Tag Archives: Mary Ng

Roundup: Poilievre’s facile budget demands

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre called a Sunday morning press conference, which is a particularly Conservative tactic that tries to set the agenda for the week, in which he made his demands around the upcoming budget. We all know that it’s pretty much set in stone by this point and is on its way to the printers, but that never stops parties from making performative demands right up until the end. To that end, Poilievre had three main demands:

  1. Bring home powerful paycheques with lower taxes, so hard work pays off again.
  2. Bring home lower prices, by ending inflationary carbon tax hikes & deficit spending that drive up inflation & interest rates.
  3. Bring homes people can afford by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits.

First of all, the thing he refuses to acknowledge or understand is that tax cuts fuel inflation. If he’s worried about the increasing cost of living, tax cuts won’t actually do anything meaningful, and are more likely to just add fuel to that fire. (Meanwhile, taxes aren’t going up for anyone except profitable corporations and on luxury goods). When it comes to housing prices, carbon prices are not inflationary (the Bank of Canada has cited that their effect on inflation is negligible), and deficit spending has absolutely nothing to do with either inflation or interest rates. This is a facile narrative that Poilievre keeps insisting, preferring an austerity budget that will only make the vulnerable even more precarious without government supports, but this economic message still resonates for a particular generation. Meanwhile, none of this will affect housing prices, because that is driven by a lack of supply, which is because municipalities refuse to zone for density, and because provincial governments won’t use their powers to force the issue. And that leads us to the third point, which is that the federal government has no ability to “remove gatekeepers” at the provincial or municipal level. They can’t do anything about building permits, and I am dubious that there is enough federal land that is suitable for housing developments in major cities around the country that is underutilized. I may be wrong, but this has been a perennial promise by governments for years and nothing has really moved, which leads me to believe there’s not a lot to be had.

It’s not at all surprising that Poilievre is sticking to facile and wrong budgetary narratives, but it would be great if he could actually be called out on it rather than both-sides at best, which is barely even happening. This is important stuff and we’re just shrugging it off, and focusing on more bullshit polls about people believing the Conservatives are still the better economic managers in spite of decades of proof to the contrary.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces have believed to have suffered more than 1100 dead in a week of battles near Bakhmut, with another 1500 wounded so badly as to be removed from the fighting. The Institute for the Study of War believes Russia’s planned advance has stalled in Bakhmut, and that the assault will be more difficult to sustain without more significant losses.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1634849209840173057

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith’s Nice History of Canada

Posted on by

Alberta premier Danielle Smith took the opportunity to shoot a video on Parliament Hill when she was in town earlier this week, and it’s a doozy. It’s so bad. Some of it is outright revisionist history—Danielle Smith’s Nice History of Canada, where the Indigenous People and settlers got together to “tame an unforgiving frontier.” No, seriously. She actually said that. And there was so much nonsense about the energy industry and market. We know that the people she listens to engage in outright residential school denialism, but this is just galling.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 353:

Kyiv and Kharkiv were among the cities hit by a renewed Russian attack on critical infrastructure, particularly on the country’s power supply. Zaporizhzhia has faced a relentless barrage, as have the front lines in the east, where they are continuing their concerted push toward Bakhmut. Meanwhile, here is a look at the “drone hunters” trying to bring down those Iranian-made drones as best they can.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A failure to condemn Carlson

Posted on by

The increasing unseriousness of our Parliament continues apace. After Question Period yesterday, NDP MP Matthew Green stood up to move a unanimous consent motion to condemn Fox “News” personality Tucker Carlson for his comments calling for an armed invasion of Canada in order to depose Justin Trudeau, apparently before we “become Cuba.” (Carlson also called for a “Bay of Pigs” invasion, apparently not understanding how badly that went for the Americans). And when the Speaker asked if there was consent to move the motion, a few Conservatives said nay (and no, I couldn’t tell which ones did).

