Tag Archives: Tough on Crime

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: A late pivot to shouting about Ukraine

Posted on by

It being Wednesday, the prime minister was present to answer all questions, as is his wont, while his deputy was elsewhere. Most of the other leaders were present again today, which is great to see, even if they take up most of the spotlight on Wednesdays. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and after reciting his slogans, and then took a swipe at the Bloc before accusing the prime minister of stoking inflation with “tax hikes” on April 1st (blatantly untrue), and wondered if they would need an election on carbon pricing. Justin Trudeau recited that the carbon rebates give eight our of ten households more back than they pay, and that Conservatives don’t want to help with affordability or climate change. Poilievre insisted that the PBO said that most families will pay more and be negatively impacted—again, not what he actually said—and then said there was a “second tax” coming to Quebec—also not true—and wondered if the Bloc would support the government on this. Trudeau said that if Poilievre listened to Canadians, he would know the cost of inaction is high on farmers and fishers, while the government’s plan puts more money in people’s pockets. Poilievre switched to English to again recite his slogans and repeat his demand to cut the price increase or face a non-confidence motion, and Trudeau reiterated that the plan puts more money back into the pockets of most Canadians than they spend. Poilievre recited a bunch of falsehoods about the impact of the price, and repeated his demand. Trudeau again stated that the choice is more money in the pockets of Canadians. Poilievre raised the numbers from the PBO, knowing full well they are out of context, and Trudeau again repeated that people get more back than they pay.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised that the National Assembly voted on yet another unanimous motion to demand that Quebec get full powers for immigration, as though that means anything. Trudeau insisted that they were friends with the Quebec government, and Quebec already has more powers regarding immigration than any other province. Blanchet decried that Quebec pays for asylum seekers and demanded a billion dollars in compensation. Trudeau noted that they are compensating Quebec for asylum seekers. 

Blake Desjarlais rose for the NDP, and demanded the government not cut any funds to Indigenous Services, and Trudeau insisted that they have tripled investments and have come to settlement agreements, and that they were still doing the work. Desjarlais decried that this was insufficient, Trudeau reiterated his same points about the investments made.

Continue reading →

QP: Calling out a committee chair

Posted on by

Both the prime minister and his deputy were present today, as were all of the other leaders, who had all attended the lying-in-state for Brian Mulroney earlier in the morning. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he rattled off his slogans, but quickly switched to English and claimed that the PBO “confirmed” that in every province people pay more in carbon levies than they get back in rebates (which isn’t really true, because he’s looking at a different set of numbers), and demanded that the prime minister give his caucus a free vote on their Supply Day motion about cancelling the increase. Justin Trudeau responded in French that eight out of ten families get back more than they pay, and that Poilievre only wants to take money out of people’s pockets while they do nothing about climate change. Poilievre stayed in English to read that the Nova Scotia legislature voted unanimously to reject the carbon levy increase, and demanded a free vote on their motion, to which Trudeau listed what their carbon rebate is. Poilievre read a misleading number about how much the PBO says the levy costs the province, and repeated his demand, and Trudeau doubled down to praise the rebate, but didn’t dispute the PBO number. Poilievre then raised Bonnie Crombie saying she won’t implement a carbon price in the province if elected and again demanded a free vote. Trudeau trotted out the full lines about affordability challenges, and the Ontarian rebate level—because he needed his full clip. Poilievre then raised BC, misleadingly stated that the province “administered” the federal price, which is wrong, and Trudeau complained that Poilievre doesn’t care about facts, but only making “clever arguments,” to which the Conservative caucus got up to applaud before he could finish his point.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he resurrected the “fiscal imbalance” talking point from the grave, to which he accused the federal government of engineering Quebec’s deficit, which is…a novel argument. Trudeau said that the federal government is there to help provinces, while the Bloc is only trying restart a sovereignty debate. Blanchet accused the federal government of owning Quebec $7 billion, and Trudeau insisted that he works with the Quebec premier, not the Bloc.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and raised the Auditor General’s report on Indigenous housing. Trudeau thanked the Auditor General for her report, and said that they are working in partnership with First Nations to advanced their priorities. Singh repeated the question in French, and Trudeau insisted that they have invested recorded amounts in housing and services for Indigenous communities, but they have made progress.

