Tag Archives: Online Harms

Roundup: Turnabout is fair play in procedural warfare

Posted on by

If you needed yet another example of how the state of the current parliament continues to degrade, yesterday was yet another example. It was the first of the allotted Supply Days (aka “opposition days”) that the Speaker had to intervene in order to schedule, and it barely happened at all. Why? The NDP used procedural shenanigans to delay the debate on the confidence motion that used Jagmeet Singh’s words as the fodder by calling for concurrence debate on a committee report that dealt with abortion access, and the Liberals played along, which meant that the Conservatives’ debate didn’t end up happening until after QP, meaning they only had a couple of hours’ worth of clip-gathering instead of a full day, and boy were they put out about it. But that’s the thing with procedural warfare—if you wage it against others, eventually they will wage it against you.

There were other shenanigans that happened after QP—Liberal MP Jaime Battiste tried to move a unanimous consent motion to get the First Nations water bill out of committee and over to the Senate, but the Conservatives refused. As they did, Battiste took his water glass and started shouting at the Conservatives, and went into the aisle, apparently planning to throw the glass at them before he thought better of it. And then Andrew Scheer tried to move a motion that would have had the same effect, but with language that denigrated the government, and of course that too was shut down, and Scheer had the audacity to play the victim after that stunt.

It’s good that there’s only one sitting week left, because my tolerance for this kind of bullshit is at its end.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Americans have been pressuring Ukraine to lower the conscription age to 18 in order to bolster their fighting force, which is creating dilemmas for those teenaged boys.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fiscal update when?

Posted on by

This year’s Fall Economic Statement is very late—it’s extremely unusual for it to happen in December—but these are not normal times, and the ongoing privilege filibuster hasn’t helped matters any. The government’s attempts to get shame either the Bloc or the NDP into finally voting with the government to pull the plug on it have all been in vain, because they all want to do their part to embarrass the government as much as possible. This being said, I’m not sure what the holdup is with the Public Accounts either, though they have insisted that they’re with the Auditor General and will be released soon. In any case, the government has refused to explain exactly why these releases are so late, because we’re back to the tiresome “If you’re explaining, you’re losing” schtick, so as usual, this government never explains.

Pierre Poilievre decided that he would pretend to be magnanimous and “offer” the government two hours from the Conservatives’ allotted day on Monday to present the update, but Chrystia Freeland rejected it out of hand, calling the offer absurd, and saying “This proposal from the Conservatives is like an arsonist who set the fire in the first place, saying, ‘don’t worry about it, I’ll come with a fire truck for a couple of hours, but tomorrow I’ll be back again with matches’.” Procedurally, I don’t see how the Conservatives could offer up time to government business on an allotted day, but also procedurally, Freeland could use the daily Statements by Ministers slot during routine proceedings to deliver the update (though that may be somewhat more awkward for the associated media lockup because those statements tend to be earlier than budget or fiscal update speeches are traditionally delivered, in part because of any data from those lock-ups moving markets (which is why they are traditionally delivered after 4 PM). They could technically also deliver it outside of the Chamber (Paul Martin once read it at committee, and the Conservatives liked to deliver it off Parliament Hill entirely), but we don’t want to encourage a return to the practice of announcing things outside of Parliament (and the UK Speaker uses very strong language about this sort of thing).

If I had to guess, I would suspect that it’ll be delivered next Wednesday or Thursday, once the Supply votes are out of the way, which makes it extremely convenient for Freeland and every other minister to spread out across the country to deliver the “good news” about the programmes in the budget, whereas Poilievre would want to use the timing of the update to claim that he “forced” the government to “come clean about the numbers,” or some such bullshit like that. None of this is great, but we’re dealing with an exhausted government and a dysfunctional parliament, so nothing is as it should be right now.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine is giving soldiers who deserted or went AWOL a second chance, particularly given the shortages they’re facing on the Eastern front, and lo, some six thousand soldiers have rejoined. News leaking out of the Trump camp indicate that his plan to end the war involve major land concessions, NATO membership being off the table, and cutting military aid, unless Putin refuses, in which case they would provide more. (Land concessions are not really his goal, guys).

