Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: More defection talk swirling

Posted on by
Reply

A day later, the Ma floor-crossing is being dissected with more questions about what this means for Poilievre’s leadership of the Conservative party now that he’s lost two MPs to floor-crossings and one to a very suspicious resignation. We have learned that Tim Hodgson played a part in Ma’s decision, and that their wives are friends (and it is worth noting they are from neighbouring ridings). And now you have Conservatives telling the National Post of all places that they expect another couple of defections because Poilievre is so unable to read the room in his own caucus. Oh, and there’s also a whole side note about how Ma was apparently the “secret Santa” for Jamil Jivani and Jivani didn’t get his gift.

Listen, let's not rule out that drawing Jamil Jivani's name in Secret Santa might have been what actually prompted the floor crossing.

— Emmett Macfarlane 🇨🇦 (@emmettmacfarlane.com) 2025-12-12T23:52:46.988Z

Government House Leader Steve MacKinnon proclaimed that he knows more disgruntled Conservatives and hinted that there yet may be another floor-crossing, and this has everyone wringing their hands about “backroom deals,” and saying dumb things like “Canadians didn’t elect a majority,” and that cobbling one together is somehow illegitimate. Poilievre himself is making this particular argument. But that’s not how elections work. We elect 338 individual MPs. Not parties. Canadians can’t select “majority” or “minority” on their ballots. In fact, parties have become political shorthand for how MPs sort themselves into configurations to achieve confidence in the Chamber, but at its core, we elect individual MPs, and they get to make their own decision including who they sit with, and on how to determine how a government is given confidence, and yes, that can include so-called “backroom deals” and floor-crossings, and if voters don’t like it, they can punish them in the next election. That’s how parliamentary democracy works.

If there is another defection or two, and it puts the Liberals into a majority, the most dramatic effect will not be just the fact that every confidence vote isn’t going to rely on Andrew Scheer and Scott Reid hiding behind the curtains to count abstentions, but rather that it will force the committees to be rebalanced, at which point the Conservatives and Bloc will no longer be able to team up to obstruct all business, as they have been doing. That will be a material change for the ability of this Parliament to get things done, and maybe finally break the dysfunction and deadlock that has plagued it since 2019.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-12T14:24:02.995Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia attacked two Ukrainian ports, damaging three Turkish vessels, one of them carrying food supplies. Russia also attacked energy facilities in Odesa region. Ukraine, meanwhile, hit two Russian oil rigs in the Caspian Sea, the Yaroslavl oil refinery, and two Russian vessels carrying military equipment. President Zelenskyy visited Kupiansk, as Ukrainian forces are encircling the Russians in the area, weeks after Russia claimed to have captured it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ignoring the true meaning of the Statute of Westminster

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday was the Anniversary of the Statute of Westminster (1931), which is one of the most pivotal moments in our evolution as a sovereign country, but it rarely gets much mention. When I was in junior high, I remember them talking about how this ensured that Canada could control its own foreign policy, but they never said why. And it turns out that no official account or even the Government of Canada’s web page gave the reason either. The reason is that this was the creation of the Canadian Crown as a separate and distinct legal entity from the Crown of the UK, which mean that we could control our own foreign policy, and were seen as an equal to the UK and not a subordinate. But absolutely nobody mentions the Crown of Canada as the reason. Nobody.

The government's page undersells the importance of this date, because today is the anniversary of the creation of the Crown of Canada as a separate and distinct entity from the UK crown. That's why we gained control over our foreign affairs and "our own voice" on the world stage.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T14:17:20.569Z

The Governor General did not put out a release about the day or its importance to the Canadian Crown. Mark Carney did not put out a release about the day at all. Pierre Poilievre did, but not only did he not mention the Canadian Crown, but he talked up conservative figures from the era of history to try and distract from the fact that Mackenzie King was prime minister at the time, which was frankly sad and a little bit pathetic. Nobody else put out a release, and absolutely nobody mentioned the anniversary of the Canadian Crown.

