Tag Archives: Keystone XL

Roundup: A mixed bag from the English debate

Posted on by

The Liberals’ English-language debate was held last night, and it was a much more lively affair, given that they weren’t speaking in very slow and deliberate French to get their points across. The first few minutes were a complete English-dub replay of Monday’s debate, with the exact same opening statements and first responses to the same question, so it took them a while to actually get to something new, but the longer it went on, the more annoyed I started to get at some of the absolute inanities that were on display. (Here are liveblogs from the Star and The Canadian Press, while I was live-tweeting Bluesky here).

One of the early topics was Canada’s place in the world, and after the initial chest-thumping about Trump, they got into things like NATO targets. Chrystia Freeland was probably the most clear-eyed here, talking about building a new democratic world order with allies that included the UK and France because they have nuclear capabilities (which was a sign of how serious this is), because America is no longer the “leader of the free world.” But when discussing spending to hit NATO targets, everyone was quick to say that they didn’t want those dollars going to American companies, but nobody seemed to have much of an idea of just what the Canadian defence industry was capable of producing for our needs, or the fact that we need to look to other allies because our defence industry is not large and can’t produce a lot of things we need quickly (lest we start buying into vapourware that companies like Bombardier will promise but have no guaranteed ability to deliver on). Oh, and Karina Gould deserves a time-out for pitching a “procurement czar.” No! Stop with this American bullshit!

The cost-of-living segment was…unenlightening, and had some of the worst pitches. Chrystia Freeland wants to cut red tape (how? You’ve had nine years!), and Karina Gould wants to modernise social services (provincial jurisdiction) and bring in a basic income (not going to work—there is research to prove it). There was a question on how to improve productivity that nobody could give an actual answer to except to wave their hands and say “AI,” as though it’s a magic incantation.

The topic that broke my brain completely was asking them how they could work with provinces to increase the number of doctors. Only Gould gave something resembling a coherent answer here. And again, when the topic changed to the carbon levy, everyone on the stage but Gould was utterly incoherent about how they would replace it (Gould would keep the levy but freeze it).

The final question was asking how they would differentiate themselves from Trudeau, and at first Freeland ignored the question, Gould talked around it before bringing up the fact that the party needs to get back to the grassroots, Baylis said he was going to be “focused on the economy” while Carney said he would be “laser-focused on the economy,” before adding that he’s very hands-on, and has heard from the supporters in caucus that Trudeau didn’t build many relationships with MPs, which he would do. The moderator circled back to Freeland, who talked about the campaign being a “personal liberation,” and that her style of leadership isn’t to be a “one-man band,” which is a pretty big repudiation of Trudeau’s leadership style (though I would say it’s more like a two-man band, because it’s more of a joint Trudeau-Katie Telford effort).

Overall, it was a mixed bag, and I couldn’t really determine someone I felt was a winner. Chrystia Freeland had some of the strongest responses, but some of the weakest delivery and framing of responses, and was very invested in playing nice in order to get second-place votes (because this is a ranked ballot). Gould was strong on many responses, but completely out to lunch on others, which tainted her credibility. Mark Carney kept repeating that he wants to “build the economy.” Over and over and again. Constantly. He still resorted largely to platitudes, and didn’t seem to have a good grasp of a lot of files because they have been out of his bailiwick, and his attempt at attacking Poilievre got cringey in place (Poilievre worships Trump? Really?) And then there was Frank Baylis, who kept reminding us that he’s a businessman. Over and over again, but his constant bizarre refrains about strengthening the dollar (at the expense of our exports?) and the whole thing about Ireland were just completely out to lunch, to say nothing about the fantasy economics of his pipeline plans.

Maybe I’m being too harsh of a critic, but nobody came out ahead.

Ukraine Dispatch

Another overnight attack on the Kyiv region has killed one person, injured four, and set several houses on fire. There also appears to be some progress on a critical minerals deal between the US and Ukraine, but we’ll see if it actually happens.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1894322734047310319

Continue reading →

QP: What is your inflation position today?