Continue reading →

QP: Undignified exchanges on the GST “holiday”

Posted on by

Neither the PM nor his deputy were present today, nor were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre was present, and led off in French, and he declared Justin Trudeau to be “weak,” blamed him for Roxham Road, the rise in foreign students and the claim that 500,000 people were “lost,” and demanded to know what he would do to secure the border. Jean-Yves Duclos noted that the relationship with the U.S. is the most important, and praised the changes to the Safe Third Country Agreement. Poilievre accused the government of losing control of the border and that premiers were sending more provincial police to the borders. Duclos took the opportunity to raise Poilievre not having his security clearance. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question, with slightly more faux menace, and this time, Marc Miller noted that hundreds of thousands of people come to this country and then leave, who are called tourists and that anyone who doesn’t leave will face consequences, before saying that Poilievre and Tim Uppal have been telling people they won’t be deported because he’ll give them all visas. Poilievre stumblingly called this a “hallucination,” and Miller said he would tweet out the video, before saying that Poilievre needs to “grow a pair” and get his security clearance. Poilievre called this “erratic behaviour” and demanded an election, to which Karina Gould called him all talk and no walk.

Marc Miller just said that Poilievre needs to “grow a pair” and get his security clearance. Speaker Fergus asks him to withdraw those words, and Miller obliges. #QP

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-28T19:50:40.348Z

https://twitter.com/MarcMillerVM/status/1862269731329262017

 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and claimed the government was finally listening to the Bloc and  adding resource to the border (Duclos: The prime minster had a good call with the premiers), and on a follow-up, Mélanie Joly noted that she spoke with François Legault this morning, as well as a number of influential American senators.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP to demand that the “rebate” cheques be expanded to more people. Soraya Martinez Ferrada thanked the NDP for their support on the GST holiday, unlike the “grinches” on the other side. Laurel Collins took over in English to also demand the rebate be expanded, and this time, Ferrada praised in French their (wholly inadequate) disability benefit and took the jab at the NDP for not supporting workers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s not logistically impossible

Posted on by

For the past week-and-a-half, it has been nothing but handwringing over the Toronto—St. Paul’s by-election results, and the demands that Justin Trudeau either step aside, or to at least meet with his caucus. I took a full week for Trudeau to finally take questions from the media and said that he’s “committed” to staying on the job. And in response to the demands for an in-person caucus meeting now and not in September, Trudeau said he’s having one-on-one conversations with members of the caucus, and some of them are saying he needs to change “key players.”

And then comes along Liberal caucus chair Brenda Shanahan, who insists that it’s “logistically impossible” to have an in-person caucus meeting before September, to which I call bullshit. MPs can all get on a plane to Ottawa at any point, even if it means they have to cancel a barbeque appearance at some point. It’s not impossible, it’s a choice, and that choice is to not respect the members of the caucus, because frankly the leader doesn’t feel the need to be afraid of caucus because we have trained MPs to believe the falsehood that they are powerless and that the leader can push them around. That’s not actually true, and the caucus collectively has the power to vote non-confidence in the leader if they actually had the intestinal fortitude to do so. But therein lies the problem.

I’m also going to point out that all of the breathless reporting on Thursday about Chrystia Freeland saying that the Cabinet is fully behind Trudeau—of course they’re fully behind him. If they weren’t, they’d be out of a job. This isn’t rocket science, guys.

In case you missed them:

  • My weekend column where I talked to the author of the book Theatre of Lies about the situation we find ourselves in Canadian politics and what to do about it.
  • My column points out that one of the problems the Liberals face is how they choose their leaders, and that a proper Westminster system would have solved this by now.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take wonders just what Danielle Smith thinks she wants to “opt out” of around dental care.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces shot down 21 out of 22 Russian drones overnight Thursday. Ukrainian troops were forced to retreat from one neighbourhood in Chasiv Yar after their defensive positions were destroyed, risking further casualties. A Russian missile strike in Odesa killed a woman, while a guided bomb in Kharkiv region killed a man. Russians have started targeting Ukrainian air bases in advance of the delivery of F-16 fighter jets. Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán went to Kyiv for a frosty meeting as Hungary assumes the rotating presidency of the EU. Orbán then headed to Moscow, no doubt to get fresh orders from Putin.