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: More lying to cover up for the lies

Posted on by

Earlier in the week, Conservative MP and justice critic Frank Caputo put out one of the party’s signature shitpost videos where he spent seven minutes talking about how he took a trip to the medium-security prison that houses notorious serial killers Paul Bernardo and Luka Magnotta, and it was replete with this theatrical outrage that the facility has a hockey rink and a tennis court. How dare they! Such “luxury”! Caputo also says he got to tour Bernardo’s cell while Bernardo was away, but that he came face-to-face with him after, and that Bernardo ask him something.

Well, it turns out that encounter didn’t actually happen. Correctional Services says that they were at opposite ends of a corridor and may have seen one another but didn’t interact. They also said that the hockey rink that Caputo was complaining about hasn’t been in service for the past couple of years, so as to dispute the notion that Bernardo is spending his days playing pick-up hockey.

Well, the Conservatives didn’t like that. Andrew Scheer accused The Canadian Press of bias for quoting the Correctional Services. Caputo claims that they denied the existence of the hockey rink, which they didn’t. And Pierre Poilievre’s press secretary accused CP of lying to cover for the government, except he was the one lying.

It’s galling just how egregious the Conservatives have lied throughout this affair—both Caputo lying on his shitpost video, and then all of the other Conservatives trying to run interference and lying about CP’s reporting. CP, the most egregious of both-sidesers in order to maintain strict neutrality in all things. But they will say and do anything to discredit the media, both to build their dystopian alternate reality, but to also condition their followers to believe absolutely anything, and to just ignore all of the cognitive dissonance. And of course, their apologists will either keep lying or keep trying to distract from the lies in order to try and whitewash the whole affair. This is the kind of thing that kills democracies, and they’re gleefully going along with it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say that they have sunk another Russian warship using unmanned sea drones.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The uncertain final direction of pharmacare

Posted on by

The political reality of the pharmacare legislation is sinking in with one party, but not another, and you can probably guess which. Both Justin Trudeau and Mark Holland have been fairly circumspect in talking about where the system is going, and how coverage of the two classes of drugs will wind up looking like and costing because that’s entirely up to negotiations with the provinces, and nobody wants to wake up to that fact. This programme has been oversold from the beginning, and the NDP keep doing this victory lap while sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting “LALALALALA!” whenever anyone mentions the provinces, because they don’t want to hear it, and don’t even get me started on legacy media ignoring the provinces in this either.

One of the key details as to the future of pharmacare is that the Canadian Drug Agency will be doing work on a list of essential medicines within a year of royal assent, which could be the basis of a national formulary, but this again needs to be negotiated with the provinces—yet another one of those things that the NDP keep loudly ignoring whenever it gets raise. If this is to be a cost-shared programme—and it needs to be because there is no way the federal government can pick up the whole tab on this—then provinces need a say in that formulary. The Agency can also help coordinate the bulk purchasing that is what makes national pharmacare economically viable, and is going to necessarily be the cudgel that gets the provinces on board—there is more purchasing power if the whole country does it in one fell swoop rather than each provinces or a group of them banding together, and we need to remember that this is not just over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, but those used by hospitals and in clinical settings, which is why the provinces should have a vested interest in making this happen, because they pay for those out of their healthcare budgets.

I would also point out that the federal government has been doing the actual work of making this happen for years, because they got the Agency up and running quietly over the course of several years, while the NDP were alternately screaming and preening about this framework legislation that remains a case of putting the cart before the horse. So while the NDP take turns patting themselves on the back for this bill, the Liberals have been pretty quiet about doing the actual hard work, which again, baffles me entirely because they have a good story to tell if they actually bothered to try.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians appear to be massing a large force near the city of Chasiv Yar in the eastern part of the country, hoping to make a breakthrough in the Donetsk region, as they now have the advantage in ammunition and personnel. The Netherlands has signed a security agreement with Ukraine, and is promising more artillery funding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brian Mulroney passes away

Posted on by

News came down last evening that former prime minister Brian Mulroney had passed away after some health challenges.

