Monthly Archives: October 2023

QP: Dangerous questions on the independence of media

Posted on by

The prime minister was present today, which was nice to see, as were all of the other party leaders, and it wasn’t even a Wednesday to get everyone together, so that was great. The prime minister’s deputy, however, was absent, as is so often the case these days. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he decried that the government’s deficit is driving up inflation and interest rates, which means people can’t get homes. (Erm…) Justin Trudeau responded that the austerity preached by the opposition wouldn’t help anyone get housing, before praising his government’s programmes. Poilievre insisted that people were living austerity while the government lived in largesse, and repeated his anecdote yesterday about the shipyard worker who couldn’t afford a house in Vancouver. Trudeau repeated that the Conservative’s austerity wouldn’t help people, and wondered what programmes the Conservatives would cut. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his anecdote about the shipyard worker with some added affected gravitas, and Trudeau repeated that the Conservative austerity won’t help anyone. Poilievre repeated his talking point about people living austerity amidst government largesse. Trudeau reminded him that Canada already has the lowest deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and wondered again what programmes Poilievre proposes to cut. Poilievre insisted he would cut the ArriveCan app, the Infrastructure Bank and McKinsey contracts and wondered if he would cooperate with the RCMP investigation into the ArriveCan contract. Trudeau noted that the government invests in people, and suggests that Poilievre ride the new transit line in Montreal that the Infrastructure Bank helped fund.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he returned to his concern trolling about Canada not being part of the Quint group (never mind that we are not a nuclear power), to which Trudeau insisted that Canada is already working closely with the US and other countries. Blanchet repeated his question, and wondered if party leaders could get more comprehensive briefings, and Trudeau said his officials were working on it.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he wanted assurances that all Canadians could safely get out of Gaza. Trudeau said that they have been concerned for all of the innocents in the region and praised their airlifts, before saying he was working to get the humanitarian corridor so Canadians could get out. Singh switched to French to raise the possibility that a hospital in Gaza may have been hit, and demanded that Trudeau call for a ceasefire. Trudeau insisted that he has been calling for hostages to be freed and to call for international law be respected.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Misreading Friday’s decision

Posted on by

In light of Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Impact Assessment Act, Conservatives are already making some pretty stupid demands, like this one from MP Shannon Stubbs, who wants to move a motion at the Natural Resources Committee to repeal the old Bill C-69—except that it’s not what the Supreme Court ruled on, it’s a complete misreading of what the ruling was, and more to the point, would try to repeal the parts that are constitutional, and create even more uncertainty in the market. If people think that the system that the Harper government put into place was somehow better, all it did was ensure that project approvals wound up in litigation because there was too much uncertainty and ambiguity in the rules, and it didn’t do anything to speed approvals like they claimed it would.

For those of you who aren’t quite following, the thrust of the Court’s ruling was not that the whole scheme is unconstitutional, but rather that the list of things the federal government put into the Act in order to trigger a federal environmental assessment was overbroad, particularly around the issue of treating greenhouse gas emissions as an automatic federal issue because it’s a cross-boundary effect. That was too broad for the Court’s liking, so they’re essentially telling the government to narrow the scope of what triggers an assessment—that’s it. As previously stated, the Court explicitly rejected the notion that a “provincial” project is immune from federal assessment, so any talking points related to “exclusive jurisdiction” are also bogus, but so many people are proving that they either didn’t bother to read the decision, or if they did, certainly didn’t understand it.

Meanwhile, here’s another explanation of Friday’s ruling, this time from Martin Olszynski, Nigel Banks and David Wright.

Ukraine Dispatch:

On the 600th day of Russia’s illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine, their assault on the city of Avdiivka appears to be losing steam, after Ukrainian forces repelled 15 attacks from four directions over the previous 24 hours. Russians are also apparently looking to pierce the front lines in the Kupiansk-Lyman area on the country’s northeast. Elsewhere, Russia launched another overnight attack, with five missiles and twelve drones, focused on the western part of Ukraine.