A couple of points. Number one is that Green shouldn’t have bothered because this just gives Carlson the attention he craves, but we know what this is for—social media clips, so that he could plaster it over Twitter and whatever other socials he’s on that he got Parliament to condemn Carlson, and isn’t he a hero for doing so. It’s performative bullshit, and that’s what our Parliament runs on these days to our detriment. Point number two is that the Conservatives could have shut up and not shown support for foreign regime change, but they did not, meaning they a) agree with Carlson, b) want to appease the Carlson fans in their base, or c) didn’t want to give Green the clip he was fishing for. None of those three are good looks, and just shows the continued decline in the state of debate. Everyone should rethink some of their life choices here.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 343:

The villages of Klishchiivka and Kurdyumivka, which are on the southern approach to Bakhmut, came under renewed Russian fire. As well, a new assault against Vuhledar is unlikely to make gains. Meanwhile, a new US aid package to be announced later this week is said to include longer-range rockets, which Ukraine has been asking for.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1620441189710450690

Continue reading →

QP: One last kick at the can for 2022

Posted on by

It was the final Question Period of 2022, and not a moment too soon. After we got the traditional recitation of the Xmas Poem as read by Anthony Housefather (some of whose rhymes were a bit more tortured than in years previous), things got underway.

Pierre Poilievre led off in French, raising a statistic about the rising cost of Christmas dinners, and wedged in a lurid tale of people threatening to access MAiD rather than living in grinding poverty (which ignores that that is not a criteria). Justin Trudeau said that he would like to join in and wish people happy holidays, but knows that it can be difficult because of global inflation, which is why they have created support programmes for those who need it, including with dental care and childcare. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his same points, but trying to tie poverty to government waste. Trudeau noted that Canadians step up for each other, and listed his government’s actions again. Poilievre again tried to tie supposed government waste to inflation, and Trudeau deployed his well-worn talking points about the government making the decision to help Canadians when they needed it and it resulted in the economy roaring back faster than our comparator countries. Poilievre demanded to know when the “waste” identified by the Auditor General would be paid back, but Trudeau mentioned this week’s by-election in his paean about his government supporting Canadians. Poilievre could not end the year without deploying a “triple, triple, triple” ear worm in worrying about heating bills, and Trudeau noted that the federal carbon price doesn’t kick in over in Atlantic Canada until the spring, so Poilievre was trafficking in misinformation. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and tried to intimate that the premiers wanted to meet with him “like a family dinner,” and Trudeau noted that he has met with premiers more than any of his predecessors, noted that he was meeting with François Legault in a few days, but he was there to work with provinces to solve the healthcare crisis. Blanchet torture the family dinner even more, and Trudeau noted that the system as it exists isn’t working, which is why he was there to invest more, but it would take more than just throwing money. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and asked a very selective reading of the health-related promises from the election, and wondered where the action was. Trudeau noted that they were working toward rewards and outcomes with provinces. Singh declared that when he as prime minster, he would keep his promises (to much laughter), and demanded to know what happened to the promised $25/hour wage for long-term care workers, and Trudeau repeated that the federal government is there to step up, and that they would work with provinces to raise those wages.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau holding the line on health transfers

Posted on by

While NDP leader Jagmeet Singh makes empty threats about ending their confidence agreement with the government if they don’t *handwave* do something about the current crisis in paediatric hospitals, prime minister Justin Trudeau seems to be staking a pretty firm position that he’s not giving the provinces a blank cheque and that he’s going to only give money when there is an agreement to reform the system, starting with data on outcomes so that they can measure what the new funding is doing. In his year-end interview with The Canadian Press, Trudeau elaborated on this particular position, with the backing of some national doctors and nurses groups, that just throwing money at a broken system won’t solve anything, so he’s going to just keep kicking this problem down the road.