Continue reading →

QP: Who cares about the woodland caribou?

Posted on by

For the final Tuesday of the spring sitting, the prime minister and his deputy were both present, as were nearly all of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and said that the environment minister is threatening jobs in Quebec’s forestry sector with an Order-in-Council, not mentioning that it’s because Quebec has not lived up to their obligations to protect woodland caribou. Poilievre vowed to undo such an order as government, and worried that there would be an increase in lumber costs and lost jobs until then. Justin Trudeau said that for decades, the federal government has had a responsibility to protect species at risk, and in this case, it’s the woodland caribou, and they are working with the province to protect the environment and jobs. Poilievre blamed the Bloc for keeping the government in power, and that they were letting the federal government kill jobs in the forestry sector, and Trudeau reiterated that you can’t build a strong economy without protecting the environment. Poilievre switched to English, and quoted Scott Brison’s comments about the capital gains changes, and Trudeau shrugged this off as a “partisan” attack and explained this was about $250,000 in profits, and asking them to pay a little more. Poilievre cited a Food Banks Canada report that claimed 25 percent of Canadians were now in poverty, and called the government’s programmes “whackononics,” and Trudeau pointed out that the Conservatives keep voting against help for people. Poilievre tried to tie in the nonsense conspiracy about the so-called secret carbon price report to discredit the government’s points on the capital gains, and Trudeau taunted that Poilievre hid for eight weeks in order to come up with an answer on the capital gains changes.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and wondered why Trudeau was not sharing foreign interference warnings with provincial premiers, citing comments by David Eby. Trudeau insisted that they were working to get more information to provinces in a timely manner. Normandin demanded that the step up and give provinces the information they need. Trudeau said that Bill C-70 would do that, once it passes the Senate.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he playacted tough in trying to call out the PM for not doing anything about suspected MPs in his caucus, and the Conservatives for being incurious on the NSICOP report. Trudeau gave some platitudes about taking more actions than any other government. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

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: Abdicating responsibilities and calling on Justice Hogue instead

Posted on by

The reverberations from the NSICOP report continued over the weekend, with the rhetoric still as ridiculous as ever. For example, everyone keeps shouting the word “treason” about what these MPs are alleged to have done (with the exception of the one former MP in the report), and lo, it doesn’t actually meet the Criminal Code definition of “treason,” which means that it’s unlikely anyone is going to face charges for what is alleged to have happened (if indeed any of it was in fact foreign interference and not actions undertaken as part of diplomacy, and the jury is still out on that).

And rather than continue to use this opportunity to behave like adults, the Bloc and the Conservatives now want to turn this over to Justice Hogue so that she can make some sort of determination rather than put on their big-boy pants and get their classified briefings. Turning this over to Justice Hogue would be an absolute abdication of responsibility by both the Bloc and Conservative leaders, and soon it could just be the Conservative leader since Yves-François Blanchet is now considering getting a classified briefing. That hasn’t stopped Michael Chong from going on national television to literally claim that he knows better than former CSIS directors about this, and saying that if Poilievre gets briefed, his hands are tied. That’s wrong, that’s bullshit, and that’s fabricating excuses so that he can continue to act as an ignorant critic rather than an informed observer.