Nothing about the Crown of Canada.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T21:53:33.606Z

The creation of the Canadian Crown is one of the most pivotal moments in our history, and it goes completely unremarked because the department of Canadian Heritage is full of republicans, and too many members of civil society are quietly embarrassed by our status as a constitutional monarchy, as though it’s still colonial or “not grown up” when it’s not that at all. The separate Canadian Crown means we are grown up, that we control our own Crown and destiny. And if you don’t want to time-share the monarch with the UK and the other Realms, well, we can change that at any point as well (with the unanimous consent of Parliament and the provinces), and I for one would not be averse to making Princess Anne the full-time Queen of Canada, as she is not only the best royal, but her grandchildren are already Canadian, so that helps with the succession issues. Suffice to say, we have to stop effacing the fact that the Canadian Crown is the central reason why we gained full independence then.

Another floor-crossing

After both Houses of Parliament rose for the winter break, and just before the Liberals had their Christmas party, Conservative MP Michael Ma crossed the floor to join the Liberal ranks. He’s from Markham—Unionville, which is John McCallum’s old riding, so it’s flipped back-and-forth between the Liberals and Conservatives, and Ma has been almost anonymous in the House of Commons, pretty much never put up in QP to read a script for the sake of clips, so he has no profile in the party. His statement talked about “unity and decisive action” for Canadians, which could translate to the fact that he (and possibly his constituents) is tired of the petty little games that Poilievre and his caucus spend all of their time doing.

It also puts the Liberals one seat away from a workable majority, and the House Leader, Steve MacKinnon, hinted that there are more conversations ongoing with Conservatives, and according to the journalists and pundits on the political talk shows, Ma’s name has never been bandied about as a possibility, so this was a complete surprise. But it will also serve to shut Don Davies up if they do get that one more MP, because Davies will have no leverage to try and blackmail Carney with. So, I guess we’ll see what happens by the time Parliament returns.

Well. That happened.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T23:22:51.428Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian commanders claim to have taken Siversk in the east, but Ukraine denies this. Here is an analysis of how the potential fall of Pokrovsk won’t collapse Ukraine’s front lines. In the back-and-forth on “peace” plans, the US wants to turn ceded lands in the Donbas into a “free economic zone,” and no, I don’t get it either.

Continue reading →

QP: Like ABBA Gold, but worse

Posted on by
Reply

For what promised to be the final QP of 2025 (for real this time!), the PM was once again absent in spite of being in town. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and after claiming that his was the party of “hope,” he denounced the “hidden taxes” increasing the cost of food and demanded they be repealed. Steve MacKinnon replied that nobody calls the Conservatives the party of hope, but we wishes them a Merry Christmas all the same, and then reminded him that these taxes don’t exist. Poilievre took a swipe at Mark Carney’s absence, got his question taken away by the Speaker, and then he claimed the Liberals were blocking the attempts to pass crime bills. MacKinnon pointed out that the Conservatives have been the ones blocking except for the final day when they suddenly decided to want to move them ahead. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question on imaginary taxes, and Patty Hajdu stood up to remind him those taxes don’t exist, and then praised that the Canada Child Benefit cheques were going out early. Poilievre read about the Clean Fuel Regulations, and called them a tax, and Julie Dabrusin suggested he read the entire report, and pointed out that those regulations are good for canola farmers who can feed into the biofuel sector. Poilievre then returned to his horseshit assertions about the Liberals “blocking” their bail bill. MacKinnon accused Poilievre of living in a parallel universe and listed the crimes the Conservatives have been blocking the Liberals from fighting.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she said that under Carney, Canada has become a business which no longer cares about climate change, and took a swipe at Carney’s French. Dabrusin insisted that they have committed to strengthening the price on carbon and methane regulations, as clean electricity. Normandin went further on her analogy, calling Carney the CEO of Canada Inc., who needs to be reminded he is in a democratic Parliament. Joël Lightbound praised all of the measures the government is taking, and the things the Bloc voted against. Patrick Bonin took over to again lament the abandonment of climate, and this time Nathalie Provost said that they will meet the goal but needed to change their strategy because of changing circumstances.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Davies again demands official status