Of course, the provinces think they have the upper hand here and have spent all kinds of money trying to convince Canadians that this is all the federal government’s fault, because they have been given a free hand with blame-shifting for decades now, because they could get away with it. There is ever-so-slowly a coming around to the fact that no, this is pretty much entirely the provinces’ mess, and the fact that they think we’re all idiots who can’t see that they’re crying poor while running surpluses, handing out vote-buying cheques and giving tax cuts to upper income brackets. They can’t keep up this act forever, and they are looking increasingly desperate in their attempts to keep shouting “look over there!”

Meanwhile, let me note that PEI remains the only province still moving ahead (slowly) with national pharmacare, as they are slowly identifying gaps and adding them to the formulary.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 294:

Ukrainians fleeing from Bakhmut describe constant shelling as Russians have pounded the city into nothing. In Kyiv, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy dissolved the District Administrative Court, which was rife with corruption and likened to a criminal organisation, saying that Ukraine can fight corruption and Russian invaders at the same time. The US has also been finalizing plans to send Patriot missile defence systems to Ukraine, which could help with the incoming Russian bombardment. Meanwhile, doctors and nurses from Mariupol have reassembled in Kyiv to help displaced Ukrainians in need of care. Elsewhere, here is the tale of Ukrainian women building drones in Latvia to send back to aid the war effort in Ukraine.

Continue reading →

QP: Mary Ng will only apologise twice

Posted on by

The prime minister was present today, while his deputy was off in Paris. Shortly before things got underway, the Ethics Commissioner released his report on a contract Mary Ng’s office awarded to a friend of hers, so that was also going to come up. All of the other leaders were present today, save Elizabeth May, for what it’s worth. After a statement about the passing of Jim Carr, Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he first offered condolences to Carr’s family and to the Liberal caucus for their loss. With that out of the way, he asked about the list of soon-to-be banned hunting rifles and wanted more work on fighting criminals instead. Justin Trudeau thanked Poilievre for his thoughts about Carr, and said a few nice words about Carr’s legacy in both French and in English. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the question about “Grandpa Joe’s hunting rifle in Cape Breton” versus criminals, and this time, Trudeau insisted that Canadians are united about keeping communities safer from assault weapons, but they needed to ensure the ban stays in place, which is why they were moving ahead with their legislation but they would continue to consult to ensure they are capturing the right weapons. Poilievre raised the concerns of his backbench MPs about those weapons, and tried to insist this was a big plot against hunters. Trudeau dismissed this as misinformation and said they were going to continue to consult on the list because they were not interested in hunters, but the Conservatives only wanted to make assault weapons legal again. Poilievre then changed topics to story about immigration case files assigned to employees who are no longer there, to which Trudeau read some pabulum lines about modernising the system and resolving the “technical issues.” Poilievre changed topics again to the Ethics Commissioner’s finding that Mary Ng violated the rules in giving a contract to a friend, which he tried to tie to other previous scandals. Trudeau instead countered with some crowing about last night’s by-election victory in Mississauga—Lakeshore and how Canadians rejected Poilievre instead.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and after giving condolence about Jim  he concern trolled about immigration levels in Quebec before raising the story about the case files going to phantom employees before demanding that Quebec be given full control over its immigration system. Trudeau said that Quebec has the capacity to take more immigrants and they are there to help them with it. Blanchet insisted that Roxham Road-arriving asylum claimants were difficult to integrate and demanded more control over the system. Trudeau reiterated that they did not set a target for Quebec and they were there to work with the province.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded the government do something about the paediatric health crisis in the country. Trudeau said that they realise there is a crisis, but they are not going to send a blank cheque like the NDP wants and will ensure they get outcomes. Singh repeated his demand to “find solutions” in English, and Trudeau repeated his response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cynicism around new gun laws

Posted on by

We’re now on or about day ninety-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the fighting has intensified in Sievierodonetsk, which Russia is trying to take before more Western arms arrive in Ukraine’s hands. Meanwhile, here is a slideshow of life in Mariupol now that the Russians have seized the city after laying waste to it.