This is not new. This is a long-standing problem in Canadian politics that opposition leaders don’t want to be briefed because if they do, then they have to be responsible in their commentary, and they don’t want to do that. They want to be able to stand up and say inflammatory things, and Poilievre is not only no different, but that’s his entire modus operandi. He can’t operate if he has to act like a responsible grown-up, where he would have to get the information and do something with it internally in his party, but he doesn’t want to do that when he can continue screaming that the prime minister is hiding something. But it’s hard to say that the prime minister is hiding something when he is quite literally offering Poilievre the opportunity to read the classified report, so instead he lies about what that would mean, and he gets Michael Chong to debase himself and also lie about it. This is the state of politics, and it’s very, very bad for our democracy.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians appear to be making headway in their attempt to capture the strategically significant town of Chasiv Yar. Ukraine says that it struck an “ultra-modern” Russian aircraft six hundred kilometres from the front lines. The Globe and Mail has a longread about of Ukraine’s most elite special forces units, on the front lines of the war with Russia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The demand to name names

Posted on by

The day was largely marked with the discourse around that NSICOP report, and the demand that the government name names, even though that’s never going to happen because intelligence is not evidence, there may be ongoing investigations that it might jeopardise, and the possibility of reputational damage for someone who may be unwittingly involved is great—all things the RCMP pointed to in their own release on the subject. The chair of NSICOP said that any next steps are up to the RCMP, but that hasn’t stopped reporters from asking salacious questions about whether they can trust their fellow caucus-members (because remember, reputational damage).

With all of this in mind, I went back to the report, and looked for more than just that one paragraph that every media outlet highlighted. It noted that much of that witting assistance was in relation to India, which is not a “hostile power” last time I checked, even if we have particular issues with them (such as their decision to assassinate someone on our soil). I have no doubt that some MPs would see no problem in trying to “forge closer ties” with India. The other thing that I noted was that, at least in relationship with the Chinese government is that there was an expectation of a quid pro quo relationship, that engaging with them would benefit the political player in question in the hopes that the PRC would mobilise their influence networks in favour of that candidate in the riding. I suspect that in several of these cases, the MPs in question wouldn’t think of it as foreign interference, but that they’re being so clever in leveraging diaspora politics to their advantage, and believing that they can somehow outwit Chinese agents to do it. Likewise with instances of blind eyes being turned to money flowing into ridings, particularly from the Indian government—that they think they can leverage that government to their advantage and not that they’re being played, and why I don’t think that certain media outlets and political figures screaming “name the traitors!” is doing much for the level of discourse. The report did make mention of Chinese and Indian influence in at least two Conservative leadership races, but no details provided as to how or the vectors that took shape as (money, membership sign-ups under the promise of repayment, or so on). There was also mention of one former MP who had wittingly provided information while maintaining a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer, but this was being conflated with the other allegations, which is not helpful in the slightest.

As for what’s next, it would seem to me that the real question here is why certain party leaders continue to be wilfully blind as to the full details of the report, and how they continue to refuse to accept classified briefings. The notion that it would “muzzle” them is bullshit—it would mean they can’t talk about certain specific details, but it would give them a more complete picture of what is happening and if their own MPs are implicated, which would allow them to take internal party action, even if they can’t publicize the details.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed 22 out of 27 Russian drones overnight Wednesday, and an industrial facility in Poltava suffered damage. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with the emir of Qatar in advance of the peace summit in Switzerland.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1798300991407940083

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO immolates his credibility

Posted on by

In their need to constantly frame issues as both-sides, The Canadian Press inadvertently downplayed the severity of what happened with the notice that the Parliamentary Budget Officer quietly put on his website to say that they got some of their analysis on the federal carbon levy wrong. The CP story focused it on a Liberal MP writing the PBO to get him to broadcast the correction, rather than framing the story as the PBO made an error, and giving the briefest of mentions to the MP and his open letter, because that letter shouldn’t have been the story.

The story, as it turns out, is not only that the PBO made the mistake in his analysis, it’s that he is steadfastly refusing to take any responsibility for it, never mind that this particular report has been politically charged and is at the centre of much of the debate over the carbon levy. Putting aside that the report itself was not very well done (the distributional analysis was undermined by his insistence on including average figures and that the calculation on the impact of the price were done in the absence of any kind of counterfactual, and in a binary price/no price way that is in itself inherently misleading, the fact that the PBO didn’t advertise that there was a problem with the report, didn’t include any kind of correction (he’s planning a fully re-done report in the fall), and he’s saying thing that don’t logically follow, such as it’s too complex to recalculate like this…but the outcome from the error is unlikely to change the outcome of that portion of the report (this being the impact on the broader economy, which the Conservatives misleadingly cherry-pick to “prove” households are worse off). So, in addition to refusing to take responsibility, he won’t pick a lane.

