as their first question? Seriously).

Ukraine Dispatch:

A combined overnight drone and missile attack on Kyiv killed two people, while an overnight drone attack, purportedly from Ukraine, struck military targets inside Russia and allegedly damaged four transport planes. Even more curious is that some of these Ukrainian drones appear to be made out of cardboard—for real!

Continue reading →

Roundup: The sound and fury of a special committee

Posted on by

NDP MP Niki Ashton sent out a press release yesterday calling on the minister of national revenue to create a special committee to crack down on tax avoidance by billionaires. I have my doubts about just what a parliamentary committee could do on its own. Asking them to recommend solutions seems like a fairly inefficient way to go about it because there are changes put forward every year to close loopholes, and the tax avoidance experts find new ones. 🎶It’s the circle of life! 🎶

My deeper suspicion is that this is mostly just about performing for the cameras, which MPs are increasingly using committees to do rather than doing serious work, and Jagmeet Singh was trying to get in on that in a big way over the past few months, such as his little dog and pony show with the stack of papers that were supposedly all questions he was going to ask Galen Weston, and then promptly did not. Additionally, however, parliamentary resources are constrained because of hybrid sittings, and the injury and burnout rate for interpretation staff, and in the most bitter of ironies, Ashton is one of the worst offenders for abusing hybrid rules, and has pretty much opted to almost never show up in Ottawa. (She may deign to visit once every six to eight weeks, and only if she is required for some kind of media event).

Because economist Lindsay Tedds is one of the foremost tax policy experts in the country, I pointed this out to her, and well, she had thoughts.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1695109929902993636

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1695104974353842372

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian officials say that Russian forces are regrouping in occupied territories in the country’s east, and will likely try another offensive push. Ukraine is also saying they hit a Russian military base deep in occupied Crimea as part of their operation earlier in the week. The Ukrainian government has also dismissed the head of its State Emergency Service after an inspection, but haven’t said what the reason was.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cabinet retreat missives

Posted on by

We are starting to see the parade of ministers being trotted out to the media from the Cabinet retreat in Charlottetown, PEI, and first up on everyone’s mind is housing and what the federal government should do about it. And they did hear from experts like Mike Moffatt yesterday, which is good, so we’ll see if anything comes of it. But of course, legacy media has glommed onto the issue of international students and whether they will cap them, without also exploring how that has become a necessary revenue stream for universities after provincial cutbacks and freezes, or the fact that there are a plethora of private colleges that the provinces are supposed to be regulating who have been abusing their ability to bring in international students basically to defraud them of hundreds of thousands of dollars while providing them a substandard education. That should be where more attention is being paid, but we all know that legacy media loves to blame the federal government instead of the provinces, so here we are.

We also heard from Dominic LeBlanc who again gave assurances that a public inquiry into foreign interference is in the works, but they are now trying to find a sitting judge who can lead it, because apparently all of the retired ones and other eminent Canadians who could do the job have all told them no—because who wants to subject themselves to partisan character assassination day-in-and-day-out? Of course, I half suspect that they’re going to get some pushback from the chief justices of the provinces about who could be made available considering that the federal government has been slow to make appointments and it’s contributing to delays and backlogs in the system as is, and taking someone out of circulation for another eighteen months doesn’t help the situation any.

Other ministerial soundbites include Chrystia Freeland insisting that they remain focused on the economy.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they have retaken a strategic south-eastern village as part of the counteroffensive, which continues its southward push. In addition to advanced Western weapons, the Ukrainians have developed a “mini-Grad” rocket launcher made up of old Soviet parts. In Athens, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Balkan leaders, as well as European Commission president Ursula Von der Leyen. Ukrainian media is reporting that a group of saboteurs coordinated with Ukrainian military intelligence services to carry out drone attacks on air bases deep inside Russia, destroying and damaging aircraft. In Denmark, eight Ukrainian pilots have begun their F-16 fighter training.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The ugly discourse that won’t be disavowed

Posted on by

As the housing debate rages on, there is a particularly ugly strain of the discourse that is revealing itself throughout, which has to do with the rapid immigration increases in relation to the housing crunch/crisis, and that there is no real way for there to keep pace. This has led to some people lamenting that it’s too bad that the decades long, multi-party consensus on immigration is unravelling because governments haven’t been serious about housing. I’m not really buying it, though. My sense is that a lot of this is just dog-whistling and concern trolling—that these are largely the people who opposed immigration to begin with and who are taking the opportunity of the housing crisis to have a “legitimate” reason to blame immigrants for something.

Mark Miller is pushing back on this narrative, at least somewhat, pointing out that demographically and economically we can’t really cut back on immigration levels, adding that “The wave of populist, opportunist sentiment that does at times want to put all of society’s woes on the backs of immigrants—I think we need to call that out when we see it.” And he’s right. But he also needs to be far more vocal on the kick in the ass to provinces and municipalities about building more housing (which is their jurisdiction), because they also need these immigrants and have the responsibility of ensuring they have places to live.

What I think has been particularly telling is that Pierre Poilievre has been hinting at this, saying that the immigration system is “broken,” but he also won’t say what he would do differently, or what he would adjust the levels to. It’s the same kind of stupid game he’s trying to play on all of his files—saying just enough about a particular issue that the loudmouths and far-right extremists can read into it the awful things they think, and Poilievre will do almost nothing to dissuade them, so as to get them to think he’s on their side (even though, deep down, he’s not really, and some of them have already figured that out) and to hopefully cash in on their votes. And when you try to corner him on these issues, he will fight straw men or make the attacks personal instead of answering. It’s some of the most cynical of ploys, it’s absolutely corrosive to democracy, but he seems to think the ends justify the means, so he’s going to go for it, consequences be damned.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian drones have pounded grain storage and facilities at the Danube river ports in western Ukraine, which puts further grain shipments in jeopardy. Ukrainian forces say that they have reclaimed the village of Urozhaine in the southeast, but are admitting that the front in the north eastern region near Kupiansk is becoming more difficult.

Continue reading →