Tag Archives: Privilege

Roundup: An own-goal that makes it worse for everyone

Posted on by

It was an own-goal for the media today as CTV was found to have spliced a Poilievre quote in a news story and was forced to apologise for it. Of course, this had every single Conservative salivating and insisting that this was “proof” of “fake news” and that media were trying to be unfair to Poilievre, and that this was in service of their government funding (which television outlets like CTV don’t get), and other ridiculous accusations of bias. Because that’s where we are now.

While I don’t personally know what happened, what is likely to have happened was you had someone trying to fit the story into their both-sides narrative frame and needed a short quote, and took the long paragraph from Poilievre and extracted words to come up with what they were looking for to fit the piece. It’s bad practice, but it’s almost certainly not done with malevolent intention, but because they’re overworked, under-resourced, and lacking proper editorial supervision, as with nearly every outlet these days. Because that’s where every media outlet is at, and it’s not sustainable, and things are going to continue to deteriorate if we try to keep doing what we’re doing.

This being said, the Conservatives’ war against the media is only going to get worse, and this incident, plus others, shows that they have a vested interest in catching out every single mistake from media, or to invent problems where they didn’t actually exist. For example, Poilievre likes to go on about the three corrections that The Canadian Press made to a story about his remarks, but the “corrections” were because the writer had spelled out what Poilievre was only referring to obliquely (quite deliberately) and Poilievre complained that he didn’t say what the story says he did, even though he actually did if you thought about it for more than five seconds. But this is the kind of petty, bad-faith bullshit that they’re going to engage in, and most of our media outlets are unprepared to deal with it. Legacy media is in serious trouble in this country, and it’s only going to get worse as this campaign against them from Poilievre intensifies.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian forces made a new series of strikes on Zaporizhzhia, killing one. At the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague, Ukraine is accusing Russia of trying to illegally seize control of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. President Zelenskyy is in the US, not only to attend the UN, but to discuss his “victory plan” with the American government.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Speaker Fergus on the spot in new privilege battle

Posted on by

The brewing privilege battle over the Sustainable Development Technologies Canada documents is largely going under-reported, save for the National Post, but it’s going to be an interesting showdown with the Speaker about the refusal to turn over these documents. The government’s argument is that the stated purpose for demanding these documents is not for Parliamentary business, such as committee study, but because they intend to be turned over to the RCMP, which is in and of itself a problem because it does violate the separation of powers and really, really looks like politicians trying to direct the police (who have said that they don’t want the documents, because it would violate the Charter rights of any accused). I think this is a sound argument, and one that is necessary because of the ongoing abuses of privilege that the past couple of parliaments have engaged in.

Yes, Parliament has unfettered authority to send for the production of papers, but there have to be limits on this privilege, or it can be abused, and I think that this case demonstrates the limits. The complicating factor is that limits are especially difficult to maintain in a minority parliament situation because all of the opposition parties tend to be all be interested in embarrassing the government at any turn (and this is not unique to this government, but any government). It’s partly why NSICOP was fine during a majority Parliament but became the subject of political manoeuvring during the minority years—because opposition parties will try to use their leverage to embarrass a government or score points when they think they can.

I don’t envy Speaker Fergus in having to make this decision, but this kind of exercise is clearly beyond the pale. It’s not up to MPs to get information on behalf of the RCMP, and that crosses so many red lines that it should be blinding. He’s going to be criticized whatever he makes, but hopefully for the sake of precedent, he makes the right choice and rein in some of this foolishness, because once MPs feel empowered enough to do this to one organisation—SDTC in this case—they’re going to start going after anyone they disagree with ideologically on an increasing base going forward.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians targeted a geriatric centre in Sumy, as well as the power grid, which a UN body believes is probably against international humanitarian law. Russia says they are ramping up their drone production tenfold (but that may just be all talk, given the sanctions and the availability of components).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1836807096391676132

Continue reading →

Roundup: First day back, and privilege is being abused

Posted on by

As you may have read in the QP recap, the first day back was full of general name-calling and childish behaviour. Before QP even got started, Karina Gould called Pierre Poilievre a “fraudster” for his whole “economic nuclear winter” bullshit, while Elizabeth May referred to the NDP as “No Discernible Principles,” and added “It’s fine for Jagmeet Singh to say that he doesn’t listen to Pierre Poilievre, but Pierre Poilievre’s words come out of Jagmeet Singh’s mouth.” Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet said the situation was akin to playing chicken with four cars, and suspected that an election may wind up happening sooner than later. That said, the Bloc said they won’t vote for any confidence motion that calls for the destruction of the carbon levy, so that’s something.

