Tag Archives: Stephen Harper

Roundup: It wasn’t just social housing

Posted on by

A speech by NDP MP Daniel Blaikie is making the rounds in which he blames the rising housing unaffordability on the federal government vacating the social housing space in 1993, and that this is all the consequence of that. As economist Mike Moffatt explains, this isn’t actually true. But that’s one of the issues with the NDP—they have singular narratives that they must fit things into, whether it’s true or not, and singular policy prescriptions to go along with them. (Yes, other parties do this to, to greater or lesser extents).

Anyway, here’s Moffatt on the more complicated picture. (Full thread here, select portions below).

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642488918435155970

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642489599900495872

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642490391969636355

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642491809065574401

Ukraine Dispatch:

Wagner Group mercenaries are again claiming victory in Bakhmut, not for the first time, while Ukrainian forces again insist they remain in control of the territory. Russians shelled the eastern city of Kostiantynivka, killing six civilians and wounding eight others. Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials are outlining plans for what to do with Crimea once they have recaptured it, and those plans include dismantling the bridge to Russia. Here is a look at the Canadian training programme for Ukrainian soldiers in teaching them how to check for booby-traps and mines in captured territory.

https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1642087035715420160

Continue reading →

Roundup: No actionable intelligence?

Posted on by

The Globe and Mail advanced the allegations surrounding MP Han Dong last night, apparently having received the same intelligence that Global did, and asked the PMO about it two-and-a-half weeks ago. Their sources say that PMO asked for a transcript of the conversation Dong allegedly had with the Chinese consulate, and deemed there to not be enough actionable in there. It does raise further questions about the leakers, and if they are leaking to both Global and the Globe and Mail, or if their sources remain separate.

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1638932464839147526

Nevertheless, both outlets’ reporting lacks crucial nuance or expert checking with former intelligence officials that can provide both context or a gut check. And the fact that a transcript was provided doesn’t entirely tell us if this conversation was in English or Mandarin, and if it was in translation that could lose context or proper nuance in the language, which are all important around how we are to evaluate the allegations. And irresponsible reporting is taking us into witch-hunt territory, which is going to get ugly really fast.

https://twitter.com/chercywong/status/1638869879351808000

Meanwhile, the House of Commons voted for a motion to launch a public inquiry immediately, but it’s non-binding, and the government is waiting on recommendations from David Johnston. It was noted that Dong voted for the motion, while Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith abstained, later explaining over Twitter that he supports an inquiry but wants to wait for Johnston’s recommendations.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces are gearing up for their spring counter-offensive as Russian forces are flagging in their assault on Bakhmut, but president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is warning European allies that unless they step up weapons shipments, the war could drag on for years. Zelenskyy visited the region around Kherson, and vowed to repair the damaged Russia had caused. Here are stories of Ukrainian fighters wounded in the fighting in Bakhmut, as they repelled Russian attacks. Seventeen children previously deported to Russia have been returned to Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1638932049380745217

Continue reading →

Roundup: Han Dong exits caucus over anonymous allegations

Posted on by

Global News was at it again yesterday, and citing two anonymous sources, accused Liberal MP Han Dong of meeting with Chinese consular officials to counsel them against freeing the two Michaels, because doing so would somehow assist the Conservatives. Buried in the story is a throwaway line that CSIS has been tracking Dong’s calls with the consulate, which is a pretty big deal if true. But there’s a whole lot in this report that is troubling and suspect.

