Tag Archives: NATO

Roundup: Elizabeth May to the rescue (again)

Posted on by

The House of Commons has once again embarrassed itself in voting to send the NSICOP report to Justice Hogue for her to review, and its documents, to see if she can do or say something about the potentially “disloyal” parliamentarians therein. She can’t, and won’t, because this is a political problem and MPs have just voted to kick this down the road until October because certain of the leaders can’t arse themselves to be adults and take their responsibilities seriously, preferring instead to remain ignorant so that they can shout increasingly lurid and baseless accusations from the rooftops, because that gets them clicks and engagement on social media, and that is the cart that is driving politics in these debased times. Hopefully Justice Hogue will get this request and tell MPs to go drop on their heads because she has enough work to do and not enough time to do it in, thank you very much, and this is their political problem to solve, not hers. But we’ll see.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth May was the adult in the room, who took the opportunity to avail herself of the security clearance she acquired over the course of these months of foreign interference handwringing, and did read the full, classified report, and then took to a microphone in the press theatre in the West Block to discuss what she could about the report, and then went on Power & Politics later and refined those remarks even further. And what did she find? No list of treasonous or disloyal MPs, a handful of cases of MPs who are no longer serving who may have been compromised in some manner, and the one incident of a former MP who should be investigated and charged. And even more to the point, she just proved that reading the report wouldn’t tie Pierre Poilievre’s hands, that he could still talk about the conclusions of the report without any specifics, and that Michael Chong has indeed spouting bullshit when he claimed that he knew more than a former CSIS director about this.

Hopefully this means that the hot air has been drained from this, particularly since Jagmeet Singh will read the classified version today, and Yves-François Blanchet seems to have finally been convinced to get the proper clearance so that he too can read it for himself. That leaves Poilievre as the odd man out, insisting on remaining ignorant, but hopefully with the other leaders offering similar reassurances as May, this could deflate the issue and turn to the real issues about how to better combat this sort of interference, letting parties put in necessary internal reforms to prevent nomination races from being coopted, and so on. That relies on them being grown-ups, and if one party decides to remain off-side and not among the adults in the room, that will be pretty telling. There should also be questions asked of the members of NSICOP for not providing reassurance from the start, and for letting this issue blow up unnecessarily, because that should have an impact on their credibility, or would if the Elder Pundits of this country hadn’t decided on a particular narrative that they are going to relentlessly pursue, regardless of what has transpired.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Kharkiv’s mayor says that the ability to strike missile launch sites across the border in Russia has helped calm the number of attacks his city has been facing. At the recovery conference in Berlin, Ukraine has been attracting pledges to help modernise its air defences to help prevent the need for even further rebuilding.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1800249418949841359

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford’s $600 million choices

Posted on by

You might be excused if you were given the impression that things are going so well in Ontario right now that the government is spending its precious time and resources on the pressing need of…getting beer and wine into corner stores. Well, Doug Ford has decided that, in any case, and that he’s willing to pay out hundreds of millions in order to compensate the Beer Store—a conglomerate owned by the major breweries—for breaking their monopoly even earlier than he had planned to, to the tune of $225 million, with a possible $375 million in additional fees being rebated, meaning that this move could cost the treasury as much as $600 million.

So, to recap—that’s $225 million, but probably really $600 million, that could have gone toward something like keeping rural emergency rooms from having to close on weekends because they lack sufficient staff; it could have gone toward reforming how primary-care physicians are compensated so that they aren’t fleeing the field; it could have gone toward fixing the shortfalls in the early learning and child care programme that this government has caused by under-investment; or shoring up shelters housing asylum seekers; or really, any number of things that will actually have a meaningful impact on the lives of people in this province. But no, it’s going to pay these conglomerates.

Priorities.

Ukraine Dispatch:

While visiting Kharkiv, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that Ukraine now has “combat control” over the region after nearly two weeks of Russians trying to make advances.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1793904060535636362

Continue reading →

Roundup: A question with the intention to intimidate

Posted on by

Conservative MP Chris Warkentin has put a question on the Order Paper asking whether a number of economists have received any government contracts, and for any information about those contracts if they have been the recipient. While Stephen Gordon responds for himself below, it was also noted that all of the economists listed (who include names like Kevin Milligan, Andrew Leach, and Mike Moffatt) are all male, which I’m sure is just a coincidence and not indicative of a mentality that they think there’s no such thing as a “lady economist.”

