Tag Archives: Privilege

Roundup: Temporarily abdicating responsibility to Justice Hogue

Posted on by

The day in the House of Commons started off with the Bloc moving a Supply Day motion to call on the government to send the issue of the implicated parliamentarians from the NSICOP report to the Hogue Commission to have her deal with it, which the Conservatives also spent the weekend demanding, and the Liberals? Immediately rolled over and said sure, let’s do that. Which is stupid, because this is an abdication of responsibility, and it lets Pierre Poilievre off the hook for doing the grown-up, responsible work of getting the classified briefing so he knows what’s going on in his own party and so that he can take action. But he doesn’t want to do that, because knowing the truth could mean he might be forced to behave like a responsible adult rather than an ignorant critic who can lob wild accusations from the rooftops with reckless abandon, and that’s what he loves to do because he also knows that’s what’s going to get him media attention. The NDP, meanwhile, tried to amend the motion to get Justice Hogue to also probe the allegations around interference in Conservative leadership races, and Jagmeet Singh says that if he finds any member of his party is implicated after he reads the full report, he’ll kick them out. (With no due process? And remember, he’s a criminal defence lawyer, for whom due process is their livelihood). Elizabeth May is also going to get her briefing, and is trying to weigh what she can say publicly when she does. Nevertheless, dropping this in Hogue’s lap is not a solution, but Canadian political leaders love to foist their political problems onto judges to solve for them, which can’t work, and we’re just going to wind up where we are today, but several months later. Because certain leaders refuse to be an adult about it.

Philippe Lagassé and Stephanie Carvin lay out the case precisely why it’s a Very Bad Idea to publicly name names, and why party leaders need to get their classified briefings so that they can clean house in an appropriate manner, which is what they refuse to do.

Meanwhile, more people are latching onto the mention in the NSICOP report about compromised media outlets—those on the left are convinced this is talking about Postmedia being on the take, and now Conservative MPs are putting out shitpost videos trying to claim that mainstream media writ-large is on the take so they aren’t to be trusted. The report didn’t actually say anything about mainstream media, and if you have a grasp of the media landscape, the report is likely referring to ethno-cultural media outlets serving diaspora communities, as there is plenty of documented evidence of particularly Chinese interference in some of these outlets in Canada. But the Conservatives don’t care about the truth, or context—they want to flood the zone with bullshit in order to create this dystopian alternate reality for their followers with the explicit aim of reducing their trust in reality, and that’s exactly what they have weaponised the report to do. It’s amazing that nobody actually calls them out for doing so.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian guided bomb strike has hit houses in Kharkiv, injuring at least six. Russian forces have taken control of the village of Staromaiorske in the Donetsk region, but Ukraine denies that Chechen special forces have taken over a village near the northeast border. Ukraine is claiming responsibility for damaging three Russian air defence systems in occupied Crimea, as well as for a June 5th attack on an oil refinery that has cost half a billion dollars in lost production. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has arrived in Germany for a conference on post-war recovery.

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: Responding to events isn’t a desperation move

Posted on by

If you’ve been paying attention to Question Period over the past several days, you may have noticed that the Liberals haven’t been asking endless questions about abortion, or rather, asking the government to comment on the Conservatives’ stance about abortion. Throughout this, you had a bunch of pundits, almost all of them located outside of Ottawa, going “The Liberals are desperate! They’re using the abortion move 18 months too early!” The problem with that particular analysis is that it ignores the events going on around them.

What the Liberals were really doing, if someone bad bothered to pay attention, was responding to things the Conservatives have been doing around them. It started with Pierre Poilievre’s speech where he promised to use the Notwithstanding Clause to “make” tough-on-crime policies and laws “constitutional” (never mind that invoking the Notwithstanding Clause is a flashing red light that what you’re doing isn’t constitutional, and you’re doing to do it anyway—at least for the next five years, anyway. The Liberals were not going to pass up an opportunity to ask Poilievre just what else he planned to use those powers for, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.