First of all, that there are two anonymous sources doesn’t really mean much because they could be using the same intelligence report. Intelligence is not evidence, and we’ve been over this time and again. Also, if Dong is an agent of the Chinese government, why would he be giving them advice on the matter rather than relaying Beijing’s lines in Canada? And how exactly would Beijing freeing the two Michaels help the Conservatives? (One Conservative strategist tweeted that having the two Michaels detained gave the Liberals cover to avoid making any decisions on things like Huawei, which still doesn’t make sense because the signals to industry were crystal clear at this point). The fact that he called the consulate without informing PMO or the minister of foreign affairs is the potentially problematic thing here, but even then, it makes it hard to use this as some kind of proof that he is an agent of their interests. But there is a pattern in this reporting about making salacious claims that are very hard to square with how things operate, particularly in the political sphere.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1638701542525087747

In the wake of these allegations, Dong has resigned from caucus and will sit as an independent (and the video of his speech is pretty devastating to watch), and it’s because he was not afforded due process, or any kind of fundamental justice or the ability to face his accusers. One would hope for a bit of reflection when it comes to the media ethics (or lack thereof) on display here, but sadly I doubt that’s going to happen.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited troops near the front lines at Bakhmut yesterday, while Russians rained more missiles down on the country, hitting an apartment building in Zaporizhzhia and a university dorm near Kyiv.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1638659920831606784

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1638495718640893953

Continue reading →

Roundup: Gatherings in advance of the funeral

Posted on by

As Canadian officials were in London over the weekend in advance of the Queen’s funeral, a number of meetings took place between the prime minister and King Charles III, and the King also met with the Governors General of the Realms. Trudeau also met with the new UK prime minister, Liz Truss and other world leaders, while back at Canada House, Mary May Simon invested Stephen Harper into the Order of Canada, while former prime ministers and Governors General took some time together.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 207:

While the counter-offensive remains paused to allow supply lines to catch up and the units to recuperate, discoveries continue in cities and villages recently liberated. Beyond the mass grave found in Izyum, torture chambers have been found in Kozacha Lopan near the border. Russian forces continue to target civilian infrastructure, and have stepped up attacks since being forced from recently liberated areas. Meanwhile, Kharkiv is celebrating Pride, which is an accomplishment in a country still largely hostile to LGBTQ+ rights, as they are being invaded by a country that has been weaponising homophobia.

https://twitter.com/maksymeristavi/status/1570891880178786304

Continue reading →

Roundup: Harper gives his predictable endorsement

Posted on by

It’s day one-hundred-and-fifty-three of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and Russia’s foreign minister openly admits that they want to topple president Volodymyr Zelenskyy because they consider his government “unacceptable” or some such nonsense. Russian forces continue to shell Ukrainan cities in the east and south of the country, as well as in the Kharkiv region. This while a lot of people who initially fled from the Donetsk region have returned home after either feeling alienated further west in Ukraine as Russian speakers, or because they ran out of money, only to be killed by Russian shelling once they’re back. Meanwhile, the push to prosecute Russian war crimes continues in Kyiv even while the fighting rages on, while Slovakia is considering giving Ukraine their fleet of Soviet-era MiG warplanes.

Closer to home, Stephen Harper came out with his endorsement of Pierre Poilievre yesterday, and no, this is not a sign that he’s worried about Charest. Quite the opposite—it’s a sign of his absolute enmity for Charest. Harper has bad blood with Charest, dating back to when Charest was Quebec premier. He had sold Harper on the fantastical notion that Quebec was suffering from some kind of “fiscal imbalance” with Ottawa, which was all bullshit, but it made a good talking point for Charest, and lo, Harper decided to be different from Jean Chrétien and buy peace with Quebec, so he gave Charest the money he was demanding to fix said fictional “fiscal imbalance.” And lo, Charest immediately turned around and turned that payment into a tax cut in the province, and Harper was furious. I mean, it shouldn’t be a surprise, and it’s exhibit eleventy-six for instances of provinces taking federal dollars and not doing what they’re supposed to with it (which is why Justin Trudeau is so insistent upon strings being attached to future healthcare transfers), but Harper has nursed a grudge ever since. His endorsement of Poilievre is just more of him nursing said grudge—he’s not actually worried about Charest winning.