The Star has a pretty good obituary here, as well as some of the reactions to his passing, and the CBC has a series of photos over the course of his life.

https://twitter.com/yfblanchet/status/1763346642294411713

Bloc MP Louis Plamondon, who was first elected as a PC MP in 1984 along with Mulroney, reflects on Mulroney.

In reaction, Susan Delacourt notes that it’s hard to imagine a Canada without the larger-than-life Mulroney given his lasting legacy, and also reflects on the political lessons that she learned in covering him during his time in office. Ian Brodie praises Mulroney for his strategic sense in global affairs at a time of great upheaval.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces are pushing hard against the front lines in the east and southeastern parts of Ukraine, which Ukraine has repelled, and they do keep shooting down Russian warplanes, downing another three on Thursday alone. Ukraine is using more domestically-manufactured military equipment, as they strive to move more toward self-sufficiency and away from faltering Western aid.

Continue reading →

QP: Brandishing an RCMP letter

Posted on by

Neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present today, though both were back in town (if a bit jet-lagged from their travel over the weekend), while only a few other leaders were present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and after reciting some slogans, he said that the RCMP had confirmed that they have opened an investigation into ArriveCan, and tried to tie in the Aga Khan and SNC Lavalin. Dominic LeBlanc said that they have been giving authorities all of the documents they request. Poilievre repeated the question in English, and LeBlanc repeated his same response in English. Poilievre then cited a Food Bank report, and demanded the carbon levy be lifted (which has nothing to do with food price inflation). François-Philippe Champagne deployed his usual “take no lessons” line before saying that Conservatives on the committee were defending the profit margins of food processors, and exhorted then to support Bill C-59. Poilievre tried again, and Champagne patted himself on the back for spearheading the largest reform of competition in history. Poilievre then cited the existence of a dumpster diving Facebook group and blamed it on the carbon price. Sean Fraser got up to list assistance programmes that Poilievre and the Conservatives have voted against.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he repeated yesterday’s question about federal government spending to give other provinces what Quebec already has, and wanted compensation to opt out of any national pharmacare. Mark Holland said that a bill would be coming soon, and exhorted them not to criticise a bill they haven’t seen. Therrien wanted compensation to Quebec and the ability to opt out of dental care, and Holland insisted this was just trying to pick fights rather than helping people who need it.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he complained that people in Quebec can’t get a family do form which should be a question for François Legault. Holland said that they were cooperating with provinces, and that it takes time. Don Davies gave a non-Quebec-centric version of the same question, and Holland went on a tear about how the Conservatives would cut while the current government is investing. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre punches down

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre made a lot of statements yesterday, and they were all alarming in their own ways. First up was expressing support for Bill S-210, which aims to require ISPs to ensure age verification for any online porn sites, or face massive penalties—a bill that passed the Senate and is now headed to committee with opposition support in the Commons. It’s a hugely problematic bill that is going to be a privacy nightmare and cause more problems than it solves. Poilievre also said he doesn’t want this implemented by way of a government digital ID or that prevents people from access legal materials, and his MPs keep handwaving and insisting that there must be some kind of technological solution here. There’s not, this is bad, and frankly is pretty Big Government/gatekeeping, which Poilievre claims to hate. What it does, however, is tap into the moral panic over porn being the root cause of a bunch of social ills, and Poilievre loves getting in on that action.

He was then asked by Rebel Media about trans people and washrooms—because of course the far-right remains obsessed about this—and Poilievre stated that he was against trans women in changing rooms, washrooms, or women’s sports, which is an outrageous egregious overreach and is Poilievre punching down in order to appease the Rebel Media audience. (I will note that you had pundits on Power & Politics baffled by this, believing that Poilievre has this demographic “locked down.” Not true—he needs to actively court them because they see him as being too soft and establishment—see Christine Anderson referring to him as “Pussyvere”—and he has to constantly prove himself to them). It’s also worth noting that for Poilievre’s press conferences, which are limited to five questions and no follow-ups, Rebel and True North are often at the front of the line for questions, which is another particular sign of who he’s speaking to. Justin Trudeau did respond and push back about this making trans people unsafe, which is true, but this is another moral panic Poilievre is trying to cash in on.