Continue reading →

QP: Concerns about the situation in Israel

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in down, he was not in QP today, though his deputy was for a change. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and in a somber tone, asked for an update on those Canadians looking to get out of Israel and Gaza, as well as those in Lebanon looking to get out. Chrystia Freeland noted that this was the first time they were in the Chamber since the Hamas attacks, and she declared that Canada is supporting Israel and demands the release of hostages and unequivocally condemned Hamas’ attacks. Poilievre switched to English to decry the Hamas attacks, and demanded that the government criminaise the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Freeland repeated her previous statement in English instead of answering the demand. Poilievre pivoted and raised the PBO’s recent projection about the deficit and that it was higher than projected, and demanded to know how this would affect inflation and interest rates. Freeland said that a fiscal update would be coming in due course, and that they should pay attention to the independent ratings agencies who keep affirming our Aaa rating. Poilievre cited former finance minister John Manley’s concerns, and insisted this was the government ruining our fiscal position. Freeland repeated the point about ratings agencies and that our deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7. Poilievre raised the plight of a shipyard worker he met who worries about his mortgages, and blamed the deficit. Freeland scoffed that talk is cheap, and said that if the Conservatives cared about the housing crisis, they would support their bill.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried that we weren’t included in the Quint statement on the situation in Isreal—ignoring that the Quint is about nuclear powers, which we are not. Freeland spoke about being at an IMF finance meeting in Morocco last week and that they all put out a statement in support of Israel. Blanchet kept insisting that Canada was not being included, and Freeland spoke about Israel not being a partisan issue but a Canadian issue.

Heather McPherson rose for the NDP, and she also raised concerns about the hostages in Gaza, including several Canadians. Freeland praised the clarity on condemnation for the terror attacks, and that that the government calls for the release of those hostages. McPherson accused the government of not standing up for innocent Palestinians and demanded the government call for a ceasefire. Freeland raised that the government supports Israel’s right to defend itself and they have sent $10 million in humanitarian aid to “trusted partners.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: The “red line” of pharmacare

Posted on by

It was the big NDP biennial policy convention this weekend, and amongst litany of policy resolutions that the party was in violent agreement with (waaaaaaay more in lockstep with one another than either the Liberals or Conservatives tend to be at their own policy conventions), the one that everyone kept talking about was the emergency resolution that delegates unanimously adopted was to make pharmacare a red line with their deal with the Liberals. The problem, of course, is that the real problem for the government is that they need nine more premiers to sign onto pharmacare if they want it to actually happen, and the NDP seem oblivious to this fact, and think that they can create an opt-in system which a) won’t work without provincial buy-in from the start, and b) wouldn’t achieve the necessary savings unless every province has actually signed on so that you get the proper economy of scale happening. (All of this is laid out in the column I wrote a week ago). So while it’s all well and good to posture over this “red line” and threaten to go to an election over it, I still have yet to see Jagmeet Singh publicly harangue David Eby about signing onto the programme, like he refused to do with John Horgan before Eby, particularly when Horgan was being obstructionist on healthcare reforms.

Meanwhile, Singh used his speech at the convention to acknowledge the restlessness of the base and to talk about how difficult it is to work with the Liberals, which is kind of funny because the “difficulty” is mostly just pushing on an open door and complaining that things aren’t happening fast enough, because the NDP seem to have little idea about process, or the finite capacity that exists in government to get everything they want done in an unrealistic timeline, like with dental care. They’ve done absolutely none of the heavy lifting, so I find it somewhat risible that they’re complaining about how hard it is.

In her analysis of said convention, Althia Raj hears five reasons from NDP grassroots members as to why they’re sticking with Singh in spite of his disappointing electoral results. Raj also notes the fairly low score that Singh got in the leadership review votes, and has her thoughts on his speech to the membership.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian drone attacks killed six people in attacks on Kherson and the surrounding region, as Russians forces have started pushing forward at the front lines once again. Part of that drive continues to be at Avdiivka, where they pounded it for a fifth straight day, killing two more civilians.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unearned victory lap amidst the Court’s repudiation

Posted on by

Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal Impact Assessment Act is partly unconstitutional, and that the federal government was over-broad in the criteria they used to trigger a federal environmental assessment. Ironically, while Jason Kenney and the federal Conservatives liked to call the legislation the “No More Pipelines Bill,” the section that governs pipelines was found to be entirely constitutional, so it was fairly laughable as they started crowing over social media about their supposed victory. It might have helped if they had actually read it and not just the headlines.