From there, Arnold Viersen tabled his petition calling for abortion restrictions, and the March for Life happened on the same week, which the Liberals (and usually the NDP) always put on a big production in Question Period about how important a woman’s right to choose is. This all happened within a few days, so of course they were going to respond to it. And once those events happened, they moved onto other things (like lambasting Poilievre’s “housing” bill). Not everything is a desperation move. They talked about abortion back in December when the Conservatives swapped a bill so that Cathay Wagantall’s backdoor abortion-banning bill could be voted on before they rose for the winter break (so it wouldn’t act as a millstone around their necks, even though the entire caucus voted for it), and everyone wasn’t insisting this was some kind of desperation move then. The moral here is that sometimes you need to pay attention to what is going on around Question Period, because it’s not the only thing going on.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine shot down 13 out of 14 drones launched by Russia on Monday night, with most of the debris falling on the Rivne region. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Belgium to sign another security agreement.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Simping for the return of Stephen Harper

Posted on by

Yesterday, former Conservative campaign manager and current media darling Fred DeLorey wrote a column for iPolitics that posited that under a Pierre Poilievre government, appointing Stephen Harper to the Cabinet post of foreign affairs would be a “bold declaration of Canada’s readiness to assume a pivotal role in shaping global affairs.” It’s a…novel…argument, and while I will admit that I haven’t read the piece because my subscription has lapsed, I wanted to make a few points regardless.

The first point is that while it is possible for a prime minister to appoint a minister who doesn’t have a seat, the convention is that they find one as soon as possible, whether in the Commons or in the Senate, because otherwise they can’t report to Parliament or sponsor legislation without needing a proxy to do it for them. Harper himself appointed Michael Fortier to the Senate in order to serve as minister of public works, and later international trade. (Fortier resigned from the Senate to run for a seat in the Commons in the next election and was soundly defeated). I find the notion of Harper being given a Senate seat to be far too ironic considering his utter disdain for the institution, and in particular its appointed nature. The alternative is asking one of Poilievre’s MPs to resign in a safe seat to run a by-election for Harper to run in, but again, I have seen zero desire on his part to get back into electoral politics. He’s also a one-man show, and the party is still very much his cult of personality, three leaders later, so I have a hard time envisioning him being a team player and not undermining Poilievre’s authority at every turn.

As for it being a “bold declaration,” I think that on the face of it, it smacks of trying to copy Rishi Sunak giving David Cameron the post in the UK government (along with a seat in the Lords), and Sunak’s government is about to be wiped out in the upcoming general election. There has also been plenty of chatter since this proposal went up over Twitter, and a lot of it is from people who still, to this day, believe that Harper is some kind of Bond villain, and that his IDU is some kind of SPECTRE. He’s not, and it’s not. The IDU is a social club for terrible people, and Harper has spent a lot of time cultivating friendships with autocrats and dictators, and has been part of the move to create permission structures for far-right parties to engage in increasingly autocratic far-right behaviour. It’s hard to think of what kind of cachet Harper is going to have on the foreign policy circuit given that he didn’t really have any foreign policy wins when he was in office. Conservatives love to recount how he allegedly told Putin to get out of Ukraine at a major summit, and look how effective that was—Putin went from occupying Crimea to launching a full-scale invasion of the rest of the country. Harper really showed him! Meanwhile, he’s spent so much time cuddling up to these terrible people and laundering their actions in pretending that they are “centre-right democratic parties,” unless that’s the kind of foreign policy that Poilievre wants to cultivate (which is possible). I just fail to see where DeLorey sees an upside in any of this.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians have been pounding Ukrainian power facilities, including a hydroelectric dam on the Dnipro River, or power supplies in Kharkiv, during which president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling on allies to summon the political will to deliver needed air defences. Russia says these are “revenge strikes” for attacks across their border, an claims these military targets including “concentrations of troops and foreign mercenaries.” Ukraine says that Russian oil refineries are legitimate targets. Ukraine is also worried that Russia could be preparing as many as 100,000 troops to make a new offensive push this summer, or to replenish depleted units.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1771149078010765485

Continue reading →

Roundup: Speaker Fergus is in trouble

Posted on by

The incident over the weekend where Speaker Greg Fergus appeared in a video at the Ontario Liberal leadership convention, in his robes, in his official office, blew up in the House of Commons today, and it wasn’t wholly unexpected. Fergus led off the day with an apology and a promise to be more careful in the future, but also an insistence that this was a personal message to outgoing interim provincial Liberal leader John Fraser, for whom he las a long-standing friendship, and non-partisan.