But it gets worse. Yves Giroux went on Power & Politics to discuss this incident, and immolated his credibility as he not only continued to refuse to take any responsibility, but tried to prevaricate, and make excuses with a wall of bafflegab, but he also started arguing that his “small office” shouldn’t be responsible for the climate-related economic modelling that MPs are demanding, that the government should be doing it, but his one job is literally doing this kind of analysis to provide an independent analysis from the government’s. Of course, Giroux has always had a problem sticking within the bounds of his legislated mandate, and has preferred to act like a talking head pundit and opining on all kinds of things the government is doing, while still insisting that he’s independent and hence more credible than the government as a result. And I’m not too surprised that Giroux is trying to avoid taking any responsibility, being that he is a career civil servant for whom responsibility is something to be avoided, but in refusing to do so, he has tainted his office. There can’t be trust about his numbers going forward, and as was pointed out, especially if he’s going to be costing election platform promises (which he’s done a pretty shite job of so far, such as sticking his letterhead on Andrew Scheer’s handwaving), but that was something the PBO never should have done in the first place. This should be a resignation-worthy offence, but so should it have been when he decided he wanted to be a television pundit. But we’ll see if he can finally accept responsibility and do the right thing here and step down.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Four people were injured in a Russian missile attack on Kharkiv early Thursday morning. NATO’s secretary general is proposing a way to help Trump-proof military aid for Ukraine, but there will be obstacles that include Hungary’s objections. Reuters has a lengthy look at the front lines in Donetsk.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Aborted merger talks?

Posted on by

I will be the first to admit that I don’t follow BC politics too closely, but I cannot help by roll my eyes at some of the narratives starting to leak out across the border around a supposed attempt to “unite the right” in that province. It sounds like it’s all talk, as the rumours that a particular mayor is being touted as a possible candidate lead a merged party, but the leader of the BC Conservative Party is throwing cold water over the whole thing, not unexpectedly.

As a quick refresher, the province used to have a single centre-right party, the BC Liberals, which was not the same as the federal Liberals, but a merger between the “free enterprise” Liberal and Conservative parties in the province to counter the NDP, and that was successful for a number of years, but they were insufficiently conservative for some, especially because they were relatively socially progressive and were environmentally conscious—they were the first jurisdiction in the country to bring in a carbon tax (and it’s an actual tax that largely offsets income taxes). And so the BC Conservatives were born, and the BC Liberals changed their name to BC United (sounding like a European football team), and they have largely tanked since.

This talk of mergers is usually what starts to happen when people start huffing poll numbers (hello the recurring “Why don’t the federal Liberals and NDP merge?” bullshit), but who don’t think about anything underlying, such as policies, beliefs, or underlying culture, because that stuff does matter. A lot. Case in point was Alberta, where Jason Kenney decided to ride in with his blue pick-up truck to “unite the right” in that province without doing any of the soul-searching about what any of it actually means, and what they would have to offer. No, it was just important to them to have a banner with “conservative” in it that could oppose the NDP, and sure, the “united” party did beat the NDP, but it has been nothing but internal chaos, who turned on Kenney at the first opportunity because he brought in the ungovernable, swivel-eyed loons into the fold to give him the numbers he felt he needed. As I’ve said before, he invited the face-eating leopards into the house and made them a nice warm bed, with the intention of turning them on his enemies, but they quickly realised that his face was right there and so they ate it instead. I can pretty much promise you that the exact same thing would happen in BC if they attempted such a merger, which would end up serving nobody.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces have taken control of two more villages in the Kharkiv region, and possibly another one in the Zaporizhzhia region in the south, as their offensive pushes forward. There have also been injuries from Russian air strikes on the southern cities of Mykolaiv and Kherson. In light of the deteriorating situation, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is postponing all foreign travel, starting with his planned trips to Spain and Portugal, because of the situation on the front lines.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1790735262978326589

Continue reading →