Posted on by

Even though the prime minister was in town, he was not in Question Period, but his deputy was, so that was something. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he worried about the news that the coming fiscal update would only have “limited information,” and worrying about them covering up spending. Chrystia Freeland stood up and recited O’Toole’s floundering position on whether inflation is a global problem or not. O’Toole retorted that she was the only politician to have been flagged on Twitter for misleading information, and demanded that she tell the Bank of Canada to get inflation under control. Freeland chided O’Toole for not realising that monetary policy is the role of the Bank, which is arm’s length from government. O’Toole started sputtering about small businesses suffering from inflation, and Freeland reminded him that their campaign documents promised even more government spending in the current fiscal year, and wondered what their position was today. O’Toole demanded to know then a budget would be balanced, and Freeland recited the Economist’s top-ten list of most expensive cities to live in, and noted that none were in Canada. O’Toole then switched to French to say that Quebeckers were tired of living paycheque to paycheque. Freeland repeated the same Economist list in response.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried that the prime minister didn’t raise softwood tariff while in Washington, and Freeland stated that while she could not match Therrien’s ability to play on words, but the file was important and they were continuing to defend the sector’s interest like they did for aluminium. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay demanded that the government insist on separate treatment for Quebec because their forestry rules are different, while Freeland assured him that they were defending sector.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he worried that the COVID rules were too confusing for travellers. Freeland said that they agreed that the fight against COVID was the most important issue for the country and vaccination was the way out, but noted that the current rules are a circuit-breaker to buy them time. Singh repeated the question in French, and repeated her response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford turns to the Notwithstanding Clause – again

Posted on by

The sudden comfort with which premiers are deciding to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause is getting a bit uncomfortable, as Doug Ford decided he needed to invoke it after a court struck down his attempts to limit third-party spending in provincial elections in a somewhat arbitrary fashion (given that unions get together to form American-esque political action committees in this province). While you can find a great explainer on Ford and his particular legal challenge in this thread, the more alarming part is the apparent need to reach for the “emergency valve” of the Clause before even appealing the decision to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada.

There is a perfectly legitimate reason why the Notwithstanding Clause exists, which as to do with keeping a certain amount of parliamentary supremacy in lawmaking, and it gives governments an avenue of recourse if there is a fundamental disagreement with a court’s interpretation of legislation. But lately, it’s being invoked by premiers who know they are trying to push through objectionable legislation – François Legault did it with Bill 21, which the courts have essentially said blocks their ability to strike down any portion of the law, and he’s doing it again with his Bill 96 on trying to obliterate any bilingualism in the province (the same bill that seeks to unilaterally amend the federal constitution). Ford had threatened to invoke it to ram through his unilateral changes to Toronto City Council while they were in the middle of an election, but ultimately didn’t because of a court injunction, and his decision this time is similarly dubious. This willingness to invoke the Clause at the first sign of court challenge or on the first defeat is a very big problem for our democracy, and we should be very wary about this abuse of power, and punish these governments appropriately at the ballot box during the next elections for these decisions.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402715067083280387

In the meantime, here’s Emmett Macfarlane with more thoughts on the court decision that led to this turn of events.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402711628978720772

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402712563960455173

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402713058913525761

Continue reading →

QP: Selectively quoting reports to one another

Posted on by

There were only three Liberals in the Chamber today, which remains a problem, but they keep telling themselves they’re setting a “good example.” They’re not. Pierre Poilievre led off, and he lamented a Canadian Federation of Independent Business report citing that up to twenty percent of small businesses may close because of the pandemic. Appearing by video, Chrystia Freeland quoted this week’s IMF report that praised the federal government’s quick action in providing supports. Poilievre then gave a mendacious comparison of unemployment figures, to which Freeland responded with comparisons of the participation rates in the labour force. Poilievre railed about people not getting jobs, but Freeland repeated her IMF quotes. Pierre Paul-Hus was up next, and he gave a fictitious version of the CanSino deal, to which Freeland read the talking points on the vaccine portfolio. Paul-Hus demanded a back-up plan for vaccinations, to which Freeland haltingly read talking points about the breadth of the portfolio as being Plans A, B, C, and D.

For the Bloc, Sébastien Lemire quoted that experts did not agree with the CanSino deal and falsely quoted the “putting all our eggs in one basket” notion, for which Freeland read assurances that the government always listens to expert advice, before repeating the assurances about diversifying the portfolio. Lemire then complained about the Laval candidate not getting funding, for which Freeland read that the researcher got a million dollar subsidy from the government.

Rising for the NDP, Jagmeet Singh complained in French about the federal sickness benefit, and demanded it being improved — though in 94 percent of workplaces, sick leave is a provincial responsibility. Freeland read that the sickness benefit was an important programme, and that provinces have put protections for employment in place. Singh repeated his demand in English, and Freeland agreed that paid sick leave is important, which is why they provided the benefits they could.

