Tag Archives: Public Health

QP: The provocation and the restraint

Posted on by

After all of yesterday’s drama, it was a real question as to what was going to go down today, with the prime minister present, and there to respond to (but not necessarily answer) all questions. His deputy was absent, but all other leaders were present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, worrying about the public health director suggesting decriminalisation in Montreal and Quebec, and demanded the government deny the request. Justin Trudeau said that they should take a moment to reflect on what happened yesterday, and said that the government takes the tragedy in BC seriously and they work with science and compassion, and will work with BC on adjusting their pilot project. Poilievre demanded to know if he would reject a request from Quebec, and Trudeau said that they worked with BC when they made the proposal, and he has received no other proposals. Poilievre switched to English, dropped the Montreal angle and demanded he reverse course on BC’s decriminalisation. Trudeau repeated that they will work with BC to adjust their pilot project. Poilievre insisted that Trudeau still hasn’t answered the question, and went into six British Columbians dying every day, and Trudeau repeated that BC approached them with the pilot project, and they worked with them to develop the project, and they looking into the modifications of the project they have asked for. Poilievre very slowly demanded that he reverse decriminalisation, and Trudeau again said they were working with BC.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, needled the Bloc for declaring they will support the budget, before going on about Amira Elghawaby making comments about the challenge to Quebec’s Law 21. Trudeau said that they build bridges by funding infrastructure and by helping communities come together. Blanchet railed about Elghawaby and halal mortgages, somehow, and insisted that some communities were getting other privileges. Trudeau said that in a pluralistic democracy, it’s important to talk to communities in order to meet their concerns.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he raised the Loblaws boycott, and the fact the grocery task force has done no work. Trudeau says that they are concerned with Loblaws not signing onto the grocery code of conduct, and they have given the Competition Bureau new powers. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Two ejections and a walkout

Posted on by

Tuesday, and both the prime minister and his deputy were present, which is a nice change. All of the other leaders were present as well, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and blamed the federal government’s “radical drug policies” (which aren’t federal) for tripling overdose deaths and claimed Bloc support, and cited newspaper reports about safe consumption sites near schools in Montreal. Trudeau insisted that they need solutions grounded in compassion, healthcare and science to fix the problem. Poilievre switched to English to repeat that the “radical” drug policy has resulted in even more deaths, and demanded the prime minister listen to the NDP to re-criminalise these drugs, which is not the demand—the demand is to re-criminalise public use only. Trudeau said that he already answered this and called out Poilievre consorting with white nationalists. Poilievre said that he denounces extremists and racists including the guy who spent the first half of his adult life dressing up in racist costumes, meaning the prime minister, and after he was cautioned by the Speaker, Poilievre changed his denunciation of the prime minister for funding Laith Marouf and not condemning the IRGC. Trudeau got up and pointed out that Poilievre was spineless, and in the ensuring uproar, Rachael Thomas wound up being named and kicked out for the day. Fergus warned Trudeau, and he re-started his response, saying Poilievre is courting radicals and gave a denunciation of Diagolon. Poilievre got back to calling Trudeau a “radical” for not banning drugs, and Trudeau retorted that Poilievre is still not denouncing groups like Diagolon, Poilievre accused Trudeau of killing 25,000 British Columbians by way of his “extremist” policies, and called him a “whacko prime minister.” Fergus again got up to ask Poilievre to withdraw the term, and Poilievre said he withdraws “whacko” and replaces it with “extremist,” which did not satisfy Fergus. Poilievre said he would replace with “radical,” and Fergus said that wasn’t the request. Poilievre still didn’t withdraw the remark, and after consultant with the Clerk, Fergus asked one last time to withdraw the comment. Poilievre pushed again, did not withdraw, and Fergus named him too, and Poilievre left the Chamber to great  applause on his side, followed by most of his caucus, who started screaming at the Speaker on their way out. After everything settled down, Trudeau started his last response, again calling out Diagolon, during which Michael Barrett screamed that Trudeau was endorsed by Hamas, and after yet another disruption, Trudeau finished by saying Poilievre’s plan to overturn Charter rights is dangerous, and by this time, every Conservative had left the Chamber.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, congratulated the Speaker for his good sense, and then decried government management and told them to stay out of Quebec’s jurisdiction. Trudeau said that his responsibility is to take care of Quebeckers everywhere. Blachet raised the premiers’ letter about staying out of their jurisdiction (but still giving them money), Trudeau dismissed this as the Bloc just picking fights.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he raised the report that 25 percent of Quebecker are in poverty but tied this to Big Oil, somehow. Trudeau noted that they have prioritised creating equal opportunities for all generations in the budget. Heather McPherson railed against Danielle Smith’s attack on pensions and demanded support for her private member’s bill on protecting pensions. Trudeau thanked her for supporting them in standing up for Canadians but did not commit to supporting the bill.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A genteel time that never was

