Monthly Archives: March 2023

Biden’s Speech to Parliament

Posted on by

Unlike the speech from European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen three weeks ago, the galleries were packed, and there were far fewer staff filling desks on the floor below. In the galleries were some notable faces like Joe Clark, Michaëlle Jean, Jean Chrétien, Dalton McGuinty, RoseAnne Archibald, Natan Obed, Cassidy Caron, and the two Michaels. And this time, unlike with von der Leyen, Pierre Poilievre deigned to show up.

Things were late in getting started, not unsurprisingly given the two personalities involved, during which a brief psychodrama played out around Poilievre claiming he didn’t get an invite to tonight’s gala dinner with the president, the PMO sending screen shots of said invitations and Poilievre belatedly accepting it.

When things did eventually get underway, about 30 minutes delayed, the Commons Speaker, Anthony Rota, gave the official greetings to the president and his wife, and taking a moment to remark on the cooperation between the two countries, citing the NORAD base in his riding.

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 →

QP: Declarations of guilt versus more flailing and backpatting

Posted on by

In the wake of MP Han Dong’s exit from the Liberal caucus following anonymous allegations in the media, and in advance of US president Joe Biden’s arrival, Question Period got underway without either the prime minister or his deputy present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he started immediately with the ordeal of the two Michaels, and raised the allegations made against Dong and his allegedly advising the Chinese government to not release them as doing so would some how benefit the Conservatives (and no, none of these allegations make any actual sense). Poilievre demanded to know when the PMO knew of these allegations, and Mélanie Joly insisted that the release of the Michaels was the priority of the government and everyone in the House. Poilievre repeated the same again in English, and Joly repeated that releasing the Michaels was everyone’s priority, and thinking otherwise was false. Poilievre again demanded to know a third time when the prime minister was made aware of these allegations, and Joly praised the date that the Michaels were returned to Canada, and that their priority was always to stand up against arbitrary detention. Poilievre insisted the non-answer was “troubling,” and re-asked a fourth time. This time, Joly praised the friends and allies who helped to advocate the case of the Michaels. Poilievre insisted that the prime minister must have known that Dong was working to keep the Michaels in China, and Joly again insisted that the prime minster ensured that everyone was standing up to China to get the Michaels home.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and took a swipe at a David Johnston before demanding an public inquiry immediately, and Dominic LeBlanc insisted that Johnston’s appointment was part of the suite of measures to strengthen the response to foreign interference. Therrien took up the concern about the report about Dong, and Joly got back up to praise the efforts to bring the two Michaels home.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he too insisted that the prime minister must have known about the allegations about Dong, and demanded the government vote for their motion on a public inquiry, and LeBlanc said that while he appreciates the concerns about not stigmatising communities, they have been taking foreign interference seriously. Singh repeated the demand in French, and LeBlanc repeated his same response.

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 →

QP: A strange Poilievre-Trudeau show

Posted on by

In spite of it being a Wednesday, the benchers were not as full as they might have been but all of the leaders were present, for what that’s worth. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he accused the prime minister of failing on affordable housing over the eight seven years he has been in office. Justin Trudeau responded with some back-patting on the investments they have delivered to Canadians. Poilievre gave the average monthly housing rate in 2015 and demanded to know what it is today. Trudeau deflected by saying it varies across the country and launched into more back-patting. Poilievre accused Trudeau of not answering because he’s out of touch, and asked a similar comparison question. Trudeau again simply listed good news talking points about what they have delivered. Poilievre gave his “he wants you to believe Canadians have never had it so good” line and complained about how much more things cost now than in 2015. Trudeau again listed good news back-patting, but acknowledged that people are still struggling which is why they moved on like child care and dental care, which the Conservatives voted against. Poilievre noted, correctly, that Trudeau would not respond to the question on housing, and railed about how much the prices have increased. Trudeau noted that in the last election, the only Conservative plan was to give tax breaks to landlords.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised concerns about China, people crossing on Roxham Road, the Biden visit, and then demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau said calling a public inquiry shouldn’t be up to him which is why they got an unimpeachable advisor to recommend next steps. Blanchet listed sins of the Chinese regime, and took a swipe at David Johnston. Trudeau said for an important issue it should need more partisanship but less, which is why they brought in Johnston.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he railed about food price inflation and blamed grocery chain CEOs. Trudeau listed measures they have put forward to help those who need it. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: We all got played on the Telford gambit

Posted on by

Yesterday morning, we saw an exhausting series of manoeuvres that made the Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives all pretend like they were playing 3D chess against one another, but it was none of that. First thing was that the Liberals released the final mandate of David Johnston in his role as special rapporteur on the allegations, and he has until May 23rdto make a recommendation around a public inquiry, and until October 31st for his final report (but I see the possibility for shenanigans if the recommendation for a public inquiry won’t actually be acted upon until the final report so that it can be fully informed, etc.) And if there is a recommendation for a public inquiry, Sikh organisations in this country want India to be included in any examination of foreign interference

