Tag Archives: Official Languages

Roundup: Andrew Scheer, media critic

Posted on by

In the wake of Bill C-11 receiving royal assent, Conservatives have been doing a full court press on social media to denounce this supposed “censorship” bill (which is nothing of the sort—it obligates web giants and streaming services to report Canadian revenues and pay into media creation funds based on a percentage of those revenues). And because he’s a wannabe fourteen-year-old shitposting edgelord, Andrew Scheer is taking shots at the media about the reporting on this.

What you might notice is that Scheer is calling The Canadian Press newswire “CBC’s news service” because CBC is one of CP’s clients and the content they buy from the wire funds its operations. This, of course, taints CP in the Conservatives’ estimation, and Pierre Poilievre bullied a CP reporter about this at a press event a couple of weeks ago, and tried to insinuate that this means that they somehow fit stories to the government narrative in order to get that CBC money. It’s a complete fabrication, but it’s intended to be—this is all about flooding the field with bullshit.

Scheer goes on to complain about how the story is covered—because he’s a media critic, don’t you know. The story doesn’t quote a Conservative source, but it cites their (misleading) position that the bill is “censorship” (again, this is a lie), but because it’s CP, it rather obsequiously both-sides everything. It doesn’t actually call out the Conservative position as the bullshit that it is, but because it’s not complete stenography of the Conservative line, it must be “bought media” and advances this farcical notion that the government is “shutting down dissent.” Hardly.

But truth doesn’t matter to Scheer. He’s been trying to delegitimise mainstream media for years now (recall that he called True North (aka Rebel Lite™) and Post Millennial “credible” sources, which should tell you everything you need to know about Scheer’s media literacy skills and judgment). Even though the Conservatives have learned how to manipulate mainstream outlets with their persistent both-sidesing, and knowing that it lets them get away with lying, it’s not enough, because occasionally, that both-sidesing can showcase how much the Conservative narrative is full of falsehoods, and they couldn’t possibly have that. Best to have their own stenographers and ensure that only their narratives get out.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians made an overnight attack against civilian targets in a variety of cities, leaving at least five dead. Russian forces are also trying to cut off supply lines to Ukrainian forces in Bakhmut, but the Ukrainian forces have managed to resist these attacks, and take back some other sections of the city that Russians have been occupying. Ahead of the spring counteroffensive, some 98 percent of promised NATO aid has arrived in Ukraine, amounting to over 1550 armoured vehicles, 230 tanks, and “vast amounts” of ammunition. Here’s a look at mental health supports available for Ukrainian soldiers.

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1651785146142453765

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1651456287408832512

Continue reading →

QP: Stop saying New York

Posted on by

While the prime minster was off to conferences in New York, his deputy and most other leaders were similarly elsewhere. Pierre Poilievre, however, was present, and he led off in French, worrying about the cost of bureaucracy rising while the strike happening, but then accused the prime minister of going “on vacation” to New York with “fancy people,” and demanded the prime minister go back to work. Mona Fortier said that they were working hard at the negotiation table to get a fair and reasonable deal. Poilievre repeated the question and false assertion with added misleading bluster in English, and Fortier repeated her same response. Poilievre scoffed at Fortier’s efforts before demanding that the prime minister return to Ottawa to “do his job,” to which Randy Boissonnault called this “bluff and bluster” before praising the economic recovery and lifting people out of poverty. Poilievre scoffed once again at this, using his tired line that the government was telling people they’ve never had it so good, before pivoting to the Glendore bid for Teck Resources, and demanded the government block it. Jonathan Wilkinson said that there was no formal bid, and praised Teck as being headquartered in BC. Poilievre accused the government of shipping off jobs, before he demanded the government remove “gatekeepers” for projects like LNG and more hydro dams in Quebec, to which Wilkinson suggested that Poilievre should do his homework. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and raised testimony from senior Liberal party official Jeremy Broadhurst at committee on foreign funding in the election and not having time to replace Han Dong as a candidate, and accused the prime minister of misleading the House. Dominic LeBlanc suggested they wait for David Johnston to weigh in. Therrien insisted that the prime minster’s version couldn’t be true, but LeBlanc repeated his response.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the Bloc, and he accused the prime minister of constantly being missing in action—got warned by the Deputy Speaker about it—and he restated his question to accuse the PM of doing nothing for two years and demanded he resolve the strike. Fortier insisted that they were at the table looking for creative solutions but would not give into unaffordable demands. Leah Gazan gave a somewhat confused question about the prime minister giving money to women’s institutions internationally but abandoning them at home, while phrasing this with the strike as well, and then accused him of fake feminism. Marci Ien pointed out that they gave emergency funds for shelters during the pandemic, and that she is currently negotiating with provinces on the plan to end gender-based violence.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The choices around Basic Income

Posted on by

Because I saw some news stories floating around this week yet again around Basic Income and the desire for the federal government to implement it, I wanted to point out that economist Lindsay Tedds has co-authored a book which was released yesterday on how to move beyond that discussion into better alternatives, drawing on her experience from the BC Basic Income panel that she was a part of.