The more important part of the decision, however, was the fact that while it did find part of the federal legislation ultra vires Parliament, it also explicitly repudiated the arguments that the Alberta government and the Alberta Court of Appeal were making, in claiming that the province somehow has interjurisdictional immunity for so-called “provincial” projects. That’s not true, and the Court said so, which means that when Danielle Smith and Pierre Poilievre were claiming that the Supreme Court “affirmed” that provinces have the exclusive right to develop their own resources, that’s wrong. It’s not what the Court said, and in fact they said the opposite of that. Alberta’s “victory” was a pretty hollow one because the Court affirmed the federal role in environmental assessments and that they can assess whatever they want once their ability to make said assessment is triggered—the only real issue was the criteria for the trigger, which needs to be narrowed. The federal government has pledged to do just that, and because this was a reference opinion by the Court and not a decision on legislation, it has not been struck down. In fact, because there don’t seem to be any projects under assessment that would be affected by the decision, it seems to show that the law is carrying on just fine, and that the amendment will be a fairly surgical tweak (and yes, I spoke to several legal experts to that effect yesterday).

Meanwhile, the reporting on the decision largely ignored this repudiation of the provincial argument. The Canadian Press, the National Post, and the Star all missed that point entirely in their reporting. Only the CBC caught it—in the main story it was given a brief mention amidst the egregious both-sidesing, but Jason Markusoff’s more nuanced analysis piece did get a little more into it, but again, it did not really point out that Kenney’s crowing over social media was for naught, and that Smith’s victory lap was not really deserved. (Smith later went on Power & Politics and lied about what projects that the Act supposedly impacted, such as the Teck Frontier mine—that project was assessed under the Harper-era regime, and was shelved because the price of oil couldn’t justify the project’s viability). It would be nice if we had more journalists actually talking to more experts than just one while they both-sides the ministers and Smith, because they would find that they missed a pretty significant part of the decision. (My own story that does precisely this analysis was delayed in publication, so it should be up on Monday).

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces pounded Avdiivka in the Donbas region for a fourth day in a row as they try to make gains in that area. Ukrainian authorities say that Russians have destroyed 300,000 tons of grain since they started attacking Ukrainian port cities in July (because they’re trying to weaponise hunger).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1712871747672744431

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cancelling an invitation that was never issued

Posted on by

Danielle Smith is at it again, claiming that accepted “on behalf of the Government of Alberta” an invitation to appear at the federal environment committee next week, and that she was sent a letter “rejecting my attendance.” The problem? It’s yet another load of horseshit from Smith, because she was never invited to the committee. Two of her ministers were invited, and she thought that she could just show up and put on a dog and pony show, but that’s not how committees work. You can’t just invite yourself to appear. The witnesses are agreed to by all parties beforehand and a motion is passed to send the invitations. Even if she’s premier, Smith can’t just attend in place of the invited ministers—again, that’s not how committees work.

https://twitter.com/emmalgraney/status/1712598055885910272

https://twitter.com/EmmaLGraney/status/1712599648609972476

https://twitter.com/EmmaLGraney/status/1712601220232446093

https://twitter.com/EmmaLGraney/status/1712602741120684351

In any case, the meetings were cancelled because it was really about hearing from Suncor’s CEO, and they declined, so the committee abandoned that line of testimony, but in any case, Smith is lying again, and trying to spin this into some kind of federal-provincial flamewar, and people shouldn’t treat her with any level of credulity.

Oh, but wait—The Canadian Press did just that, and the headline on the wire overnight repeats the bullshit that her appearance was cancelled, which again, is not true because she wasn’t invited, and in the meagre text of the piece, it both-sides the whole thing, because of course it does. This is utterly irresponsible of CP, who should know better.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There has been fierce fighting around Avdiivka, as Russians have been moving troops and equipment there to try and make a push to show that they’re still capable of making gains in the country as they lose territory elsewhere in the counter-offensive.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More both-sidesing Smith’s mendacity

Posted on by

Because this is occasionally a media criticism blog, I found myself somewhat gobsmacked by the way in which The Canadian Press has written up the pushback against some of Danielle Smith’s ridiculous accusations against the federal clean electricity regulations. She has been panned by experts for weeks, but how does CP frame this? With statements by a Liberal MP in Calgary, George Chahal.