In the meantime, Justin Trudeau said that no, the vote on the motion to send Katie Telford to committee wasn’t going to be a confidence measure (because frankly that would be stupid), and that they had decided to send Telford to the Procedure and House Affairs committee after weeks of filibustering to prevent it, just as Singh was announcing he would support the Conservative motion to bypass the filibuster by instructing the Ethics committee hear her testimony instead (which the Conservatives chair). This just blew up three weeks of trying to trying to prevent her from appearing under the principle of ministerial responsibility and not calling staffers to committee, because they didn’t have an end game for the filibuster, and we’re just going to throw centuries of Westminster parliamentary principles on the fire for the sake of scoring points—and that’s what this all is about. Scoring points, as the Liberals also used this as a test of their agreement with the NDP, which shook it.

And while all of this was taking place, Mark Holland got up in the House of Commons to apologise for misspeaking yesterday in saying that Pierre Poilievre was offered a briefing and declined it, but his confusion was that Poilievre had publicly stated he would refuse such a briefing on classified information. (Are you following?)

So while Jagmeet Singh spent the day insisting that he was the one who ended the filibuster (he wasn’t), the NDP their own procedural game they were trying to play, which was to force a concurrence debate and vote on the PROC report recommending a public inquiry into these interference allegations, but the Conservatives beat him to the punch and called for a concurrence debate on a different committee report, which just points out how nobody is actually taking this issue seriously. It’s a pissing contest and point-scoring. And at the end of this, the NDP voted against the Conservative Supply Day motion to send Telford to the Ethics committee, because it was now a moot point.

And in the end? We’ve torched more parliamentary principles and weakened our parliamentary system further, and Trudeau has spilled more blood in the water, which is only going to make things even worse because there is now a frenzy around him. The Conservatives and their bad faith politics have played all of us in this whole affair because this was never about Telford and her testimony, but merely trying to set a trap so they could claim a cover-up, and the Liberals walked right into it and flailed for weeks. We’ve set more bad precedents, and democracy is worse off than it was before, because everyone needed to score points instead of being adults over this whole situation. Everyone keeps making it worse, because they can’t help themselves. What a way to run a country.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Japan’s prime minister made an unannounced visit to Ukraine yesterday to meet with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and to tour the massacre site at Bucha. Meanwhile, police in Avdiivka are trying to evacuate holdouts in the town, as Russian forces continue their attempts to encircle it.

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1638100893856944128

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1638272233054392327

Continue reading →

QP: Fighting to take credit for the Telford decision

Posted on by

After a morning full of rapid-fire decisions around what was happening with Katie Telford heading to committee and David Johnston’s mandate being released, the prime minister was present, as were all other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, took credit for pressuring Trudeau to change his mind in letting Telford testify, and took a swipe at Johnston before demanding a public inquiry starting today. Justin Trudeau responded that this should’t be a partisan issue, which is why the appointed Johnston and were waiting for his recommendations. Poilievre switched to English to again take credit, and took several more swipes at Johnston before demanding a public inquiry right now. Trudeau repeated that this shouldn’t be a partisan issue which was why they appointed Johnston, and that they would abide by his recommendations while they moved forward on other measures. Poilievre then switched topics to inflation, blamed rising food prices on carbon prices (it’s not the cause) and demanded the planned increase be cancelled. Trudeau said that when he sat down with farmers, they underlined their real problems and leadership on climate change, before he listed climate rebates levels. Poilievre went on his usual talking points about carbon prices, and Trudeau listed how much the climate rebates were going up in Poilievre’s riding. Poilievre spouted some disingenuous bullshit about the ongoing heating costs at 24 Sussex and Trudeau’s flights, while Trudeau shrugged off the personal attack while patting himself on the back for dental care and rental benefits.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he demanded a public inquiry be called right here and now. Trudeau insisted that appointing Johnston was the first step and that they would follow his recommendations. Blanchet was talked around the appointment of Johnston, before again demanding the inquiry. Trudeau read some praise for Johnston and insisted he rejected the attacks against Johnston.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he too took credit for forcing the government to make Katie Telford appear at committee, and then tried calling out Poilievre for blocking their attempt to move a motion on calling a public inquiry. Poilievre theatrically got up to answer, before the Speaker stood up to remind everyone what Question Period was for, which is holding the government to account, and Trudeau took the opportunity to denounce personal attacks and praise Johnston. Singh said that his proves neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals wanted a public inquiry before he switched to French to demand said inquiry right here and now. Trudeau insisted that they appointed Johnston to who could make recommendations about next steps, while NSICOP was doing their work.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Forcing a confrontation for point-scoring alone

Posted on by

The whole sorry affair over summoning Katie Telford to testify at committee is coming to a head today with the vote on the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to bypass PROC and have her testify at the Ethics Committee (where they hold the chair). And in the meantime, the Liberals are deciding if they want to make this a confidence vote, while the NDP are deciding if they are going to go along with the Conservatives on this, or back the Liberals—particularly if this does become a confidence measure.