This having been said, I think it’s important to point out that what Warkentin is doing here, on behalf of the party, is directly out of the authoritarian playbook. Number one of the seven key tactics in that playbook are to politicise independent institutions (and university academics would qualify), while number four on that list is about quashing dissent, and many of these names are economists who signed onto that open letter about the value of carbon pricing (which, to reiterate, was not defending the Liberal policy because it’s not actually carbon pricing, but a carbon levy plus regulation and subsidies). The Order Paper question is a shot across the bow that they are looking for anything to discredit these economists as partisan hacks whose expertise can be discounted for that reason. It’s about as subtle as a ham-fist, but they don’t care because they’re riding high in the polls. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be alive to what they’re doing, because it absolutely matters.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A missile strike in Kharkiv has killed at least seven civilians, as the Russian assault continues. Russians have also taken control of the village of Andriivka, southwest of Bakhmut. Russian jamming has also prevented many of Ukraine’s newer glide bombs from hitting their intended targets.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Back to challenging the Speaker once again

Posted on by

Not unexpectedly, a number of MPs have renewed the call to oust Greg Fergus from the Speaker’s chair after Tuesday’s dramatics during Question Period. For the Bloc, who soured on Fergus shortly after his election and his recording a video in his robes, they’re complaining that he can’t control the room, which is a bit unfair because MPs themselves have hobbled the Speaker’s ability to enforce decorum by giving him narrow powers in the Standing Orders. This logic also ignores the culpability of those who are making the noise—the Speaker isn’t making them behave like that. And for the record, Fergus says he’s not stepping down.

For the Conservatives, however, they are playing the victim, as is a common far-right tactic these days, and claiming that he had a double standard on Tuesday. Their proof—that prime minister Justin Trudeau wasn’t forced to retract or get named when he referred to Poilievre’s “spineless leadership” in not denouncing far-right extremists and Alex Jones. Note that the language Trudeau used was that the leadership was spineless, he did not call Poilievre that. And he was warned about inflammatory language, and he rephrased. Poilievre called Trudeau “whacko,” which was is a direct attack, and then refused to withdraw the word when instructed to—and again, the prevarication and wheedling of trying to replace the word is not respecting the Speaker’s authority, especially when invited to simply withdraw four times. There is a difference between what each leader said and how each responded, and if Conservatives can’t tell that difference, then they have a real problem with their critical thinking skills, which isn’t a good thing for an MP.

There was added drama when Conservative MP Rachael Thomas, who now claims that she withdrew her remarks yesterday but was ejected anyway, and more to the point, says that Hansard was edited to justify Fergus’ decision. Recall that Fergus was cautioning her for yelling at him during an outburst, to which she shot back “I have big problems with the Chair.” Fergus told her to withdraw that, to which Thomas’s response was “Mr. Speaker, I stated that the Chair is acting in a disgraceful manner,” and then says that she added “I withdraw,” which is also in the Blues (meaning the unedited transcripts before they go for final polish). But I was sitting right above her, and didn’t hear her say “I withdraw,” but even if she did, you can’t challenge the Speaker again and then just say “I withdraw” and expect no consequences. That’s not even like a qualified apology, it’s openly challenging a second time, and then trying to give yourself a fig-leaf of cover. That’s bullshit, and she knows it.

To put a cherry on top of this, CBC dug up video of then-Speaker Andrew Scheer saying you can’t challenge the integrity of the Speaker, which includes allegations of partisanship, and lo, what are they doing now? Rules for thee but not for me is very much their modus operandi, and it’s not great for democracy.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian ballistic missile struck a postal depot in Odesa, injuring fourteen and starting a huge fire, and Russians claim to have struck Ukraine’s southern command post in the same attack. There was also a guided bomb attack in the Kharkiv region, killing two in an attack on the village of Zolochiv, while there was also an attack on the town of Hirnyk near the front lines, which killed at least two more people. Drone footage shows the way that Chasiv Yar has been devastated by Russian bombardment as the move toward it, while Ukrainian forces in that area say they badly need more ammunition. The US is accusing Russia of breaking international chemical weapons ban by deploying choking agent chloropicrin against Ukrainian troops.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, a foreign power can’t install a prime minister

Posted on by

One of the unfortunate things about certain people I follow on the Twitter Machine constantly retweeting sludge is that sometimes I see something that is so outrageous that it sets me off. This, from former Global journalist Sam Cooper, is just such an egregious thing.

Setting aside the torqued use of Michael Chong’s testimony, this has all of the credibility of those racist emails that used to circulate, usually at the hands of someone’s relatives, where people worried that the changing Canadian demographics could mean that we might *gasp!* have a Muslim prime minister! As is unsurprising in racist emails like those, the internal logic was deeply flawed and the understanding of our system was non-existent, and was likely repurposed from American racist content worrying about a Muslim president, but that aside, this worry from Cooper is about the same quality.