Continue reading →

QP: Random accusations and incoherence

Posted on by

For the day’s proto-PMQs, prime minister Justin Trudeau was present, along with three other Liberals — still a pathetic turnout and contemptuous of Parliament. After a late start, Erin O’Toole led off, mini-lectern and script in front of him, and he accused the prime minister of being out of step with allies and his own caucus on China, and demanded that Canada remove itself from the Asia Infrastructure Bank — as though that would do anything. Trudeau stated that they continue to express their concern about China’s activities and human rights record, solidarity with the two Michaels, and that more discussions were happening in next week’s virtual G7 meeting. O’Toole tried to wedge Canadian job numbers with the Asia Infrastructure Bank, and Trudeau took the opportunity to pat himself on the back for the measures they rolled out to help those who lost their jobs because of the pandemic. O’Toole then worried about our vaccination rollout, and the lack of domestic production capacity, and Trudeau read about their investments in Canadian bio-manufacturing, and how the vaccine plan was on track. O’Toole switched to French to repeat the question and got the same answer, before he demanded to know how many Canadians would be vaccinated next week — as though he can answer for the provinces, but Trudeau listed what deliveries we were expecting this week,

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and stated that the Quebec government was investing in that Laval vaccine candidate, to which Trudeau listed what investments that particular researcher was given by the federal government. Blanchet was not mollified, and he continued to rail that multinationals got contracts instead of Quebeckers, for which Trudeau chided that we can hear the frustration in the Bloc leader’s voice because Ottawa was delivering for Quebec.

For the NDP, Jagmeet Singh got up, and in French, demanded a promise from the government that they would not call an election in the pandemic, and Trudeau took the opportunity to call out the Conservatives for stalling the latest pandemic aid bill. Singh repeated his demand in English, and Trudeau noted that in a minority parliament, the government doesn’t have the sole determination of that, before praising their efforts today.

Continue reading →

QP: Pouncing on COVAX

Posted on by

There was a second Liberal in the Chamber today, with Francis Drouin joining Mark Gerretsen, not that this made the situation any better. Candice Bergen led off for the Conservatives, appearing by video, and she demanded government support for their Supply Day motion on the creation of a Canada-US committee. Chrystia Freeland, also by video, responded that the Conservatives’ plan around Trump’s tariffs was to wave the white flag. Bergen tried again, bringing in the concerns over Line 5, to which Freeland offered calm assurances that they were working with the Americans on this file. Bergen then switched to the topic of vaccines, worrying that we were dropping in rankings, to which Freeland gave the usual assurances about the portfolio and that the schedule was still intact. Gérard Deltell took over in French, and he said it was “humiliating” that the government was drawing from the COVAX fund, misconstruing the deal. Freeland responded that COVAX was always part of the strategy, and this proved the system was working. Deltell pressed upon the urgency of the need for vaccines, and Freeland gave the same assurances.

Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he too brought up the false reading of the COVAX programme, calling it “embarrassing,” and Freeland repeated that it was always part of the strategy and listed other allies who were part of it. Therrien demanded a plan for vaccinations, for which Freeland calmly stated that they also shared the sense of urgency, which is why they are sharing all of their information.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, he tied the loss of lives to vaccine delays, and wanted to know why the government let people down. Freeland read off the talking points on the breadth of our vaccine portfolio. Singh switched to English to repeat the same ghoulish framing and brought up COVAX to repeat the same question on letting people down. Freeland once again repeated that this was always part of the strategy.

Continue reading →

QP: Virtual PMQs in an empty chamber

Posted on by

It was not only a very late start to QP, but there was once again only a single Liberal in the Chamber, and it wasn’t the prime minister, despite it being the designated day he answers all questions. Erin O’Toole led off, and he thundered about the CanSino deal falling apart a week after it was struck. Justin Trudeau, appearing by video, reminded him that they cast a wide net with several possible candidates in case one didn’t pan out, like CanSino. O’Toole wondered about Providence Therapeutics’ made-in-Canada candidate, to which Trudeau assured him they follow the advice of the immunity task force, and that they have given Providence new funds to complete trials. O’Toole then railed about the fact that we are not producing any in Canada, and again, Trudeau reminded him that their “strong and aggressive plan” got us vaccines as soon as possible. O’Toole switched to French to worry about the vaccine protectionist noises coming out of the European Union, to which Trudeau assured him he just spoke to the president of the European Commission, who said that these transparency measures would not affect Canada. O’Toole then accused the government of not telling the truth about vaccine deliveries, and Trudeau took exception to that, insisting that he has been transparent with all of their dates. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and demanded that health transfers would be increased in the budget, to which Trudeau reminded him that they have sent billions to the provinces already (and several provinces continue to sit on those funds). Blanchet repeated the demand, and Trudeau asked him in return why Blanchet was resisting pan-Canadian standards on long-term care. Jagmeet Singh took over for the NDP, and in French, he blamed the lack of vaccines on deaths, before demanding laid sick leave (which is 94 percent provincial jurisdiction), and Trudeau reminded him of the sickness benefit they put into place, but he hoped the provinces would agree to implement them, especially as the federal government has spent eight or nine out of every ten dollars in this pandemic. Singh tried again in English and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ghoulish misdirection