It’s all really stupid. While I have a longer piece on the underlying parliamentary implications around forcing staffers to testify at committee coming out later today, we can’t lose sight of why this is happening. The Conservatives knew the government would balk at forcing a staffer to testify, so they would use the reluctance to push the line that they are hiding something, and if they’re fighting this hard “it must be really bad.” Which is bad faith bullshit, but that’s the name of their game, and true to form, the Liberals walked right into it, because they flailed over the leaks in the media, and can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag. And the Conservatives get to jam the NDP in the process, and try to force a wedge between them and the government. None of this is about foreign interference or taking the issue seriously. This is entirely about the Conservatives smelling blood in the water and going on the attack so they can score as many points as possible, because nobody in this parliament is serious or a grown-up. This is all a gods damned game to them, and it’s destroying our Parliament in the process.

Do I think the Liberals will force a confidence vote? No, because as much as the principle of ministerial responsibility is of importance, they’re not going to risk bringing down the government over it—particularly to have an election over allegations of interference in elections without any chance to ensure there are proper safeguards before that election happens. Then again, miscalculations have happened in minority parliaments before, and sometimes games of chicken go wrong. But really, this is yet another instance of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. And this really is the stupidest game.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces are warning that the town of Avdiivka could become a “second Bakhmut,” as they have held out against assault for eight months while avoiding being encircled, but Russians are trying to cut off their supply lines. Meanwhile, Ukraine sort of claimed responsibility for destroying a shipment of cruise missiles travelling by train through occupied Crimea. Elsewhere, here is a look at the de-mining work that needs to take place in places freed from occupation before they can complete critical infrastructure repairs.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1637881139355328523

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1637750630566486016

Continue reading →

QP: Attempts to call out the NDP

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town, neither he nor his deputy was present, and neither were most of the other leaders, save Pierre Poilievre. After a moment of silence for the two police officers who were killed in Edmonton over the weekend, Poilievre led off in French, and said that he was prepared to let any Conservative staff to testify at committee and wanted the Liberals to do the same, particularly Katie Telford. Dominic LeBlanc said that they have taken steps to combat foreign interference, which Poilievre didn’t do when he was minister for democratic reform. Poilievre switched to English to accuse the Liberals of getting help from the communist regime in Beijing, and demanded Telford appear at committee, and called out the NDP for possibly helping the Liberals. LeBlanc said that repeated that they were always transparent, and that they had appeared before committee, and that they looked forward to Johnston’s recommendations. Poilievre said that the question was for the leader of the NDP saying he’s “part of the government”—which is more of his bad faith bullshit—made an un-clever quip about coalitions, and called the NDP out again. This time Pam Damoff recited the lines about taking interference seriously. Poilievre switched back to French to demand that there be national licensing for foreign-trained doctors and nurses—which is not federal jurisdiction. Jean-Yves Duclos said that as part of their new transfer agreement included language about credentials recognition. Poilievre returned to English to ask the same question again, and Duclos repeated that they were already working on this with provinces.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded a public inquiry into foreign interference. LeBlanc praised David Johnston’s credentials. Therrien took several swipes at Johnston before repeating his demand, and LeBlanc insisted that Johnston will work independently to determine next steps.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he too demanded that Johnston be directed to recommend a public inquiry—which undermines his role. LeBlanc returned to the recitation of talking points about what they have done to combat interference to date, and praise around Johnston. Leah Gazan railed about wages for child care and personal support workers—which is provincial jurisdiction—and Karina Gould said that recruitment and wages are part of their agreements with provinces.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The “Blue Seal” nobody else ever though of

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre held another Sunday press conference (which I fear is going to become a regular feature for the coming months, because the calculation is that it lets them set the agenda for the week), wherein he proposed a “blue seal” programme for doctors, nurses, and other medical practitioners, akin to the “Red Seal” programme for skilled trades, so that they can work anywhere in the country. Gosh, it’s as though nobody had ever thought of this before, and that these kinds of regulatory non-tariff barriers have been a bane on the country since literally Confederation. But hey, I’m sure because he’s demanding it, it’ll be different this time.

This being said, some provinces have been finally moving ahead on this kind of thing, with the Atlantic provinces loosening restrictions so that doctors can practice in any of those provinces, so there is progress. But it has taken a crisis for us to get to this point (because that is apparently how we overcome our pervasive normalcy bias in this country) and not because Poilievre goes around calling things “broken.”

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces destroyed five Russian ammunition depots near Bakhmut on Friday, and say that they are still able to supply their forces in the city and get wounded to safety, as they continue to cause massive damage and casualties to Russian invaders. Meanwhile, Russian president Vladimir Putin made a surprise visit to occupied Mariupol, which Ukrainian officials regarded as “the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime.”

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1637345862077513730

Continue reading →