Posted on by
Reply

I will have to give it to NDP interim leader Don Davies that he has some big cajónes as he is once again demanding official party status as the House of Commons finds itself in a near deadlock on most legislation. He’s now into full-on blackmail territory—if you want this Parliament to work, give us status. But there are a few problems with this:

  • The NDP have nowhere near earned the right to be trusted after they tore up their previous agreement with the Liberals in bad faith;
  • The NDP were complaining that they were tired of being seen to be propping up the Liberals, but they’re once again offering to do just that, which leads back to the trust question; and
  • The math as it relates to committees has not changed. The NDP do not have the numbers to sit on committees in a fair manner

Davies says that Parliament will work better if the NDP get seats on committees, but which committees? The whole point of the cut-off of 12 for official party status is that it’s just barely enough MPs to be able to cover-off a member on every committee (and that means they are doing double or triple duty). Is he suggesting that they just get to pick five or six committees that they should be allowed to sit on but not the others? How is that fair to those other committees, or those other issues that the NDP are effectively ignoring? Yes, Davies is desperate for more resources and staff that official status would offer, but you cannot demonstrate the fundamentals of being able to be present. Rules exist for a reason.

The current budget bill — C-15 — was tabled on Nov. 18. It's been debated on 10 different sitting days. It still hasn't received a vote at second reading and made it to committee. Would things move faster if C-15 was a dozen different bills?I'm unconvinced.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:02:17.857Z

MPs seemingly:a) don't want to spend much time in Ottawa and b) don't like to agree to move legislation along without undue delay.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:00:25.458Z

The current budget bill — C-15 — was tabled on Nov. 18. It's been debated on 10 different sitting days. It still hasn't received a vote at second reading and made it to committee. Would things move faster if C-15 was a dozen different bills?I'm unconvinced.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:02:17.857Z

Meanwhile, the fact that the budget implementation bill was debated over some eleven days at second reading is a problem. Yes, it’s a problem that it’s a giant omnibus bill, but the Commons has been getting worse about debate times since at least 2011, and nobody shows any willingness to start doing anything differently, and that’s a problem. One of the things I keep reminding people is that in Westminster, second reading debate is one afternoon, because that’s all it needs to be because you’re debating the general principle of the bill—that’s it. Your entire caucus does not need to weigh in with repetitive talking points and slogans. You do not need to put everyone one to get clips. House Leaders need to grow up and start cracking down on this abuse of procedure, and that starts with the Government House Leader, who needs to put his foot down. Enough is enough.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-10T14:25:06.076Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces have been fending off an “unusually large” mechanised assault on Pokrovsk. Russian drones hit the gas transport system in Odesa. Ukrainian sea drones have disabled another vessel in Russia’s “shadow fleet” in the Black Sea.

Continue reading →

QP: Relitigating the Century Initiative, again

Posted on by
Reply

Despite being in town and on a Wednesday, the PM was not present for what could very well have been the final QP of 2025. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he accused Mark Wiseman, potential candidate for the new ambassador to Washington, of advocating throwing open the borders to cause the decline of housing, healthcare, and French in Canada, as part of the Century Initiative, and accused the government of planning to reward him. Steve MacKinnon said that he first wanted to wish the best to Ambassador Kirsten Hillman, but the Century Initiative has never been and will never be the government’s policy. Poilievre said that regardless, the person behind the policy was Wiseman, saying he showed contempt for Quebec and cannot negotiate on their behalf. Dominic LeBlanc gave his own thanks to Hillman, and said that Poilievre was trying to get a clip for the news but this wasn’t going to be the one. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the “radical open doors” accusation about Wiseman. MacKinnon repeated praise for Hillman, and that the Century Initiative was never government policy. Poilievre segued this to taking swipes at the PM for the trip to Egypt and the costs of the private plane, where he played no role at the ceremony. MacKinnon pretended to be aghast that Poilievre was suggesting the PM miss an auspicious event as signing a peace accord for Gaza. Poilievre continued to be agog at the cost of said flight, and this time Anita Anand praised the prime minister’s role in global events. Poilievre groused that Carney himself wasn’t answering, and then pivoted to his imaginary “hidden taxes.” Patty Hajdu dismissed these imaginary taxes and pointed to drought and climate change hurting crops and herds, which was why the governor was ensuring they have money in their pockets.