To wit: If a party held a leadership contest while during a prime minister’s term, the fear expressed here is that, somehow, a foreign government would be able to swamp party memberships (either sales or sign-ups, depending on the party) and install a preferred candidate, who would then become prime minister without an election (which, I should not need to remind anyone, is perfectly legitimate in a parliamentary system). The hole in this logic is that pretty much every party has a weighted point system as part of these elections, so that highly populated regions of the country don’t swamp the more sparely-populated ones. In order for a foreign government to therefore take over a leadership contest, they would need a critical mass of voters in the majority of ridings in the country, particularly ones like small rural ridings in Quebec or Atlantic Canada. That’s simply not a possibility for any foreign government to engineer. The fact that Cooper doesn’t have a clue how these things work should be (another) warning sign about his judgment. Cripes.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian drone attacks on Kharkiv struck residential buildings and cut power supplies. A Ukrainian uncrewed aerial vehicle (larger than a drone) was used to strike deep inside Russian territory, striking an industrial site.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1775913487300002262

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, East Coast LNG isn’t going to happen

Posted on by

With the news out of Ukraine becoming more pressing, we’re once again seeing some bad faith takes in Canada about how we should be displacing Russian gas with our LNG, which is never going to happen. Ever. And people should know this, but they keep clinging to this fantasy because it sells to a particular base, but lying is lying, whether it’s to yourself or to your voters.

As always:

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian drone attack hit an apartment building in Odesa over the weekend, and the final tally shows twelve people were killed, including a baby. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling on Western allies to summon the political will to get them the aid they need (speaking mostly to the Americans for that one). Veterans across Ukraine have been disavowing medals in support of a gay soldier whose medal was rescinded by the church.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Online harms bill finally tabled

Posted on by

The long-awaited online harms bill was tabled yesterday, to much fanfare. The bill would create obligations for web giants to build in certain safety features, and creates a new Digital Safety Commission to oversee this, along with an ombudsman to help people navigate the process if they have been victimised and need content taken down. There are prescriptive processes that give companies 24 hours to remove certain content if flagged (most of it is child sexual exploitation or the sharing of intimate images), but there are very narrow criteria. There are also new Criminal Code provisions around making hate speech a standalone offence instead of an aggravating factor, and restores the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s ability to be an avenue for redress for hate speech for those who don’t want to go through the criminal route, albeit with a tighter definition and more ability to dismiss vexatious complaints than the previous system.

To that end, here are five things the bill does, a list of recent examples of online harms inflicted upon youth in recent years, while the mother of Amanda Todd is calling on Parliament to pass the bill swiftly so that other youth are protected.

As for opposition reaction, the Conservatives have point-blank called this censorship, which seems to be opening themselves up to charges that they don’t care about the safety of children and youth online. The Bloc say they’re going to read it over before supporting, while the NDP, seeing this on the Order Paper, tried to give one last attempt to sound tough about the government not introducing this sooner, so that they can launch another data-mining petition.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed nine out of 14 Russian drones and three guided missiles overnight on Monday. Ukrainian forces had to fall back from the village of Lastochkyne near Avdiivka, as Russian forces continue to press ahead while Ukrainian forces suffer from a lack of ammunition. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that the Black Sea corridor, which is getting grain to countries in need, is in jeopardy without more US aid.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1762133928406626660

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to allay diaspora concerns

Posted on by

After two diaspora groups pulled out of the foreign interference inquiry, Justice Marie-Josée Hogue released a statement yesterday outlining precautions that are being taken to protect witnesses and sensitive information, which is hoped will allay their concerns (though some of those concerns have to do with the three politicians being given standing and the ability to cross-examine other witnesses).

It should probably be noted that this was probably inevitable. David Johnston warned as much of this in recommending against a public inquiry, but hey, politics took over and here we are.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There has been a drone strike in Odessa, killing three. It is hoped that examining the debris of the North Korean missiles that the Russians have acquired and are using against Ukraine will offer clues as to how they are avoiding sanctions. Here’s a look at two years of conflict through the eyes of one Ukrainian soldier who has seen it all. Here is a look at those whose relatives have gone missing in combat and their bodies not yet found. Reuters has a photo library from the first two years of the war.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1760766644995887429

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre punches down

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre made a lot of statements yesterday, and they were all alarming in their own ways. First up was expressing support for Bill S-210, which aims to require ISPs to ensure age verification for any online porn sites, or face massive penalties—a bill that passed the Senate and is now headed to committee with opposition support in the Commons. It’s a hugely problematic bill that is going to be a privacy nightmare and cause more problems than it solves. Poilievre also said he doesn’t want this implemented by way of a government digital ID or that prevents people from access legal materials, and his MPs keep handwaving and insisting that there must be some kind of technological solution here. There’s not, this is bad, and frankly is pretty Big Government/gatekeeping, which Poilievre claims to hate. What it does, however, is tap into the moral panic over porn being the root cause of a bunch of social ills, and Poilievre loves getting in on that action.