This didn’t mollify the Conservatives, who immediately launched into a point of privilege, led by Andrew Scheer, while the Bloc immediately decided that Fergus needs to resign over this, while the Conservatives also came around to this demand. The NDP, for their part, said that this needs to go to a committee for study, but all the while, Fergus recused himself from this discussion (as well he should have, which as something that Anthony Rota didn’t do after his particular incident), but the Deputy Speaker, Chris d’Entrement, indulged. It was quite clear that this was really more of a dilatory tactic from the Conservatives, who put up speaker after speaker to this point, for hours on end, which again, d’Entrement indulged when he shouldn’t have. But this is what they’re doing at this time of year, to run out the clock, like they do at the end of every sitting, and this was just today’s excuse rather than insisting that they really, really needed to debate a three-line committee report from eighteen months ago.

A couple of observations here:

  1. This wasn’t necessarily a breach of non-partisanship because this was at a provincial and not a federal event. Scheer tried to use the analogy of an NHL referee giving a pep talk in on team’s dressing room while in uniform, but that doesn’t hold—this would be an NHL referee giving a note of congratulations to someone in the OHL. But Scheer is a serial liar, so of course he’s going to turn out a work of fiction on this.
  2. Fergus should have known better, and while Fraser is trying to take the blame for this, Fergus should have had better judgment than to appear in his robes, in his official office, regardless of the circumstances. As a friend of mine noted, the Liberals can’t seem to help themselves with this kind of thing, and Fergus has been a little too proud of his new post and to be showing off his robes at every opportunity, and that’s going to get him in trouble. Well, more than he already is. Did he learn nothing from the fact that Rota was a genial idiot using his position to pose for photos in his uniform at every opportunity, and it led to his downfall? Seriously.
  3. If people want to get precious about what is and isn’t non-partisan for a Speaker, Rota would be making government funding announcement in his riding all the time, which he shouldn’t have done because he’s not a minister, and he’s the Speaker and shouldn’t have been there for them. And yet, nobody said boo about this practice, which they really should have.

Bottom line is I don’t think Fergus should have to resign over this, but man oh man, what terrible judgment so early in his time in that office.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they have successfully attacked oil depots in Russian-occupied Luhansk, while the deputy commander of Russia’s 14th Army Corps was killed in fighting in Ukraine. The death toll from the strike on the eastern town of Novohrodivka has risen after more bodies were found in the rubble of a residential building.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More reactions to the economic update

Posted on by

Reactions to the Fall Economic Statement continue to roll in, so I figured I would highlight a couple of them. On the subject of housing, pretty much everyone is unhappy with what was on offer, in spite of the fact that the federal government didn’t have a lot of room to manoeuvre as they try to avoid juicing economic growth too much, which would put upward pressure on inflation (and the provinces are already doing just that).

To that effect, here’s a thread from Mike Moffatt on things the federal government could have done that won’t impact the inflation situation.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1727301177833132254

Kevin Milligan delves into the debt and deficit figures in this thread, and provides a dose of perspective sauce for all of the hyperventilating that is coming from certain quarters and voices, particularly as debt servicing charges have risen. As well, I’m highlighting this one tweet about just how big the increase is in relative and historical terms, because again, perspective.

As well, Lindsay Tedds explains in this thread why she thinks the government’s plans to limit short-term rentals is going to be far easier said than actually done (and that they may not have thought it through).