Posted on by

I continue to fume about yesterday’s ghoulish questions in Question Period, where the federal government is being blamed for the deaths in long-term care facilities because the vaccine rollout hasn’t been as expeditious as many had hoped, which is not only gross, but it’s about trying to provide cover for the (mostly conservative) premiers who have failed to do their jobs. Vaccines were never supposed to be the way we stop those deaths – actual public health measures like testing, tracing, and isolation were supposed to do the job, but the fact that premiers continued to under-fund these and didn’t invest in expanding capacity even when given billions of federal dollars to do so, were the actual solutions to preventing those deaths. But instead, these premiers and their ideological inability to grasp that in a pandemic, you need to pay people to stay home and cushion the economic shock, absolutely refused to do that and kept insisting that they re-open their economies with “a little bit of COVID” going around. Of course, that “little bit of COVID” turns into a whole lot of COVID because of exponential growth, and new variants mean even greater transmission. But the cover being given to these premiers is obscene.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1354227667713855490

And lo, we have a report that shows that provinces continue to sit on federal pandemic funds, with Ontario clocking in at $6.4 billion unspent, as they struggle to re-open schools (recall that they cut corners from the expert recommendations and then had outbreaks) and have unchecked spread of the virus in yet more long-term care facilities, which now appears to be the so-called UK variant. So what is Doug Ford doing about it? Howling that he wants the federal government to institute even more border measures including testing people when they arrive (they are already tested before they get on the planes), and trying to pretend that Pfizer is simply lying to us about not shipping us more vaccines. And guess what? Reporters are focusing on the vaccines and hounding Justin Trudeau about it rather than demanding accountability from Ford for all of the deaths in long-term care that are because of his inaction.

Continue reading →

QP: Blaming the wrong government for deaths

Posted on by

It was another day of a nearly-empty chamber, and today there were a mere two Liberals on their benches, rather than just one, which is outrageous. Candice Bergen led off on video, accusing the government of being responsible for deaths in long-term care facilities because of the vaccine delays — with no mention of the culpability of provincial governments in their failures to manage the pandemic. Chrystia Freeland, also by video, insisted that Canada was one of the leading countries for vaccine rollouts. Bergen then blamed the cancellation of surgeries on the lack of vaccines — completely false — and Freeland repeated her assurances that Canada was among the best performers thus far and doing more. Bergen tried one last time to blame the federal government for the failures of the provinces, and Freeland again repeated her same assurances of Canada doing comparatively well on vaccines among allies. Richard Martel took over to lament that the government had not brought forward the bill to close the loopholes on sick benefits for debate but wanted them to pass it in one fell swoop, and Freeland assured him they were trying to correct an error. Martel was not mollified, insisting they needed to study the bill, but Freeland insisted that they wanted to close the loophole immediately and it was unfortunate that the opposition would not let them. Yves-François Blanchet took over on behalf of the Bloc, and wanted debate and amendments to the bill so that it could be retroactive, and Freeland assured him that the bill was not designed to encourage Canadians to ignore the guidelines to avoid travel. Blanchet was not impressed and thundered about closing the borders, but Freeland pivoted and invited Blanchet to apologise for his comments about Omar Alghabra. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in French, he demanded immediate vaccines to protect seniors, for which Freeland calmly read her talking points about vaccine contracts and our record to date. Singh switched to English to demand for-profit long-term care be made public, starting with Revera, whose relationship be deliberately misconstrued. Freeland calmly stated that she shared his anguish and they were looking at best practices for long-term care.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Political theatre over terrorist listings

Posted on by

After Question Period yesterday, Jagmeet Singh rose to propose a motion that the government get serious about tackling white supremacy, which included listing the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization. After a brief interruption where Elizabeth May wanted the Soldiers of Odin added to that list – which was ruled procedurally out of order – Singh’s motion passed, and it was a big social media coup for him, which was also turned into a fundraising pitch so that they could “keep the pressure up” on the Liberals to actually go through with it.

The problem? This is all political theatre – and dangerous political theatre at that. The motion was non-binding, and does not automatically list the Proud Boys, but serves as political direction for the relevant national security agencies to do so, but they can’t actually do that, because there are clear processes set out in law to do so. The Conservatives tried this a few years ago with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and to have them listed – which still hasn’t been done, because there’s a process, and established criteria that it appears they don’t meet the threshold of under existing Canadian law.

To add to that, this kind of precedent should be absolutely alarming because it was a year ago that there were people demanding that Indigenous protesters blockading railways be declared “terrorists,” and if this were up to votes in the Commons (though, granted, this was a motion that required unanimous consent), that could turn bad very, very fast. There are established processes for terrorist listings for a reason, and they should be respected – not being used so that MPs can pat themselves on the back and virtue-signal that they oppose white supremacy. That doesn’t solve problems and can make the jobs of legitimate national security agencies more difficult, but hey, MPs get to make some hay over Twitter, so that’s what counts, right?

Continue reading →