Christine Normandin rose for the Bloc, and she too complained about Wiseman and the Century Initiative. MacKinnon reminded her that was never the policy of the government and never would be. Normandin suggested one of the Liberal Quebec MPs stand up the prime minister to push back against his appointment. This time Joël Lightbound reiterated that this was not their policy, before taking a swipe at the Bloc for not caring about culture in Quebec. Yves Perron raised the “sandboxing” provisions in the budget and called them anti-democratic, to which MacKinnon dismissed the concern as they were debating it right now.

Continue reading →

Roundup: MOU motion down in flames

Posted on by
Reply

As expected, the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to try and force a vote on some of the language from the Alberta MOU went down in flames as the Liberals were wise to their bullshit, and didn’t play ball. They made it clear that the language was deliberately provocative in what it excluded, so Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives scrambled to try and amend their own motion, so that it included a bunch of other things, except one thing—any mention of the carbon price (without which, the Pathways carbon capture project can’t operate because it’s not fiscally viable). And so that’s what the Liberals hung their arguments on—that this wasn’t the full MOU, and it didn’t include the carbon price, or methane regulations, or anything else, so they weren’t going to vote for it. And nobody did.

The Conservatives could have probably done more damage to the Liberals if they tried to force a vote on the entire MOU, to really suss out the divisions in the caucus about it, but they couldn’t actually do that, because the MOU has the carbon price as part of it, and if the Conservatives voted to support the full MOU including the carbon price, they would be hypocrites because every day in Question Period, they falsely blame said carbon price for food price inflation (when in reality, the industrial carbon price’s impact on food is statistically zero). Their attempt at being clever blew up in their faces, because they’re not clever. They’re not the slightest bit intelligent. Of course, that isn’t going to stop them from shouting for the next eight weeks that “The Liberals voted against their own MOU! They don’t want to build a pipeline!” Of course, it’s not true because the Conservatives ensured that they weren’t voting on the actual contents of the MOU, but it’s not going to matter. They’re going to record videos of them claiming the Liberals voted against their own plans, and spread them across social media, but well, it’s not like we can expect the Conservatives—and Poilievre and Andrew Scheer in particular—to actually be honest for once.

Speaking of honesty, Tim Hodgson took to the microphone in the Foyer during the day to denounce the Conservatives’ stunt, but in the process declared that “caucus is united” behind the full MOU, when he knows full well that they are not. If the point of the day was to make the Conservatives look like the clowns, well, Hodgson didn’t exactly do his part. Then again, Hodgson is one of the worst performers on the front bench and he has absolutely zero political skills, so I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised here.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-09T22:22:02.273Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s top general says they are advancing their “entire front line” and moving into the town of Myrnohrad, which Ukraine denies, and says that Russia is paying a heavy cost for modest advances. Likewise, Ukraine still holds out in parts of Pokrovsk, and it has not fallen. President Zelensky has been rallying European allies as he says that any “peace” deal will not include ceding land to Russia. Ukraine is rolling out more restrictions on power usage as they repair their infrastructure from Russian attacks.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Hajdu highlights the problems with provincial data

Posted on by
Reply

Ministerial Question Period in the Senate was actually being held a time that wasn’t counter-programming with QP in the Other Place, and so I was able to make it for a change. Today’s minister being grilled was Patty Hajdu, minister of jobs and families and minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario. As is usual for ministerial QP in the Senate, there is a longer clock for questions and answers, and the whole exercise is about 65 minutes and not 45, so it’s quite a different exercise than in the Commons.