And while we’re here, no, Harper is not still pulling all of the strings in the party. He’s a micro-manager. If he were, they wouldn’t be in as much disarray as they are now. Also, the IDU is not some kind of fascist plot—it’s a gods damned social club that Harper is the convener of. Yes, it’s comprised of small-c conservative parties (including Angela Merkel and her party), and yes, Harper has made some very, very questionable statements from it, but it’s a social club. It has no power, and it’s not pulling any strings. He’s not a Bond villain. He was a mediocre prime minister who now spends his time swanning around the globe pretending he used to be important. That’s it. Stop giving him any more credit than that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ignoring the broader privacy concerns

Posted on by

The House of Commons Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee met yesterday to discuss the Public Health Agency of Canada’s use of anonymised mobile phone data to assess the efficacy of public health orders. As expected, this was little more than a partisan dog and pony show wrapped up in a bow of concern trolling that ignored the actual privacy issues involved in favour of trying to score points. Which is pretty much how we knew this was going to go down.

There could be actual privacy issues that they could discuss, and summon witnesses from telecom companies that sell this data, or the health companies that use it and track it, but no, they’re going to bring in the minister and Chief Public Health Officer to grill them about the programme, because accountability. And yes, the minister would be accountable politically, but that solves none of the actual issues that might be at fault here, but hey, this is about putting on a show rather than doing something useful, so good job with that, guys.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The $3.5 million witch hunt finds no witches

Posted on by

In Alberta, the Committee on Un-Albertan Activities – err, Allan Inquiry – released its final report, a year late and millions of dollars over-budget, and it concluded that there was no illegality or nefarious activity with regard to environmental groups who may have received some funding from international donors when it comes to opposing the oil sands and other oil and gas activities. Dollars that went toward campaigns against the energy sector were fairly minor, and had little-to-no impact on projects not moving forward (because market forces did the job just fine, thank you very much). In other words, the province spent $3.5 million on this joke of an inquiry, and tried to claim it was money well spent, because the government is nothing more than a total clown show.

And then there were the lies – the minister insisted that the inquiry was never about finding illegality (untrue – there are receipts), and Jason Kenney outright lying about what the numbers in the report stated, because he needs to try and spin it in the worst possible light to both justify the exercise, and to continue trying to point the populists he stoked in a direction other than his.

https://twitter.com/charlesrusnell/status/1451353269708603397

https://twitter.com/charlesrusnell/status/1451353273781293094

Meanwhile, prime minister Justin Trudeau is pouring cold water on Kenney’s referendum rhetoric, reminding him that a provincial referendum is not an amending formula for the constitution – seven provinces representing fifty percent of the population is. More to the point, Kenney sat around the Cabinet table when the current equalisation formula was last amended, so he can’t claim it’s unfair as he’s the one who helped put it into place. Because seriously – claiming it’s unfair because Albertans pay the same federal taxes as everyone else is just political bullshit masquerading as a grievance, even though it’s a grievance that has largely been created for the sole purpose of driving populist anger.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Just the Speaker doing his job

Posted on by

We got our first glimpse at the court documents related to the challenge of the House of Commons’ order demanding the production of secret documents related to the firing of the two scientists from the National Microbiology Lab. The Speaker, Anthony Rota, put in his submission that the case should be tossed because of Parliamentary privilege, and there was no explicit waiving of parliamentary privilege under the Canada Evidence Act, which is what the Public Health Agency is following in refusing to turn over unsecured documents. As a reminder, they have turned over the documents, both in redacted form to the committee that requested them, and in unredacted form to NSICOP, which has appropriate security clearances and safeguards, so it’s not like this is a blanket refusal to defy Parliament – it’s that they have their own obligations to follow. It’s also somewhat problematic that the committee wants the Commons’ Law Clerk to then redact the documents on his own, without appropriate training or context, so they ultimately claim they’re not looking for unredacted documents – only for someone else to do the redacting, at which point this is just becoming absurd.

The way this is being spun is also somewhat irritating – because this was a Canadian Press wire story, outlets who ran the piece sometimes did so with altered headlines that stated that it was the Liberals interfering with the “exclusive jurisdiction” of the Commons rather than the government, which is not really true. This isn’t a partisan issue – it’s different parts of the government acting according to the laws that Parliament passed. When the demands were made, PHAC was bound in legislation to inform the Attorney General, and while it is the same physical person as the minister of justice, under his Attorney General hat, he had obligations to follow the law and test these demands in Court.