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1727491807834177690

Ukraine Dispatch:

The death toll from the Russian strike on the hospital in Selydove has risen to three. The Russians are reported to be sending fewer troops and less equipment to Avdiivka after failing to capture it in a major assault. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned of a “difficult defence” on the eastern front as the winter cold sets in. Ukraine’s coal industry has had to start hiring women and overturning policies that barred them from working underground because of the war.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1727376980851486836

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, you can’t challenge a censure motion in court

Posted on by

Ontario MPP Sarah Jama has written to Doug Ford to ask him to retract his motion in the legislature to censure her and prevent her from speaking until she offers an apology for the comments she made at the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict. In it, Jama says that if Ford doesn’t, she’ll take the matter to the courts. The problem? The courts won’t touch any kind of legislative censure motion because it falls under the issue of parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers.

We have to remember that Parliament and the legislatures are self-governing, as they should be. That’s what keeps them independent of the powers of the King—and yes, the courts to count as the powers of the King, as the King is the fount of justice, and justice is carried out in his name. (That’s also why we have a doctrine by which the King can do no wrong, but rather, can merely act on bad advice, and the minister who offered that is responsible for it). Part of that self-governing power is the legislature’s ability to discipline its members, which is important because you don’t want an external authority able to do that, because it can create a great deal of interference in the workings of your legislature.

This being said, the fact that she was censured at all is a problem, and as I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago, is part of a broader pattern that his happening that is extremely concerning (and is almost always hypocritically done by parties who claim to be all about free speech, but reveal themselves to only be pro-speech they like). And it should be up to voters to discipline parties that are abusing these powers to punish those they disagree with, but that also means keeping up the pressure on them so that they know that they are going to be punished for it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine says that in spite of that Liberian-flagged ship getting hit by a Russian missile, their alternative Black Sea corridor is working. Really! President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is also hoping for a conference next month on a joint weapon production agreement with the US and defence contractors.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1722903820684947654

Continue reading →

Roundup: No single point of failure

Posted on by

It was another big day at the Procedure and House Affairs committee as both the National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Jody Thomas, appeared, as did Bill Blair, both on the subject of what they knew about the “threats” against Michael Chong and his family. What we got was a bit more of the corroboration from the Johnston report that the process of pushing intelligence up to senior levels hasn’t been working, which is why these things weren’t noticed or acted upon earlier. Blair in particular offered more clarity about the issue with the top-secret emails and how it’s being misconstrued that he didn’t have passwords to it. No, it’s that he doesn’t have access to that system period, and CSIS prepares a package from him and brings it to him physically. He did also take a bit of a swipe at CSIS, saying that the Chong information was determined to be something that they didn’t think the minister needed to know, which is a bit petty.

What stood out for me the most was Thomas saying that there wasn’t one single point of failure here, or one link in the chain, but a flaw in the process, which is consistent with what Johnston put in his report. This is why I can’t believe that anyone who says that the report is some kind of cover-up has actually read the report because it’s quite clearly pointing to these appalling failures on the part of senior levels of government, and that is on the government to have done something about. They are responsible, and they need to fully own it in order to make the necessary changes.

I would also add that while this testimony was good to have, I still don’t see how this relates to Chong’s privileges supposedly being breached, and what remedies should be applied. There seems to be an effort to make this into a bigger issue around foreign interference, and not on the specific issue of Chong, and what the House of Commons should do if his privileges as an MP were specifically breached,  and I’m not seeing much of that.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians fired over 30 missiles and drones against Ukraine overnight, and all appear to have been shot down. The Russians also claim that they destroyed Ukraine’s “last warship” in a strike on Odessa, but Ukraine won’t talk about whether it’s true or not. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Moldova for the NATO meeting, calling for security guarantees if Ukraine can’t get NATO membership until the war is over. The European Court of Human Rights also ruled against Ukraine in denying same-sex marriage licences, which is going to need to be part of Ukraine’s hoped-for European integration.

https://twitter.com/internewsua/status/1664252937156059140

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1664311594858299402

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chong didn’t explain how his privileges were breached