The bigger issue that has been revived, however, is the demand that the opposition parties voted for regarding documents related to Sustainable Development Technologies Canada (SDTC), which the Conservatives deride as the “green slush fund” (when it was their government that set it up). The demand for these documents is an absolute abuse of parliamentary privilege, and the Auditor General doesn’t want to respond because infringes upon her independence, and the RCMP said they don’t want the documents, which was the point of why the Conservatives moved the motion to demand them in the first place. And political shenanigans from the Conservatives aside, the fact that the Bloc and the NDP couldn’t see where this was going and why this was a Very Bad Idea speaks very poorly to their own understanding of parliament, and why these kinds of privileges shouldn’t be abused (especially the fact that they have been abusing the Law Clerk and his office to do this kind of work when it’s not his job). Most concerning is the fact that using Parliament to get the RCMP to investigate where there is no evidence of criminal activity is a big flashing warning sign of authoritarian tactics of rule by law, instead of rule of law, and we absolutely do not want to go down that path in this country, and the fact that none of the opposition parties could see that this is a problem is really worrying.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims that they re-took two villages in western Kursk district.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A decision without the grassroots

Posted on by

There was a shocking announcement out of BC, where the leader of the “BC United” party (former the BC Liberals, which are not the same as the federal Liberal Party) declared that he was suspending his party’s campaign in favour of supporting the upstart BC Conservatives so that they could defeat the provincial NDP in this fall’s election. It’s stunning, and while I don’t really follow BC politics closely, there are a few observations that I am qualified to make from my particular perch.

One of those observations is that BC has a history of parties forming and dissolving in opposition to the NDP, so this is just the latest iteration of the same, and yes, that kind of history does make a difference. The other, more important observation is just how much this was leader-driven, with no real chance to consult or address the grassroots members of the party, which is a very real problem. Political parties are not supposed to belong to their leaders—they are supposed to belong to the grassroots members, many of whom don’t want to have anything to do with the BC Conservatives because the party is led by a climate-denier (he was kicked out of the then-BC Liberal caucus for expressing those sentiments), and is a party that has devoted itself to culture war bullshit (particularly anti-LGBTQ sentiments) and other social conservative nonsense. A lot of right-of-centre but socially progressive voters in the province have every right to be pissed off about this development, because it should be their party and they should be the ones to make the call about whether they will field candidates and run, even if the polls are against them. And if this is an attempted party merger under the rubric of not splitting the anti-NDP vote (and papering over the very big and cultural issues that kept the parties apart since their mutual inception), it’s also being done against the will of the grassroots membership (whose party this is). It sounds like there are a lot of frustrated incumbents and would-be candidates who are incredibly unhappy with this decision, and I’m curious about what kind of fallout will happen, but this kind of move is beyond cynical.

The other thing I noticed during the press conference was the use of catastrophising language with regard to the NDP, and why the BC United leader felt it was necessary to oppose them to the detriment of his own political fortunes. These are supposed to be rivals, not enemies, and yes, that does matter in politics, especially in this day and age where the polarization has become so great because they have personalized it to such a tremendous extent. They should be grown-ups about what has happened here, but I suspect it’ll be mostly a bunch of poll-driven narratives that only serve to alienate the grassroots members, whose party once again is supposed to belong to.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile struck Kryvyi Rih, which was already observing an official day of mourning for the previous day’s attack that killed four, while a family of four were killed when a Russian bomb hit a home in Izmailivka in Donetsk region. Ukrainian drones continue to strike oil infrastructure in areas outside of Moscow

Continue reading →

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 →