Elsewhere, Europe has been trying to institute a ban on Russian oil in order to cut off Russia’s finances, but this has only been partially successful. To that end, all imports coming by sea have been banned, but crude by pipeline is still being allowed, which is only about a third of the total volume. Hungary has been a holdout in this, because they want guarantees that their oil supply security will be maintained (and Orban has been something of an ally of Putin, so that doesn’t help matters any).

Closer to home, the government used the opportunity of the most recent school shooting in the US to table their latest gun control legislation, which includes a freeze on handgun sales or transfers in this country rather than an outright ban, as well as a mandatory buy-back programme for assault-style rifles, and a new “red flag” system for licenses. While there isn’t a lot of daylight between the parties on these issues, there is nevertheless some very crass cynicism deep within the Liberal proposal. Matt Gurney lays a lot of it out in this thread (which I won’t reproduce entirely here because it’s long), which is worthwhile considering.

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1531308859649888261

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1531384075742765056

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1531385918531182593

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1531387184795852807

Continue reading →

Roundup: Proving the SCC’s point

Posted on by

It was only a matter of time after Alberta premier Jason Kenney announced that he was reviving his province’s sham Senate “election” laws that the two so-called “elected” senators from the province started chiming in, and lo, Senator Tannas did just that on the Alberta Primetime politics show on Alberta’s CTV affiliates this week. During the hugely uncritical interview, Tannas proclaimed that getting an “endorsement” from the public gives him the right to speak up “more forcefully,” and that he and fellow “elected” Senator Black are “listened to differently” because they of their special status.

Let me remind you what the Supreme Court of Canada said when it comes to consultative elections – that it would give the Senate a popular mandate, which would change the constitutional architecture of the institution, and you can’t do that without a formal constitutional amendment. In other words, Tannas is proving the Supreme Court’s point – that his “election” (which was a sham, let’s be clear) confers upon him some kind of special authority, which is whole point. Now, Tannas did try to couch some of his criticisms for his nominally appointed colleagues from Alberta because he has to work with them, but amidst the myths about Bills C-48 and C-69 and the complete self-aggrandisement, there was virtually no pushback at Tannas about what the Supreme Court said, or the fact that the process that got him “elected” was a sham worthy of a People’s Republic.

There seems to be almost nobody pushing back against Kenney and his unconstitutional legislation and the sham that these “elections” really are. Why, here’s Don Braid with a lazy garbage take that lauds the farce that Kenney puts on because he’s swallowed the rhetoric about those bills whole, along with the fairytale nonsense about a “Triple E” senate and what it purports to do (never mind that the only thing it would do is create 105 new backbenchers with an overinflated sense of self). Repeat after me: Kenney is only doing this to invent a future grievance, while he lies about those two bills. It would be great if someone could be bothered to call him out on it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Triumphalism after a defection

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer took the occasion of caucus day yesterday to give another lap of triumphalism in order to crow about Leona Alleslav’s defection to his party, calling her a symbol of “misplaced trust” by Canadians in Justin Trudeau. And, feeling his oats, he told Trudeau to “bring it on” when it comes to defending a carbon tax in the next election. Now, cheerleading films aside, Scheer may want to be very cautious about his plan to go full-bore on the carbon tax attack, given that those provinces who have decided to fight the plan and have the federal government impose their backstop price instead may find that instead of their citizens benefitting from lower income taxes or provincial rebates, they’ll instead be getting their rebate cheques from the federal government, which is a pretty visceral thing for most people. Add to that, a study coming out next week says that it’s likely that people will be getting more back in those rebate cheques than they paid into carbon taxes because of dividends from industrial emitters being returned to individuals, which could be a blow to the message that Scheer is trying to send about affordability.