To that end, here is Kevin Milligan providing some back-up on why this conversation involves choices that nobody likes to ever talk about. Funny that.

And yes, most Basic Income models keep gutting the supports for those who need them the most, and that is a problem.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1651260056866811904

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces pounded Bakhmut yet again, trying to destroy buildings so that the Ukrainians can’t use them as fortifications. Elsewhere, Ukraine was able to retrieve 44 POWs from Russian company, two of whom were civilians. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had an hour-long call with Chinese president Xi Jinping, which included talk of what role China could play in the peace process with Russia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An abuse of parliamentary privilege

Posted on by

I’m going to start off with the caveat that I don’t know a lot of what is happening in Nova Scotia politics, but I came across this story yesterday that is pretty concerning for the practice of parliamentary democracy across Canada. During debate on a bill around use of non-disclosure agreements in sexual assault cases, an independent MLA (formerly a Progressive Conservative but was ejected from caucus in 2021) tabled a document that she claimed was a non-disclosure agreement that a former female staffer had been coerced into signing with the PC Party. (To make things more interesting, said staffer died last year, and was working for this MLA at the time, and she says the document was found in the staffer’s effects—and, the party’s former leader was forced out over inappropriate behaviour toward a female staffer, so I’m not sure how many of these factors actually connect).

A government minister has since moved a motion to force her to retract her comments about the incident, and if she doesn’t, that she should be ejected from the Chamber until she does. And that’s a capital-P Problem. Said independent MLA has since complained to the province’s justice department that the move is unconstitutional…but the justice department can’t do anything about it, because this is clearly a matter that is within parliamentary privilege. But it absolutely violates all of our constitutional norms, and should be a warning sign about the lengths to which parties will abuse their majorities in legislatures to silence or bully opposition members. It sounds like the provincial Liberals and NDP will be opposing this motion, but the PCs do have a majority, so they may not be able to do much in the long run. I would not be surprised if the Speaker finds that the motion is out of order, but this is genuinely frightening about how much they are willing to abuse process and parliamentary privilege like this.

Don’t get me wrong—parliament or the legislatures do have the power to eject members, but it needs to be for very serious wrongdoing, such as being convicted of a serious crime, and if the member refuses to resign gracefully, then they can order the seat vacated. But those are extreme circumstances that have yet to be actually tested (because in virtually every case, sanity prevails and they resign with a shred of dignity still intact). But this is an unconscionable abuse of that power, an abuse of a parliamentary majority, and sets a very dangerous precedent for the future, and the PC members who thought this was at all appropriate should not only be ashamed, but should probably consider tendering their resignations for this debacle.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they repelled 45 Russian attacks around Bakhmut over a twenty-four-hour period, continuing to grind down the Russian forces while they await more arms from allies like the US in order to begin the spring counter-offensive.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1643326962226585604

Continue reading →

Roundup: Strange Five Eyes anxieties

Posted on by

Every now and again, a weird little subplot turns up in Canadian politics centred around anxiety about our place in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance. Lately, this has been heightened because of the AUKUS agreement, which is mostly about Australia buying American nuclear submarines, and that’s the reason why Canada wasn’t invited to join. We as a country have not been having the necessary dialogue around replacing our submarine fleet (which we absolutely should be), so us joining AUKUS would be particularly ill-timed.

Nevertheless, this bit of anxiety crept up again over the weekend, whereby an American intelligence official needed to go on television in Canada to assure us that no, the leaks from national security personnel to media over allegations of foreign interference are not going to jeopardise our Five Eyes membership. But cripes, people—we have had far worse leaks in recent memory, be it Jeffrey Delisle, who was sending information to the Russians, or the allegations surrounding senior RMCP intelligence official Cameron Ortis (who is still awaiting trial). Are these leaks to the media damaging? Yes, of course, particularly because they seem very much to have a partisan focus to them. Is it going to get us kicked out of the Five Eyes? Hardly.