At the Senate to watch Patty Hajdu for #SenQP.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-09T21:01:30.634Z

Senator Housakos led off, and he read a script about food insecurity and grocery costs, housing, and cost of living. Hajdu thanked the Senate for the invitation, before rattling off the government’s support programmes, and those benefits that are indexed to inflation, with some added back-patting for the school food programme. Housakos demanded the government change their methodology to get a different results, and Hajdu raised that report after report points to climate change affecting the price of food, they can control the supports for families who need it, which again got some back-patting for their programmes.

Continue reading →

QP: Supporting the MOU includes a carbon price

Posted on by
Reply

On a day when the Conservatives were preoccupied with their Supply Day motion shenanigans, the PM was present, where he was doubtlessly going to be grilled on the topic. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and declared that Canada needs a pipeline to the Pacific, to strengthen our economy, strengthen the dollar and restore purchasing power, then declared that Carney’s caucus rebelled, so Poilievre took the words from the MOU, and asked if he would vote for them, or if they couldn’t believe his words. Carney replied that the MOU isn’t something you can pick and choose from, and that they chose only a few words and left out the industrial carbon price, the methane regulations, the Net-Zero 2050 goals, and that they need to eat the whole meal and not just the appetizer. Poilievre took this as an invitation to falsely claim that the industrial carbon price was causing food inflation, and demanded it be abolished, to which Carney reminded him there is no carbon taxes on Canadian farms, and that the impact of that price, according to the Canadian Climate Institute, is effectively zero. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the claim that we need a pipeline to the Pacific, at the supposed rebellion, and that he took the wording for his motion came right from the MOU. Carney quoted the Canadian cricket team about needing to play the whole T20 and not just a couple of overs (a not-so-subtle reference to the fact that the national cricket team was in the Gallery) and that the MOU wasn’t just about the pipeline, it’s also Pathways, methane reductions and Net-Zero 2050. Poilievre insisted that if the government votes against the motion, they vote against things like consultation with First Nations. Carney responded that this was the first time that Poilievre acknowledged the constitutional duty to consult, but he hasn’t acknowledged working with provinces or industrial carbon pricing. Poilievre claimed that they believe in it and put it in their motion (but said nothing of consent), and claimed Carney was quietly telling his caucus the pipeline was never going to happen. Carney insisted that the MOU was about pipeline, carbon capture, inter-ties for electricity, digital asbestos data centres, industrial carbon pricing, and methane reductions. Poilievre then said the quiet part out loud and that the only thing the motion doesn’t include a carbon price, and demanded a pipeline without a carbon price. Carney responded by suggesting they instead vote for the whole MOU.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, raised Steven Guilbeault’s op-ed, and wondered if the government was choosing his caucus or the shareholders in the oil sector. Carney said he was choosing the Canadian economy which includes clean and conventional energy. Blanchet moved to the religious exemption for hate speech, and wanted Carney’s personal views. Carney said that Bill C-9 is about protecting religions, such as temples, synagogues and mosques, and the committee was considering this matter. Blanchet then raised someone who has preached “anti-Zionism” under religious freedom, before moving topics again to the issue of “discount drivers” on roads. Carney said that unacceptable word are always unacceptable, and that they are working to protect truckers, which is why they were tightening the rules.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Being too clever about the MOU’s language

Posted on by
Reply

Today is the Conservatives’ big Supply Day, where they are bringing forward their motion that cherry-picks two phrases from the MOU with Alberta, and hopes to jam the Liberals with it. Pierre Poilievre may claim that the language is “lifted directly from the MOU,” so the Liberals should put up or shut up, but of course, he’s being too cute by half. It’s not language directly lifted from the MOU. The MOU states a “private sector constructed and financed pipelines, with Indigenous Peoples co-ownership and economic benefit, with at least one million barrels a day of low emission Alberta bitumen with a route that increases export access to Asian markets as a priority” whereas the motion simply says “pipelines enabling the export of at least one million barrels a day of low-emission Alberta bitumen from a strategic deepwater port on the British Columbia coast to reach Asian markets,” and adds “respecting the duty to consult Indigenous people.” One of these things is not like the other.

— Kady O'Malley (@kadyo.bsky.social) 2025-12-08T22:44:00.568Z

"low emissions Albertan bitumen"Charlatans always always think other people are stupid.

