Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: An abuse of parliamentary privilege

Posted on by

I’m going to start off with the caveat that I don’t know a lot of what is happening in Nova Scotia politics, but I came across this story yesterday that is pretty concerning for the practice of parliamentary democracy across Canada. During debate on a bill around use of non-disclosure agreements in sexual assault cases, an independent MLA (formerly a Progressive Conservative but was ejected from caucus in 2021) tabled a document that she claimed was a non-disclosure agreement that a former female staffer had been coerced into signing with the PC Party. (To make things more interesting, said staffer died last year, and was working for this MLA at the time, and she says the document was found in the staffer’s effects—and, the party’s former leader was forced out over inappropriate behaviour toward a female staffer, so I’m not sure how many of these factors actually connect).

A government minister has since moved a motion to force her to retract her comments about the incident, and if she doesn’t, that she should be ejected from the Chamber until she does. And that’s a capital-P Problem. Said independent MLA has since complained to the province’s justice department that the move is unconstitutional…but the justice department can’t do anything about it, because this is clearly a matter that is within parliamentary privilege. But it absolutely violates all of our constitutional norms, and should be a warning sign about the lengths to which parties will abuse their majorities in legislatures to silence or bully opposition members. It sounds like the provincial Liberals and NDP will be opposing this motion, but the PCs do have a majority, so they may not be able to do much in the long run. I would not be surprised if the Speaker finds that the motion is out of order, but this is genuinely frightening about how much they are willing to abuse process and parliamentary privilege like this.

Don’t get me wrong—parliament or the legislatures do have the power to eject members, but it needs to be for very serious wrongdoing, such as being convicted of a serious crime, and if the member refuses to resign gracefully, then they can order the seat vacated. But those are extreme circumstances that have yet to be actually tested (because in virtually every case, sanity prevails and they resign with a shred of dignity still intact). But this is an unconscionable abuse of that power, an abuse of a parliamentary majority, and sets a very dangerous precedent for the future, and the PC members who thought this was at all appropriate should not only be ashamed, but should probably consider tendering their resignations for this debacle.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they repelled 45 Russian attacks around Bakhmut over a twenty-four-hour period, continuing to grind down the Russian forces while they await more arms from allies like the US in order to begin the spring counter-offensive.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1643326962226585604

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford blames Trudeau for his failures (again)

Posted on by

You’re seeing a lot of blame being placed at the federal government for the rising crime rates, and a tonne of disinformation about the so-called “catch and release” bail system, which is not catch-and-release, and in some cases is pure distraction. Case in point was around the murder of a teenager at a Toronto subway station. Doug Ford is making noises blaming the federal government for this incident, demanding immediate changes to the bail system—changes that would no doubt be unconstitutional, since the changes they have agreed to with provincial counterparts are very narrowly targeted.

But the real problem is in the provinces. It’s provinces under-resourcing courts, and mostly underfunding social programmes that would keep these kinds of people out of the criminal justice system. In this particular case, the accused has a long history of interactions with the justice system because he has been failed at every turn, and was in dire need of rehabilitation and mental health supports. And you know whose responsibility that is? The province. Ford has been under-funding the system for years, most especially healthcare, which he deliberately underfunds and then cries poor in demanding more federal money, with no strings attached (which he then puts on the province’s bottom line to reduce his deficit, like he did with pandemic spending). Locking these people up in jail doesn’t solve the problem, and only makes it worse in the long-run, and yes, Ford’s predecessors are also guilty of underfunding the system (though I don’t seem to recall them underspending their healthcare budget—merely cutting it to the bone in the name of “efficiencies.”)

The problems we’re seeing are broader, more systemic societal problems, and removing the presumption of innocence and the right to bail doesn’t change that. In fact, it just creates more problems, and political leaders need to start recognising this fact rather than just blaming the federal government for codifying a number of Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces destroyed 14 out of 17 Iranian-made drones launched over Ukraine, mostly around Odessa. Over in Bakhmut, Ukrainian forces are mocking the Russian claims they captured the city, saying that the Russians raised their flag over “some kind of toilet.” President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will be visiting Warsaw this week to meet with leaders, as well as Ukrainians taking shelter in that country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It wasn’t just social housing

Posted on by

A speech by NDP MP Daniel Blaikie is making the rounds in which he blames the rising housing unaffordability on the federal government vacating the social housing space in 1993, and that this is all the consequence of that. As economist Mike Moffatt explains, this isn’t actually true. But that’s one of the issues with the NDP—they have singular narratives that they must fit things into, whether it’s true or not, and singular policy prescriptions to go along with them. (Yes, other parties do this to, to greater or lesser extents).