Posted on by

I saw a post yesterday that took a page from Hansard on that day in 1978, and well, it was full of the first prime minister Trudeau and several honourable members accusing one another of being animals, or parts thereof. And while hilarious, I think it’s a bit of a corrective when people keep insisting that Parliament used to be a much more genteel place (and we got a lot of that during the Ed Broadbent and Brian Mulroney memorials).

It really wasn’t that genteel. It never has been—there are infamous reports in Hansard about early debates in the 1860s where MPs were setting off firecrackers in the Chamber and playing musical instruments to disrupt people speaking. And I can also say that Question Period was a hell of a lot more raucous when I started covering it fifteen years ago compared to what it is today, which has a lot to do with the Liberals clamping down on applause (for the most part) for their members, which has led to there being less heckling from the Liberal benches (not saying it doesn’t happen—it absolutely does—just not as much, and certainly not in the quantities it used to be).

Question Period is worse in other ways, however—nowadays it’s all reciting slogans and everyone on the same script so that they can each get a clip for their socials, while the government gives increasingly disconnected talking points in lieu of responses, and there’s almost no actual debate (though every now and again, Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre will get into an actual exchange with one another). And the repetition of slogans or the reading of canned lines each give rise to heckling because of its ridiculousness, and yes, there is louder heckling when women ministers are answering questions (but this is not a recent phenomenon either). But there was never a golden age of gentility in our Parliament, and we need to stop pretending there was as we lament the state of things. Instead, we should be lamenting the quality of the debate, which has been dead and buried since about the time that Bob Rae retired from politics.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile struck an educational facility in Odesa, killing four. Russian forces are advancing in the eastern Donetsk region after the withdrawal from Avdiivka, while Ukraine waits for new arms from the west. UN experts say that a missile that landed in Kharkiv on January 2nd was indeed of North Korean manufacture. Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, visited Kyiv—the first member of the royal family to do so since the war began—and continued her work championing those affected by conflict-related sexual violence.

https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1785060798890459222

Continue reading →

QP: Two solitudes and a scripted gotcha

Posted on by

The first Monday after a constituency week, and the prime minister was off to deliver a “fireside chat” at a union event, but his deputy was present for a change, and this was to be her first opportunity to answer questions since the budget was released. Most but not all of the other leaders were also present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, cited a figure that said that 25 percent of Quebeckers are below the poverty line, and blamed the federal government’s spending with Bloc support. Chrystia Freeland noted their commitment to tax fairness versus Conservative austerity. Poilievre worried about debt servicing charges and again blamed Bloc support, to which Freeland said this wasn’t true, noted the Aaa credit rating, and their responsibility. Poilievre switched to English to lament the scourge of open drug use in BC, and demanded these drugs be re-criminalized. Ya’ara Saks said that they are reviewing the request of BC, because they have a plan for public health while the Conservatives did not. Poilievre insisted that this was chaos and disorder brought about by the Liberals demanding to know “What the hell are they thinking?” and got a caution from the Speaker. Steve MacKinnon got up to raise the fact that Poilievre was consorting with a far right encampment and got drowned out, and when the Speaker restored order, MacKinnon invited him to disavow white supremacists and Alex Jones. Poilievre says he disavows the person who spent the first half of of his life being a racist—meaning Trudeau—before demanding the federal government not allow Toronto decriminalise drugs like BC has. MacKinnon read a script about Poilievre showing who he really is.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and raised a poll that said Quebeckers want the provincial government to take care of things, not the federal government, and demanded unconditional fiscal transfers. Pablo Rodriguez said that the Bloc were simply trying to find excuses to vote against the budget. Therrien raised all of the premiers writing that they want unconditional transfers instead of federal interference, and Rodriguez repeated that the Bloc were merely looking to pick a fight.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he denounced the government’s disability benefit in the budget, to which Freeland patted herself on the back for this programme, and insisted this was just the first step which meant working carefully with provinces. Singh repeated the question in French, and Freeland repeated her same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to set up a dog and pony show for Carney