— Emmett Macfarlane 🇨🇦 (@emmettmacfarlane.com) 2025-12-09T00:21:28.775Z

Liberal MP Corey Hogan, the party’s sole Calgary MP, called out these shenanigans, both in a media scrum and on his Twitter, where he points out entirely why the Conservatives haver phrased it this way—to either make the Liberals look like they’re ignoring Indigenous consultation and consent, or to make it look like they’re not serious about building it, and in either case, it sends a signal to someone that will cause doubt and will inevitably delay any decisions. And the government indicated last night that they’re going to vote against it, citing that the Conservatives are not using the full language from the MOU. This in turn will set up weeks of Conservatives screaming that they knew the Liberals were lying the whole time and never had any intention of building a pipeline.

The thing we need to remember in all of this is not the shenanigans, or the Conservatives thinking they’re too clever, or any of that—rather, it’s that they think they can ram through these projects without Indigenous consent. Sure, they’ll talk about “meaningful consultation,” but consultation is not consent, and in their press releases, consent is never mentioned, nor is even consultations. That’s not realistic, nor even legal in the current framework. Of course, they also think a new pipeline will “unblock the trillions of dollars of privatesector energy investment to produce more oil and gas, build profitable pipelines and ship a million barrels of oil to Asia a day at world prices.” My dudes—this is a post-2014 world. It’s not going to be trillions of dollars, and world oil prices are tanking because of a supply glut. All of this is fantasyland.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-08T14:08:03.419Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians have attacked Sumy for the second night in a row, cutting off power in the region. Here is a look at those remaining in Kostiantynivka, as Russians approach.

Continue reading →

QP: Supporting the “entire” MOU

Posted on by
Reply

As the final sitting week for the year began, the prime minister was in town but absent from QP. Pierre Poilievre was present, however, and he led off in French, and called the Liberals “grinches” before raising the Food Price Report, blaming “inflationary taxes and deficits,” which is of course, nonsense. François-Philippe Champagne said that Poilievre is talking about imaginary taxes, while the main measure in the budget is a tax cut for 22 million Canadians. Poilievre repeated the same question in English, listing the imaginary “hidden grocery taxes” this time. Champagne boisterously praised the “good news” in the budget after being warned by the Speaker for using the budget document as a prop. Poilievre said that if the Liberals want to solve the cost of living crisis, they should build more pipelines to boost the dollar so that they can buy more food and houses, and then gave some revisionist history around the demise of Northern Gateway, and wanted the government members to vote for their own MOU to build a pipeline. Tim Hodgson said it was a “sad day” because conservatives are divided, listing conservative premiers who support the MOU “in its entirety.” Poilievre declared that in the “spirit of Christmas,” he engaged in an “act of generosity” to lift words from that MOU as part of their Supply Day motion tomorrow, to get Liberals to vote on a pipeline to the Pacific and lift the tanker ban, admitting that they were wrong. Hodgson suggested he not cherry-pick parts of the MOU and support the entire MOU like premiers were doing. Poilievre said the only ones dived is the prime minister who is “divided against himself,” and demanded he take a position and vote for their motion. Hodgson repeated the premiers that support the full MOU, and invited the Conservatives to support it. Poilievre said that meant there were parts that they didn’t agree with, and again demanded the government vote for their motion. MacKinnon praised Danielle Smith for signing the MOU and listed the other measures in it that the Conservatives apparently don’t care about.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and took swipes at the Conservatives for pushing back against removing the religious exemption for hate crimes, and now the prime minister has also pushed back. Sean Fraser stood up and said that they need to take action to combat hate, and that the house needs to support it, but suggested that amendments were the responsibility of the justice committee. Normandin wondered why the prime minister sided with the Conservatives and the religious right to keep the religious exemption. Fraser again talked around this before again insisting this was the domain of the committee. Rhéal Fortin took over to ask the same question, and Fraser defended the bill in order to protect communities facing hate crimes, which means collaborating with different parties, and that he looked forward to the decision of the committee.

Continue reading →