Ukraine Dispatch:

As Russian forces pound the town of Avdiivka, shifting away from Bakhmut, Ukrainian leadership is calling for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council after Russia said it would be transferring tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1639971295113670656

Continue reading →

QP: Poilievre tries to play prosecutor

Posted on by

The stage was set for the showdown we have been anticipating for weeks, as the prime minister was finally in the House for QP after missing it in the last sitting week, and it portended to be nasty given the tenor of the previous episodes in the week. Pierre Poilievre led off, and he stated that the prime minister had previously stated he was unaware of certain allegations, which this morning’s Global story seemed to counter. Justin Trudeau first gave some bafflegab about taking interference seriously, but on this allegation he and his National Security and Intelligence Advisor have stated they had no information about financial transfers. Poilievre insisted this couldn’t be the case, and Trudeau reiterated that he had no knowledge of transfers, and then corrected the swipe at NSICOP in stating that its reports to Parliament. Poilievre tried to be clever about the redactions in NSICOP reports before again insisting that Trudeau must have known of these transfers. Trudeau pointed to where NSICOP reports can be found. Poilievre accused the prime minister of playing word games and insisted that he knew Beijing directed funds to candidates. Trudeau stammered about the redactions before repeating again they had no information on transfers of funds. Poilievre recited from the Global story, and one more time, Trudeau stammered about national security bodies. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and demanded an independent public inquiry. Trudeau stated that he wasn’t refusing, but he wanted recommendations from the special rapporteur. Normandin insisted that this wasn’t a partisan issue, and that they needed an inquiry, and Trudeau repeated that they needed the rapporteur to ensure they make the best moves, as some experts said an inquiry was not the right move. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he also quoted the Global story, and demanded a public inquiry, and Trudeau reiterate that they wanted the rapporteur to ensure they got the right process. Singh took a swipe at Trudeau before repeating the question in French. Trudeau repeated that there are experts who dispute that they need a public inquiry, which is why they want the rapporteur to weigh in.

Continue reading →

QP: The repetitive demands for a public inquiry

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town, he was not in QP, nor was his deputy. Most of the other leaders were absent, Pierre Poilieve was present, and he led off in French, saying that China has been trying to influence Justin Trudeau for ten years, starting with the donation to the Trudeau Foundation (which Trudeau had already stepped away from when the donation was made), and then said that Trudeau did nothing about China trying to interfere in two elections to support the Liberal Party (which is not really what the allegation was) before he demanded an independent public inquiry. Dominic LeBlanc got up and disputed that the government did nothing, when in fact Poilievre did nothing about the concerns when he was the minister in charge of democratic institutions. Poilievre switched to English to say that they didn’t do anything because the Communist Dictatorship in China wasn’t trying to help the Conservatives (that’s not an excuse for inaction), before repeating his same allegations that he made in French. LeBlanc repeated that they take any foreign interference seriously, which is why they took unprecedented steps when they formed government, including creating NSICOP, and the panel of senior public servants to monitor elections. Poilievre delivered a smear about Morris Rosenberg before insisting that the Liberals benefitted from the interference (not really) and then tried to call out the NDP for not being tougher on the government. LeBlanc said it was good news that top-level officials did already testify at committee and that he would be at committee himself on Thursday to answer questions. Poilievre noted the upcoming announcement coming later from the prime minister before suggesting that Trudeau would appoint a Liberal insider to hold a secretive process and not get to the truth, and he tried again to call out the NDP before demanding a public inquiry. LeBlanc reminded the House that Poilievre was the minister of democratic reform and he was aware of foreign interference allegations and did nothing. Poilievre went on a rant about the Liberals not being forthcoming about Chinese donations pre-2015, before demanding that the NDP force the government to allow PMO officials and Liberal Party figures appear at committee about the allegations. LeBlanc retorted that even if the leader of the opposition keeps repeating a falsehood, it doesn’t make it real, before he once again listed the measures they have taken.

Alain Therrien took over for the Bloc, and he demanded that everyone stand up for the confidence in the democratic system, and took his own turn to demand an independent public inquiry. LeBlanc agreed that it should be a non-partisan issue, and reiterated the “strong” measures that the government had taken. Therrien listed those who demanded an inquiry, and demanded it once again. LeBlanc again reiterated that they took measures, and gave more praise for NSICOP and other monitoring agencies.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and he too took a turn to demand a public inquiry, and LeBlanc recited the “unprecedented steps” that the government took to combat this problem. Alexandre Boulerice took over in French to repeat the demand and he got the same answer one more time from LeBlanc.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Empathy for the deeply selfish?

Posted on by

Update: Sorry for the delay. I had issues with the website but everything should be running smoothly now.

In spite of the Emergencies Act public inquiry report being released on Friday, there seem to be some awfully short memories as to what was happening at the time—or a bunch of people are acting disingenuously or in bad faith. Take, for example, Pierre Poilievre, who took to claiming that the assembled mass of far-right extremists, conspiracy theorists, grifters and grievance tourists were concerned about their costs of living and not being able to live. Which is funny, because inflation hadn’t spiked then, and interest rates were still at rock bottom. He is taking his current talking points and casting them back in time to a situation that didn’t exist, and has consigned the talking points of the era (“Freedom!”) to the memory hole. Funny that.

And then there’s the Globe and Mail, whose editorial board decided that what the occupiers need is empathy. After all, they had hurt feelings, and this narrative of the prime minister’s “divisive” comments keep circulating, even though he was telling the truth. The fact that certain people kept telling on themselves by openly identify as racists and misogynists to somehow “own Trudeau” was quite something.

