Tag Archives: Tough on Crime

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 →

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 →