“The fuse is lit for fireworks in Ottawa after a Liberal member of Parliament accused Alberta Premier Danielle Smith of making false claims days before Smith is slated to appear before a federal environmental committee,” is the lead, and the piece proceeds to methodically both-sides this to death. It’s Chahal-said about Smith’s batshit crazy things she’s claiming about these regulations, like how this is going to mean blackouts and energy company executives being hauled off to jail, versus statements from Alberta’s energy minister, who in turn accuses the federal government of misinformation. There is no third-party expert weighing in, it’s simply the two sides, and the reader is supposed to determine whom they feel is more credible based on a handful of quotes. Come on.

We are in the middle of a misinformation and disinformation crisis in the Western world, and legacy media—of which a wire service like CP is a foundational element of—cannot arse themselves to do some basic gods damned due diligence and provide evidence that Smith and her ludicrous allegations are nothing more than mendacity for the sole purpose of rage-farming and stoking anger against the federal government (because that works so well in Alberta). There are ways to call out lies in a fair and transparent manner, but there was absolutely zero attempt her, and that just lets lies fester in the open, which is why leaders like Smith and Pierre Poilievre (as Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole before him) have all learned from, that it means they suffer no consequences for their lies, because nobody calls them out—just other partisan actors who can be dismissed as such. We’re playing with fire when it comes to the health of our democracy, but nobody seems to care, and that’s a very big problem.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian drones have attacked Danube port infrastructure in the Odesa region once again. Ukraine’s intelligence service has accused two villagers who fled to Russia of helping guide the missile strike on the village of Hroza that killed 55 people last week. Ukraine’s prime minister says they need $42 billion in budget support this year and next to help aid reconstruction. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Brussels to meet with military leaders and to impress upon them the importance of keeping up aid to Ukraine, and not to get distracted by the outbreak of hostilities in Israel—NATO leaders have pledged ongoing support.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1712119948749717958

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scoring cheap points in a tragedy

Posted on by

The past few days have been preoccupied by the Hamas attack on Israel, which has killed as many as a thousand, including attacking villages and killing the elderly and infants. We know that so far, two Canadians have been confirmed killed, while others have been kidnapped and taken hostage. After refuting claims that the embassy in Tel Aviv was closed for Thanksgiving, the federal government is preparing airlifts for Canadian citizens and permanent residents out of Tel Aviv, likely using military aircraft. Ahmed Hussen has also stated that humanitarian aid will continue to flow to the Palestinian people, particularly in light of the humanitarian crisis that is to come as the Gaza strip is under siege, with assurances that there are robust controls to ensure that Hamas doesn’t see any of this funding (as they are listed as a terrorist organisation under Canadian law).

Back home, there has been pretty universal condemnation of Hamas from political leaders, but that doesn’t mean that politics haven’t been played. After Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre were at the same event over the weekend to show solidarity with the Jewish community, Poilievre decided to immediately return to his dickish self and try and score points on the non-scandal that Canada was not included in a communiqué between the Americans, the UK, France, Germany and Italy. A number of pundits and talking heads clutched their pearls and cried that we were excluded, some news reporters incorrectly framing this as the G7 (which was also minus Japan), when it turned out that this was a meeting of the Quint, which is a separate, nuclear-armed organisation that Canada is not a part of. While most reporters and outlets quickly clarified this, Poilievre decided to use it to rage-farm and claim that Trudeau has “side-lined Canada,” which is bullshit, but you’ve got a bunch of pundits on their fainting couches over this when they should know better, and Poilievre couldn’t resist the urge to score points over this, which should be unconscionable, but he likes to keep proving that there is no bottom with him.

Matt Gurney points out that this conflict has given us a pogrom in realtime over social media, but that most people aren’t seeing it because of how news outlets sanitize the graphic elements that would inevitably galvanize them.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia’s latest drone attack targeted the Odesa, Mykolaiv and Kherson regions, with Ukraine’s air defences downing 27 drones. The counter-offensive continues to make gains in the east and the south. Ukrainian officials are investigating 260 instances of abuses at military recruitment offices, much of it related to bribery. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy replaced the country’s territorial defence forces commander, before he left to visit neighbouring Romania to strengthen ties and talk regional security.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A backbencher breaks ranks

Posted on by

There are tongues wagging because backbench Liberal MP Ken McDonald has twice now voted with the Conservatives on their performative motions to cut the carbon price. McDonald, who represents a rural riding in Newfoundland and Labrador, complains that the carbon price is making life too unaffordable for people in regions like his that have no choice but to heat their homes with heating oil and to drive trucks, but along the way he seems to have missed the rebate payments, which are enriched for rural Canadians in the provinces where the federal price is the system in place. (He also thinks that Steven Guilbeault is the wrong person to sell this policy because he’s too entrenched as an environmentalist).