Oh, and the Globe and Mail’s editorial board, comfortable in their downtown Toronto offices, should take a look at their own life choices as they demand empathy for a group of deeply selfish people who refused to take public health measures for the good of everyone around them, and who traded in conspiracy theories instead of behaving like grown-ups, and who held a city hostage in an extended three-week temper tantrum, instead of empathy for the citizens of Ottawa as their city police and provincial government abandoned them.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 363:

US president Joe Biden made a “surprise” visit to Kyiv yesterday, and stayed for some five hours, meeting with president Volodymyr Zelenzkyy and pledging more support for the country. (Here’s a look at how that trip came together). Ukrainian troops training on Leopard 2 tanks compare them to a Mercedes. Ukrainian forces say they are inflicting “extraordinarily significant” losses on Russian forces in the Donbas as Russia continues to move toward Bakhmut. Meanwhile, midwives in Ukraine are looking to Canada for training on how to better deliver babies outside of hospitals (as they are not licensed for home deliveries).

Continue reading →

QP: Uproar over calling out misinformation

Posted on by

The prime minister was in the Bahamas for CARICOM meetings, and his deputy elsewhere, most of the other leaders were again away from the Chamber. Andrew Scheer led off, with a script in front of him, and he demanded the prime minister “take responsibility” for “waste and corruption” that caused inflation, which is utter bunkum. Ahmed Hussen chided the Conservatives for delaying and voting against rental supplements for two million Canadians. Scheer insisted that this was all about the Liberals giving contracts to friends—which is a bit rich considering how much he helped himself to party funds when he was leader. Mark Holland got up and praised their work in lowering poverty and reducing unemployment. Scheer railed about wage subsidies to profitable corporations, and then went on a tirade about Liberal ethics lapses. François-Philippe Champagne accused the Conservatives of talking down the country and gave a non sequitur of praise for an electric vehicle project. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French and called out the Bloc for voting in favour of Bill C-5 on reducing some mandatory minimum sentences, which is very strange. David Lametti praised their supports for victims. Paul-Hus raised a particular sexual assault case, and repeated his accusations, and this time Lametti said he couldn’t comment on a particular case which could still be appealed, but reiterated that Bill C-5 was about tackling systemic racism in the justice system.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he once again raised concerns about Liberals raising objections to the amendments to the official languages bill. Ginette Petitpas Taylor praised that the bill will given new powers to the Languages Commissioner. Therrien tried calling out individual Liberals, and this time Pablo Rodriguez said the Bloc were going to vote against it anyway, so what did it matter.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he railed about rising rental prices, which is provincial jurisdiction. Hussen praised their housing measures. Singh repeated the question in French, and this time Randy Boissonnault acknowledged the NDP’s support in the measures they passed.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Opposing amendments at committee

Posted on by

I find myself amused by the ongoing stories that some Liberal MPs may vote against the official languages bill when it comes out of committee as amended, and the constant oh noes! Trudeau is losing control of his caucus! narrative that accompanies it. This said, there are egregious amendments that I have a hard time believing that they’re in order, because they reference provincial legislation in Quebec. For example, the change to the preamble of the bill to acknowledge Quebec’s Law 96 should have no place in federal legislation. There is also an amendment that says that if federal and provincial language laws come into conflict, the provincial law (especially Quebec’s Law 96) takes precedence, which is against every single constitutional practice and statutory interpretation principle in this country, and beyond that, it sets an absolutely terrible precedent for other areas of the law where one level of government tries to impose something on another jurisdiction, and because this one went unchallenged its okay. Yeah, we don’t want that to happen.

As mentioned, these are a result of Conservative and Bloc amendments, and the Conservatives are back to pandering to Quebec voters (and François Legault) by being as shameless as possible in trying to out-bloc the Bloc, and in some cases, they are being supported by the NDP’s Niki Ashton. It stands to reason that if the government objects to a number of these amendments, they can vote them down during report stage debate, and that would mean the whole chamber is voting, not just the Bloc and the Conservatives, so it could be enough votes to ensure that these amendments are left out of the final bill, which would mean this “rebellion” by a few Liberal MPs has done its job. There are still a couple of meetings left for this bill in committee, so we’ll see what the final shape of the bill looks like.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 358:

Russian troops are mounting constant attacks, and are claiming to have broken through two fortified lines in the Luhansk region (but they make lots of claims that aren’t true), while the regional governor denies that Ukrainian troops are in retreat. The Russians have been changing their tactics at Bakhmut, moving in smaller groups, without the support of tanks or armoured personnel carriers, and the Ukrainians are adapting to the new tactics. Reuters has a photo essay of one family’s evacuation from the area near Bakhmut, during which their grandmother died in the van.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1625861957549948929

Continue reading →