In amidst this, Scheer has been trying to press the case for Energy East, demanding that Trudeau bring Trans Canada back to the table in order to discuss reviving the project. The problem, of course, is that there is no economic case for Energy East. At one point, it was seen as a viable route to tidewater with no others in the works, but that changed with the approval of Trans Mountain (err, temporarily delayed right now), and Keystone XL, which Trans Canada also is the proponent of, and there wasn’t enough product to fill both KXL and Energy East, so they focused on the more viable project – KXL. Scheer has also tried to insinuate that Energy East would displace Saudi oil in Eastern Canada, but that’s also not true, given that the whole point was for it to be a pipeline to tidewater. Saudi oil is cheaper to import than for Alberta oil to ship by pipeline, not to mention that there are no upgraders or refineries in the East capable of handling heavy crude from Alberta (again, unlike KXL, where those kinds of refineries line the Gulf coast). The Irvings themselves said that Energy East wouldn’t stop the flow of Saudi oil to Canada, but Scheer is trying to play the economic nationalism card, and is stretching the truth along the way.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert warns Scheer that if he plans to make immigration an issue over the coming year, he may want to pay attention to what’s going on in Quebec, where it’s turning out to be something of a poisoned chalice for the CAQ in the provincial election.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Offering justifications for the indefensible

Posted on by

The attempts by conservatives, both provincial and federal, to justify the use of the Notwithstanding Clause is in full swing, and it’s a bit fascinating to watch the intellectual contortions that they will go through in order to justify a) the abuse of process for Bill 5 in the first place, b) the need to ram it through during the middle of the election itself in order to interfere, and c) why they need to go to the mat and use the nuclear option in order to help Ford enact petty revenge. One of Ford’s MPPs wrote up her legal analysis, which is more than Ford or his attorney general have bothered to do, but it still didn’t explain the need for haste when an appeal of the lower court decision would have been the proper way to go about disputing its reasoning. Ford’s MPPs would go on TV and throw around the word “elites” as though that justifies the nuclear option, which, again, doesn’t actually constitute a proper reason for employing said nuclear option. Andrew Scheer, meanwhile, is falling back on the technicality that Ford’s using the Clause is “within the law” because municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction, which is beside the point – the point being that Ford is violating the norms of our democratic system for his own personal ends, and not calling out that violation of norms is troubling.

Even more troubling was that during yesterday’s raucous Question Period in Queen’s Park, Ford stated that we don’t need the Charter because people elected him – all of which just continues his particular inability to discern between popular rule and democracy. Popular rule is justifying breaking rules and norms because you got elected – democracy is those rules and norms that keeps power in check. That he can’t grasp the difference should be alarming.

The LeBlanc Report

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner issued his report yesterday on whether Dominic LeBlanc violated ethics rules regarding the awarding of the Arctic surf clam fishery to a company that was headed (on an interim basis) by his wife’s cousin – the context is that he’s one of sixty first cousins, and his relationship with LeBlanc is at best described as an acquaintance. Reading through the report, it hinges upon the Commissioner reading the definition of family much more expansively than it is interpreted elsewhere in the very same regime, which is how LeBlanc interpreted it. LeBlanc took responsibility, vowed to do better in the future, but that hasn’t stopped the opposition from taking the usual route of wailing and gnashing of teeth to decry just how unethical this government is.

In the demonstrable instances, however, the ethics violations have been pretty small ball (i.e. Bill Morneau not properly reporting the ownership structure of the French villa he disclosed), or legitimate differences of opinion on relationships (whether the Aga Khan was a family friend in Trudeau’s case, or the closeness of the relationship between LeBlanc and his wife’s cousin in this case). These are not instances of influence being peddled, people being unjustly enriched (and I know people will quibble about the Bell Island vacation, but the Aga Khan is not some tycoon looking to increase his corporate holdings by way of government connections), so perhaps a bit of perspective is warranted. Should Trudeau and LeBlanc have cleared things with the Commissioner beforehand? Absolutely. But this performative outrage we’re seeing will only get you so far, and railing that there have been no consequences beyond naming-and-shaming means little considering that it was the Conservatives and NDP who designed this ethics regime back in 2006, and they could have designed a more robust system them – or at any point that it’s come up for statutory review – and they haven’t.

Continue reading →