Posted on by

Because everything is stupid, the Conservatives have announced that they will move a motion at finance committee to call on Mark Carney to appear in order to…talk about his plans as future Liberal leader? Oh, man. It’s so stupid that it hurts. “Since he’s attempting to get as much media attention as possible, he should welcome the Conservative invitation to appear at Committee,” the press release read, which is an indication of how unserious and stupid this is. When asked by media about the invitation that hasn’t come, Carney said that since this was made in the media before the motion was even moved shows that this is just theatre, which of course it is. This is about gathering clips of him criticising the current government wherever possible, or of the Conservative MPs badgering and hectoring him, because they think that’s going to be gold for them online. And there is nothing for Carney to be gained here either—there is no winning against this kind of “debate me, bro!” mentality because it’s not a debate, but an exercise in being caught out, and the only way to get out ahead is to not play.

I’m really not sold on the notion that Carney is positioning himself for a leadership run, particularly at this point in time, and frankly he would be a very, very bad choice. Setting aside the fact that as a former central bank governor, he should stay the hell away from electoral politics for the sake of his successors, there are certain organizational things you need to have to have any kind of chance in politics and I’ve seen no evidence he has this or has been building this. Other Cabinet ministers have been (and have allegedly been warned to tone it down). That, and I’ve talked to people who worked with him before and they’re not of the opinion he’d have the temperament for the job, while the Liberals should see this as Ignatieff 2.0 and run far away from it.

This aside, this is just such a waste of finite time and resources for the committee. Committees are supposed to be doing the serious work of Parliament (as opposed to the theatrical parts in Question Period), and this is a signal that there is no interest in committee work being serious, but only being more theatre and content generation for social media, and that is an appalling state of affairs for our democracy.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles have struck Ukrainian power facilities in three regions, while air attacks on the Sumy region killed two. Russians have also been targeting rail lines in order to disrupt incoming US aid shipments. Meanwhile, two hospitals in Kyiv have been evacuated after comments made by Belarusian KGB officials who claim that those hospitals house soldiers, which could make them targets in coming air strikes.

Continue reading →

QP: Gold heist concerns

Posted on by

Neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present today, as they started their cross-country sales budget, and I will say it was quite a neat trick where the one day Chrystia Freeland showed up was the day Trudeau gave all the answers, so that nobody can ask her about the budget. As for the other leaders, none of them were present. Melissa Lantsman led off, and raised the biggest gold heist in history and that the suspects are already out on bail (because they’re not violent criminals?) Arif Virani noted that they passed significant bail reform legislation already, and that the budget has measures to combat money laundering and organised crime, and he hoped for their support. Lantsman claimed that the Liberals passed the bill that made this kind of bail possible (not really true—much of the law on bail has been set by the Supreme Court of Canada), and seemed to imply these criminals paid off the government. Virani noted that they have been dealing with the causes of crime, and that bail reform is there for violent, serious offenders with the support of law enforcement, before repeating his exhortation to support the measures in the budget. Lantsman switched to gas prices in Ontario, and falsely blamed the carbon levy, before demanding an election. Jean-Yves Duclos cited that eight out of ten families get back more in the carbon rebate than they pay. Dominique Vien took over in French, and she blamed the carbon levy on the cost of living crisis, particularly in Quebec (where it doesn’t apply). Duclos quoted that Poilievre only created six affordable housing units when he was “minister, and that they just created 173 units in her riding. Vien blamed the government on inflation (again, not actually the cause), and Duclos got back up to repeat the six housing units stat.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and accused the prime minister of threatening provincial transfers if they don’t agree to federal dictates, just like the Conservatives. Pablo Rodriguez noted all the things the Bloc are for that are in the budget, and yet they are threatening to vote against it like the Conservatives. Therrien said the budget was only about pandering, and about securing the election given how much money flows afterward. Duclos noted that it’s not happening in the future, but the 8000 housing units happening now in Quebec.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and complained about the planned elimination of 5000 public service positions rather than subcontracting. Anita Anand noted that these positions were likely to be eliminated through natural attrition. Don Davies raised a report that says the government doesn’t track job creation from subsidies, and demanded corporate accountability. François-Philippe Champagne took the opportunity to praise the investments in the budget.