The other commentary that is somewhat maddening is people pointing out that the Speaker is somehow going against his party in doing his job as Speaker in defending the Commons’ privileges. Again, this isn’t actually a partisan issue on either side (well, the Conservatives making these demands for the documents, with the support of the other opposition parties, are behaving in an extremely partisan manner and trying to embarrass the government, but that’s neither here nor there for the purpose of what we’re discussing). Trying to make it a partisan issue when everyone is doing their jobs is just degrading the discourse and muddying the understanding of what is going on (which is what certain parties would like to happen because it makes it easier for them to lie about the state of play). We shouldn’t be doing their dirty work for them.

Programming Note: I’m taking the next week off (as much as I am able), because it’s probably my only opportunity in advance of the possible election, and I really don’t want to have to deal with election coverage while battling burnout. Take care, and I’ll see you on the far side of the long weekend.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Announcing the process to find the next GG

Posted on by

Yesterday afternoon, the government finally announced the process by which they will be selecting the next governor general, and it is the return of an advisory panel – but not really the old vice-regal appointment committee process that Stephen Harper initiated. For one, minister Dominic LeBlanc co-chairs the committee along with the interim Clerk of the Privy Council, which is a big change because LeBlanc’s inclusion means it is no longer arm’s length and won’t be able to claim that it can avoid the appearance of considerations being made through a political lens. As well, the Canadian Secretary to the Queen is nowhere to be seen in this process, whereas the previous CSQ chaired the previous committee process. (There has been some disagreement with this over Twitter, which is their prerogative but I would not consider the creation of a short list to be “political advice” any more than any other options presented to a government as compiled by the civil service).

What concerns me is the timeline of this process, which the government claims to want to be “expeditious” because they don’t want to keep the Chief Justice in the Administrator position for long, particularly if we are in a hung parliament that could theoretically fall at any time (if you discount that the only people who actually want an election right now are bored pundits). Nevertheless, it took them a month-and-a-half after Payette’s resignation to just announce the committee. The old committee process took an average of six months to conduct a search and compile a short-list for a vice-regal position, which is really not tenable in the current situation.

If anyone wants to read more about the old process and the role of the Canadian Secretary of the Queen in it, it was part of the focus of my chapter in Royal Progress: Canada’s Monarchy in the Age of Disruption, which was the product of presentations made at the last conference by the Institute for the Study of the Crown in Canada.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Absent other measures

Posted on by

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report that unsurprisingly states that the federal carbon price will need to increase significantly, absent other measures. This is not news. We all know this is the case. We also know that the government is finalising all kinds of other non-price measures as part of their plans to exceed our 2030 Paris targets, including the Clean Fuel Standard, and we have Jonathan Wilkinson on the record stating that they are nearly ready and should be out before the end of the calendar year. Why the PBO and others feel the need to keep repeating that absent other measures the carbon price would need to increase significantly to meet those targets, I’m not sure, because all it does is start a new round of media nonsense about how awful the current prices are (they’re not), and that this is all one big socialist plot, or whatever. And there are more measures on the way, so the question becomes fairly moot.

Speaking of the Clean Fuel Standard, there was a bunch of clutched pearls and swooning on fainting couches over the past couple of weeks when a former MP and current gasoline price analyst indicated that said Standard would be like a super-charged carbon price, and a bunch of Conservatives and their favoured pundits all had a three minutes hate about it. What I find amusing is that these are the same people who a) claim to believe in the free market, b) oppose the carbon price which is a free market mechanism to reducing carbon emissions, and c) are calling for more regulation, which the Clean Fuel Standard is, even though regulations are opaquer as to the cost increases that will result. There is an argument to be had that the government should focus on increasing the carbon price over other regulatory measures (though I would disagree with the ones that say all of said measures should be abandoned in favour of the price), but getting exercised because the very regulatory measures you are looking for cost more money means that you’re not really serious about it in the first place.

Continue reading →