He was then asked by Rebel Media about trans people and washrooms—because of course the far-right remains obsessed about this—and Poilievre stated that he was against trans women in changing rooms, washrooms, or women’s sports, which is an outrageous egregious overreach and is Poilievre punching down in order to appease the Rebel Media audience. (I will note that you had pundits on Power & Politics baffled by this, believing that Poilievre has this demographic “locked down.” Not true—he needs to actively court them because they see him as being too soft and establishment—see Christine Anderson referring to him as “Pussyvere”—and he has to constantly prove himself to them). It’s also worth noting that for Poilievre’s press conferences, which are limited to five questions and no follow-ups, Rebel and True North are often at the front of the line for questions, which is another particular sign of who he’s speaking to. Justin Trudeau did respond and push back about this making trans people unsafe, which is true, but this is another moral panic Poilievre is trying to cash in on.

The last bit was perhaps the ugliest, where Poilievre was asking about the upcoming online harms bill, and he said that Trudeau shouldn’t be the one to bring it in, claiming this would be censorship, misquoting the line about “those with unacceptable views” (again, playing to the “convoy” audience who took up this misquote with great aplomb), and then launched into a tirade about how Trudeau needs to look into his heart about his past racism and Blackface. And then, because of course, a certain CBC journalist wrote this up (which I’m not going to link to) and devoted half of the story to rehashing the Blackface history including photos, because they didn’t learn a gods damned thing about how Trump got in (and this goes beyond just egregious both-sidesing). None of this is good.

Ukraine Dispatch:

With the loss of Avdiivka, Ukrainians are expecting more advances from Russians. This has spooked enough of the elderly in villages in the area, who are now heading for safer regions, worried that their towns are going to be the next to be ground to dust. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is downplaying the loss of Avdiivka as he calls for more western arms and support, but it has been relentless grind for Ukrainian forces. This said, western intelligence suggests that Russia doesn’t have the domestic capacity to manufacture the ammunition it needs either, so we’ll see how long they can keep up their current pace. Meanwhile, anti-corruption authorities in Ukraine are investigating more than sixty cases involving the defence sector.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1760235411987980541

Continue reading →

Roundup: Falsely framing carbon prices and inflation

Posted on by

Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, I want to point your direction to a CTV piece from the weekend, taken from an interview with Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon on CTV’s Question Period. The headline and substance of the piece, taken from the interview, is “Feds won’t pause carbon price despite inflation.” Now, if you were a casual reader who didn’t know what was going on, you might think that the carbon price is driving inflation and the government is being obstinate in refusing to deal with that driver of inflation.

That would, however, be completely wrong. We know that the carbon price contributes only negligibly to inflation because inflation is measured on a year-over-year basis, and with the carbon price increasing at the same rate every year, the impact on year-over-year prices remains negligible. The Bank of Canada figures that it works out to 0.15 percent of inflation. Is this mentioned anywhere in the story? Nope. Instead, it’s both-sides as pointing to Poilievre’s promise to “axe the tax” (which is not a tax, but a levy, and yes, there is a difference), contrasted with MacKinnon pointing out that at committee last week, food economists pointed to the fact that there’s no evidence the carbon price has had a meaningful impact on the price of food, because, again, if you pay attention, you would know that the bigger drivers of food price inflation are droughts or floods in food-producing regions, including Canada’s, which is related to climate change. (That poing is also absent from the story).

Why does this matter? Because of how the story has been framed. It frames itself that carbon prices are driving inflation, which is false and misleading. It sets up a false scenario about what is driving inflation (which has fallen over the last year and is now in a sticker place just above target), and sets about positing a false solution, while trying to look like it’s concerned about cost-of-living concerns while looking at absolutely none of the driving factors of what has caused an increase in the cost of living. This, my friends, is shoddy journalism. I get that they were trying to get a headline out of that interviews, but great Cyllenian Hermes, that was not the way to do it, and it’s a little embarrassing that this was the result.

Ukraine Dispatch:

At least three Ukrainians have been killed in Russian attacks on cities in the country’s east, near the front lines. Ukrainian forces repelled an attempted Russian advance on the southern front, as Russians move their forces forward following the withdrawal from Avdiivka. The withdrawal from Avdiivka was preceded by a change in Russian tactics designed to take advantage of the shortage of ammunition. Ukrainian forces say that Russians executed six unarmed Ukrainian soldiers taken prisoner in Avdiivka as they were fleeing, and two more in the nearby village of Vesele. Here is a look at the significance of Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian oil refineries and other infrastructure within Russian borders.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1759195559272108467

Continue reading →