Continue reading →

QP: Sniping in advance of the eclipse

Posted on by

The first day back from the Easter break, and Eclipse Day, and neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, having spent the morning in Trenton making the defence policy update announcement. Most of the other leaders were present today, for what it’s worth. After the introduction of Jamil Jivani as the newest Conservative MP, Pierre Poilievre led off in French, reciting his slogans and accusing government of being “pyromaniacs” fuelling inflation. (That’s not what was driving inflation). Jonathan Wilkinson read a statement about investing in Canadians. Poilievre recited a bank report to claim the government was stoking inflation, and Wilkinson read more talking points about those investments. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his pyromaniac line, and Wilkinson again read lines about investing in Canadians. Poilievre went on about a “carbon tax election,” and recited more slogans. Sean Fraser got up to scoff about the lack of seriousness of Poilievre’s supposed plan. Poilievre insisted that his plan would lower prices for farms, food and homes, and Fraser responded by listed Poilievre’s record a “housing” minister (even though he really wasn’t).

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed that the government was trying to tell Quebeckers how to build housing, and listed all of their supposed failures along the way. Pablo Rodriguez was incredulous that the Bloc was against housing, child care, or school food. Therrien railed that federal government was holding Quebec hostage, and Rodriguez reminded that that they were not the Quebec government. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and railed about corporate handouts, and went on a tangent about Conservative corporate handouts and if the Liberals would carry them forward. Wilkinson read more of his talking points about investments and fairness. Singh repeated his question in French, and this time Fraser got up to talk about some of their housing announcements from last week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Erin O’Toole’s revisionist history

Posted on by

It was MP Day at the Foreign Interference Inquiry, and the big star of the day was former Conservative leader and serial liar Erin O’Toole, who has come to believe that as many as nine seats may have been lost as a result of foreign interference, mostly from China. That’s…an interesting number, considering that the party’s internal polling had long since concluded that their position on vaccine mandates was what cost them the election (though O’Toole being caught out in as many lies as he had been really didn’t help him any, one of the most egregious examples being on gun control).

Not only that, but O’Toole went on to claim that the member of the party’s national council who initiated the petition calling for a leadership review, who is Taiwanese, may have had motives based in foreign interference, which is also ridiculous. It also bears remembering that around the same time, O’Toole began in imperious streak of subverting the (garbage) Reform Act rules the party signed onto in order to punish those in caucus who were standing against him, resulting in him pushing out Senator Denise Batters, and this kept escalating until caucus called for a vote, again according to the (garbage) Reform Act, and at that point, he was done for. (This is all without anything related to the calls for his ouster from the collection of grifters, conspiracy theorists, and grievance tourists who were occupying downtown Ottawa at the same time). Trying to invent foreign interference motives for his demise is not just cry baby behaviour, it’s outright historical revisionism and fabulism to soothe his wounded ego, but I guess if you have no problem lying to everyone all the time, you’re probably pretty used to lying to yourself as well. Meanwhile the pundit class praises him for showing restraint in not using Trumpian “Big Lie” language. Unbelievable.

Meanwhile, as Kenny Chiu, Jenny Kwan and Michael Chong also testified, we have learned that the RMCP investigation into allegations of attempted Chinese intimidation of Chong has hit a dead end.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles struck Dnipro on Tuesday, damaging an educational facility. There was also a drone attack against Kharkiv early Thursday that stuck apartment buildings and homes, killing at least four. In all, Russia launched 3000 aerial bombs, 600 missiles and 400 drones against Ukraine in March. Here is a look at the security arrangements that over 30 countries have now signed with Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1775410021712494814

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking Atwood’s unfounded concerns too seriously

Posted on by

I am starting to think that the Globe and Mail has a secret penchant for humiliating Margaret Atwood while pretending to substantiate her concerns about legislation. They did it with Bill C-11 on online streaming, where Atwood read a bunch of utter nonsense on the internet, some of it by a fellow CanLit author who is currently a crank in the Senate, and she got concerned about bureaucrats telling people what to write. It was utterly ridiculous, but what did the Globe do? Write up her concerns as though she knew what she was talking about, including the part where she admitted she hadn’t really read the bill.