I have some particular difficulty with this notion that there is a particular helplessness around rural Canadians when it comes to their fossil fuel use, because there are usually options that they simply ignore—at least there are in places like rural Alberta, where I’m from, but maybe it’s different in rural Newfoundland. In any case, the government has any number of programs to retrofit homes with better insulation, to exchange oil heaters for heat pumps, and too often, the notion that “I need a truck because I live in the country” tends to mean that people buy fuel-inefficient F-150s that are actually less useful for their needs than they like to pretend. In addition, the carbon price has a negligible effect on inflation, and McDonald was repeating some of the Conservatives’ talking points that don’t necessarily reflect reality so much as they “feel” like they could or should be true even though they’re not, and that’s a problem. Simply cutting the carbon price won’t have a real impact on prices, would mean not getting the rebates, and more to the point, would not push people to make changes to reduce their exposure to those prices where they can, and we need an all-hands-on-deck approach to emissions reduction.

As for McDonald, he doesn’t seem to have suffered any particular consequences for these votes, which is fine, and he shouldn’t because we should allow MPs to break ranks on some issues. That’s how things should work. But I do worry that the bigger issue here is an inability to communicate the programme and the solutions available to help his constituents instead of just buying into the Conservative lines.

Programming note: I will be taking the full long weekend off because oh boy do I ever need it after the past three weeks. See you Wednesday!

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian rocket struck a café and grocery store in Hroza, in the Kharkiv region, killing 51 people including a six-year-old, which is one of the deadliest single strikes. In addition, other strikes his grain silos in Izmail. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Granada, Spain, to meet with EU leaders and plead for more aid, now that the budget showdown in the US is endangering their contributions.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1709968477107138925

Continue reading →

QP: Champagne, turkeys, and the worst themed questions imaginable

Posted on by

The prime minister was off in Vaughan, Ontario, a housing announcement, while his deputy was on her way to Kingston for a separate event, while some of the other leaders were present in the Chamber. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, reciting talking points and misleading about the promise around food prices, demanded they be reduced immediately. François-Philippe Champagne said that first Poilievre was trying to tell people to buy crypto and now he wanted them to buy $120 turkeys, but they needed to support their legislation on competition. Poilievre called Champagne the “turkey in this joke,” and decried that the price of turkey had gone up 67 percent in eight years. Speaker Fergus warned about comparing members to animals, before Champagne listed the ways in which they are trying to rein in grocery prices. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his demand to bring down prices in the next four days. Champagne loudly declared that he would take no lessons from the Conservatives, and said that he found a Butterball for Poilievre for $30. He got warned about using props, and Poilievre made a little pun about people not wanting Champagne for Thanksgiving, and complained that turkeys these days are skimpy and looked like they have been “taxed to death.” Champagne tried to come back with people not having fun these days, and got applauded by the Conservative benches, before he pitched support for their competition bill. Poilievre gave a few more of his slogans, and Champagne said that the best way to help Canadians was to support their bill.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed that Marc Miller not admitting that French is in decline in Quebec. Pablo Rodriguez cautioned that they need to be careful with statistics, because more people are speaking French than ever before, and stated that he was living proof because he grew up speaking Spanish and is now a francophone. Therrien railed that it meant the government could not understand about settlement capacity, and this time Miller got up to point that the statistics the Bloc are citing are about “mother tongue” which is not the same thing as people not speaking French, and that they shouldn’t misrepresent the situation.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he railed that the government is not helping with the price of food by not stamping down on corporate greed. Anita Anand took this one, and patted herself on the back for the government’s programmes to help Canadians. Singh worried that Shopper’s Drug Mart is rolling out American-style healthcare, to which Mark Holland patted himself of the back for reducing drug costs through bulk purchasing and working on pharmacare legislation.

Continue reading →