Posted on by

Conservative MP Michael Chong appeared at the Procedure and House Affairs committee yesterday to discuss the sense that his privileges as an MP—being able to do his job—were breached by Beijing’s threats to him and his family. And so, Chong gave a speech at the committee where he touched briefly on the privilege issue, saying that he wants a formal parliamentary censure of the Chinese diplomat named (and since expelled) in the situation, before going on to whole thing about the prime minister, national security, and what we should be doing in Canada. And he’s not wrong! But that’s not the point of this committee meeting. The point was to discuss his privileges being breached, and what MPs should do about said breach.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1658610455739346944

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1658615915540279297

As expected, the Conservatives on the committee mostly spent the time trying to get Chong to denounce the prime minister, and did they talk about his privileges being breached? Nope. The other thing that bothered me was that Chong kept bringing up the Winnipeg Lab issue, which is where I have lost a lot of respect for him because he has been building a bullshit conspiracy theory around it. What happened at that Lab has been extensively reported on by Dylan Robertson and others. There was no indication that there was a national security issue involving China at all, but rather a policy breach around intellectual property with the two fired scientists. Chong would know this if the Conservatives had allowed NSICOP to view the redacted documents that had been provided to them, but they have steadfastly refused to do so because it serves their narratives not to. Is NSICOP perfect? No, but it’s a very good start, and if we want to transition it to a parliamentary model, there need to be a whole lot more steps than just Parliament making a declaration (one of the most important considerations being the lack of secure meeting spaces and servers on the Hill).

So while there were interesting things raised, the point of the meeting was about privileges, and once again, a committee is being abused to go on a tangent or a fishing expedition. Committees have functions, and this one was supposed to be determining how his ability to do his job was impacted. I didn’t see really any of that in the testimony, which is all the more frustrating.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Overnight attacks against Kyiv saw 18 missiles launched, all of which were shot down—but Ukrainian forces are saying that six of those missiles were hypersonic, and that their new air defences brought them down too, which is proving the new Western systems against the supposed best of what Russia has to offer. One of the Patriot missile systems used by Ukraine may have been damaged in a strike, however. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces appear to be making more gains around Bakhmut, which they say is not connected to the upcoming counter-offensive. Elsewhere, Ukraine’s chief of the Supreme Court has been dismissed after being detained in a bribery case.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658379904029736960

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1658351720232108034

Continue reading →

Roundup: The great passport meltdown

Posted on by

It was the absolute dumbest of controversies, and yet what was apparently half of Canadian Twitter was having an absolute meltdown because the new passport designs were unveiled yesterday, and a) the Coat of Arms on the cover was moved off-centre, and b) the interior pages replaced images of moments of Canadian history with some generic, corporate stock art of nature and indistinct people. Never mind that nobody ever looks inside those pages, and that they are covered by the stamps of countries you are entering—it’s somehow “erasing history.”

https://twitter.com/ChrisGNardi/status/1656319387039592453

This particular kind of imagery had been intended for the last update, ten years ago, when the Conservatives instead decided to include these historical images, and were accused at the time of putting forward a very selective view of history that suited their political objectives. And no, you can’t just use the same interior art over again, because if not refreshed periodically, it becomes easier to forge. But seriously, this was the hill people are now wailing that they’ll die on, or be single-issue voters about? Seriously?

Politically, Pierre Poilievre led off Question Period on this, but does any single person believe that Poilievre actually cares about Canadian history even a tiny bit? No—this is just about getting clicks. And Justin Trudeau? Couldn’t even be bothered to own the decision or defend anything around it, which is just makes the whole day’s outrage even more maddening. Everyone needs to log off for a while.

https://twitter.com/sumtimw0ng/status/1656379566410158095

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Ukrainian unit says that they routed a Russian brigade near Bakhmut, which seems to have been confirmed by the Wagner Group mercenaries fighting for Russia. There are concerns that Russians occupying the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant are planning to relocate Ukrainian staff, which will leave a shortage of qualified personnel to operate the facility.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1656224951261691904

Continue reading →