And now they’re doing it again—same journalist, in fact—about the Online Harms bill. Atwood again read some stupid things online, this time from the right-wing press in the UK, and is again worried about “Orwellian” consequences because of “vague laws” and “no oversight.” And hey, the Globe insists that because she wrote The Handmaid’s Tale, she’s an expert in Orwellian dystopias. But again, Atwood is operating on a bunch of bad information and false assumptions, and the story in the Globe doesn’t actually do the job of fact-checking any of this, it just lets her run free with this thought and spinning it out into the worst possible scenario, which if you know anything about the bill or have spoken to the experts who aren’t concern trolling (and yes, there are several), you would know that most of this is bunk.

The biggest thing that Atwood misses and the Globe story ignores entirely is that the hate speech provisions codify the Supreme Court of Canada’s standard set out in the Whatcott decision, which means that for it to qualify, it needs to rise to the level of vilification and detestation, and it sets out what that means, which includes dehumanising language, and demands for killing or exile. That’s an extremely high bar, and if you’re a government, you can’t go around punishing your enemies or censoring speech you don’t like with that particular bar codified in the gods damned bill. I really wish people would actually pay attention to that fact when they go off half-cocked on this bill, and that journalists interviewing or writing about the topic would actually mention that fact, because it’s really gods damned important. Meanwhile, maybe the Globe should lay off on talking to Atwood about her concerns until they’re certain that she has a) read the legislation, and b) understood it. Honestly.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed 15 out of 25 drones launched toward Odesa, while a Russian missile destroyed a grain silo in the Dnipro region. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that their frontline situation is the best it’s been in three months as they have improved their strategic position. Here is a deeper look at the Ukrainians’ retreat from Avdiivka, as ammunition was low and one of their commanders disappeared. UNESCO says that Ukraine will need more than a billion dollars to rebuild its scientific infrastructure that has been damaged or destroyed in the war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Running interference for Scott Moe

Posted on by

There is no shortage of terrible opinion pieces in Canadian media, but I believe that the prize for utterly missing the point comes from the Globe and Mail yesterday, where John Ibbitson tried to lay the blame for Saskatchewan’s flirtation with lawlessness on Justin Trudeau, with the headline accusing him of “botching” national unity. It’s a…curious accusation, because the implication therein is that if the federal government doesn’t accede to every demand or tantrum of the provinces that they can be accused of damaging national unity. I take that back. It’s not curious, it’s utterly absurd and wrong.

Ibbitson goes to great pains to both point out how unprecedented it is that Saskatchewan is going to break federal law, but then turns around to run interference for Scott Moe and tries to insist that this is really Trudeau’s fault because he used federal spending powers to “bend provinces” to his will rather than negotiate, and in imposing the federal carbon price on provinces who failed to meet national standards. Both of those are half-truths at best—there is nothing illegitimate about using federal spending powers to get provinces on board to ensure that there are equitable services across the country, particularly for programmes with greater economic good such as early learning and child care. As for the carbon price, provinces had an opportunity to come up with their own system that met minimum standards, and most provinces refused. He also didn’t explain that when the system was enacted, most provinces already had carbon pricing in place (Alberta and Ontario both changed governments who dismantled their systems and were subsequently subjected to the federal system), and he doesn’t spell out that BC and Quebec have their own systems that meet the standards.

Yes, the federal government should have found a different solution to the problem of heating oil than the “pause,” and doomed themselves when they announced it with all of their Atlantic MPs behind them. I’m not disputing that. But while Ibbitson insists that this doesn’t justify Saskatchewan’s lawlessness, he thinks that the best solution is to “reach some sort of compromise.” Like what? He won’t say. He just laments that “Canada doesn’t work like that right now.” Did it ever? What compromise can there be when one province breaks the law and tries to justify it with a fig leaf of “fairness” but obscures the facts and truth of the situation? This kind of white bread, milquetoast “Why can’t we find a compromise?” handwringing is a hallmark of a certain generation of punditry, and it serves absolutely no one.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed 33 out of 37 Russian drones fired at Odesa, the remainder of which damaged infrastructure, though there were other attacks in the north in Sumy and Kharkiv that cost civilian lives. There are concerns that safety is deteriorating at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, as the international community keeps trying to convince Russians to leave the site. India says they have encountered a human trafficking racket which promises young men jobs in Russia, and then forces them to fight in Ukraine on their behalf.

Continue reading →