The last bit was perhaps the ugliest, where Poilievre was asking about the upcoming online harms bill, and he said that Trudeau shouldn’t be the one to bring it in, claiming this would be censorship, misquoting the line about “those with unacceptable views” (again, playing to the “convoy” audience who took up this misquote with great aplomb), and then launched into a tirade about how Trudeau needs to look into his heart about his past racism and Blackface. And then, because of course, a certain CBC journalist wrote this up (which I’m not going to link to) and devoted half of the story to rehashing the Blackface history including photos, because they didn’t learn a gods damned thing about how Trump got in (and this goes beyond just egregious both-sidesing). None of this is good.

Ukraine Dispatch:

With the loss of Avdiivka, Ukrainians are expecting more advances from Russians. This has spooked enough of the elderly in villages in the area, who are now heading for safer regions, worried that their towns are going to be the next to be ground to dust. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is downplaying the loss of Avdiivka as he calls for more western arms and support, but it has been relentless grind for Ukrainian forces. This said, western intelligence suggests that Russia doesn’t have the domestic capacity to manufacture the ammunition it needs either, so we’ll see how long they can keep up their current pace. Meanwhile, anti-corruption authorities in Ukraine are investigating more than sixty cases involving the defence sector.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1760235411987980541

Continue reading →

Roundup: Falsely framing carbon prices and inflation

Posted on by

Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, I want to point your direction to a CTV piece from the weekend, taken from an interview with Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon on CTV’s Question Period. The headline and substance of the piece, taken from the interview, is “Feds won’t pause carbon price despite inflation.” Now, if you were a casual reader who didn’t know what was going on, you might think that the carbon price is driving inflation and the government is being obstinate in refusing to deal with that driver of inflation.

That would, however, be completely wrong. We know that the carbon price contributes only negligibly to inflation because inflation is measured on a year-over-year basis, and with the carbon price increasing at the same rate every year, the impact on year-over-year prices remains negligible. The Bank of Canada figures that it works out to 0.15 percent of inflation. Is this mentioned anywhere in the story? Nope. Instead, it’s both-sides as pointing to Poilievre’s promise to “axe the tax” (which is not a tax, but a levy, and yes, there is a difference), contrasted with MacKinnon pointing out that at committee last week, food economists pointed to the fact that there’s no evidence the carbon price has had a meaningful impact on the price of food, because, again, if you pay attention, you would know that the bigger drivers of food price inflation are droughts or floods in food-producing regions, including Canada’s, which is related to climate change. (That poing is also absent from the story).

Why does this matter? Because of how the story has been framed. It frames itself that carbon prices are driving inflation, which is false and misleading. It sets up a false scenario about what is driving inflation (which has fallen over the last year and is now in a sticker place just above target), and sets about positing a false solution, while trying to look like it’s concerned about cost-of-living concerns while looking at absolutely none of the driving factors of what has caused an increase in the cost of living. This, my friends, is shoddy journalism. I get that they were trying to get a headline out of that interviews, but great Cyllenian Hermes, that was not the way to do it, and it’s a little embarrassing that this was the result.

Ukraine Dispatch:

At least three Ukrainians have been killed in Russian attacks on cities in the country’s east, near the front lines. Ukrainian forces repelled an attempted Russian advance on the southern front, as Russians move their forces forward following the withdrawal from Avdiivka. The withdrawal from Avdiivka was preceded by a change in Russian tactics designed to take advantage of the shortage of ammunition. Ukrainian forces say that Russians executed six unarmed Ukrainian soldiers taken prisoner in Avdiivka as they were fleeing, and two more in the nearby village of Vesele. Here is a look at the significance of Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian oil refineries and other infrastructure within Russian borders.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1759195559272108467

Continue reading →