Anyway, here’s Moffatt on the more complicated picture. (Full thread here, select portions below).

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642488918435155970

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642489599900495872

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642490391969636355

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642491809065574401

Ukraine Dispatch:

Wagner Group mercenaries are again claiming victory in Bakhmut, not for the first time, while Ukrainian forces again insist they remain in control of the territory. Russians shelled the eastern city of Kostiantynivka, killing six civilians and wounding eight others. Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials are outlining plans for what to do with Crimea once they have recaptured it, and those plans include dismantling the bridge to Russia. Here is a look at the Canadian training programme for Ukrainian soldiers in teaching them how to check for booby-traps and mines in captured territory.

https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1642087035715420160

Continue reading →

Roundup: The thing about the interim ethics commissioner

Posted on by

The issue with the appointment of Dominic LeBlanc’s sister-in-law as the interim ethics commissioner has been nearly inexplicable, until you actually look at the position itself. The optics are absolutely bad, and a very real problem because of the whole issue around perceived conflicts of interest. The problem, however, is that they may not have had much choice in the matter given how the role is structured legislatively. While LeBlanc had no role in the decision, the PMO told CBC that the Privy Council Office—meaning the non-partisan civil service—is responsible for the decision, which no member of the government has stated to date, and you think they would have, if they could communicate their way out of a wet paper bag.

The legislated criteria for who can be the ethics commissioner is very restrictive—you need to be either a former judge, the formal head of a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal, or the former Senate Ethics Officer. Unspoken qualification is that you would also have to be bilingual, which limits your field even further, particularly for former judges. And while the salary was commensurate of that of a federally-appointed judge, the posting for the new commissioner cuts that by a third to bring it in line with other officers of parliament, which is going to make it all the more unattractive, particularly to former judges who are going to take one look at it and decide that they don’t need the aggravation for the amount of money they’re being offered.

There’s a reason why Mary Dawson’s term needed to be extended two or three times while they looked for a replacement. There’s a reason why they pretty much had no choice but to go with Mario Dion when he applied, because there was nobody else (and Dion was not the best choice on offer). And when Dion resigned the post suddenly (two years early) for health reasons, they were pretty much screwed because they couldn’t extend him until a replacement could be found. The solution was the most senior person in the office—said sister-in-law of Dominic LeBlanc—who has been there for ten years. And there is already an ethics screen in place regarding LeBlanc, to keep her out of any conflicts. It’s likely that PCO’s determination was that this was the best of a bad situation, but it’s not good. The interim commissioner doesn’t qualify to become the permanent commissioner, so this situation is temporary. But ultimately, this is a failing of the legislation, because MPs were trying to play tough when they brought it in, and wound up shooting themselves in the foot over it. And now there is an untenable situation because they boxed themselves in. Good job, guys. Your posturing has really paid off.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces report that the Russian advance on the outskirts of Bakhmut has been “halted—or nearly halted.” President Volodymyr Zelenskyy marked the one-year anniversary of the liberation of Bucha, and the discovery of the horrors left in the Russians’ wake, making another call for justice for war crimes.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1641810694852026369

Continue reading →

Roundup: No political interference, and an incompetent commissioner

Posted on by

The final report of the Mass Casualty Commission, arising from the Nova Scotia mass shooting, was released yesterday, and it is wholly damning on the RMCP, as well as on the state of gun control measures. While I have a column about RCMP reform coming out later today, there were a couple of other threads that I wanted to pick up on here. One is that Trudeau says that they’ll make changes to the RCMP, but I’m dubious. Like the column will point out, there’s almost nothing left to save, and I fear that inertia will carry the day—especially when Saskatchewan starts bellyaching about recommendations to phase out training at Depot in Regina, and provincialism will win the day.

The other is that the whole drama around allegations of political interference in the investigation have been resolved, and unsurprisingly, there wasn’t any. “[Commissioner Brenda] Lucki’s audio recorded remarks about the benefits to police of proposed firearms legislation were ill-timed and poorly expressed, but they were not partisan and they do not show that there had been attempted political interference,” the report concluded. Because the claims never made any sense. The gun control changes were not drawn up on the back of a napkin in the wake of the shooting—they had been worked on for months at this point, and were being finalised, and Lucki would have known that because she would have been consulted the whole way through. And there was no reason for the local detachment not to release that information because they knew where the guns came from, and there was no investigation to jeopardise. The report had a lot of things to day about the RCMP needing to be more transparent, and to learn how to admit mistakes, and yes, it did call out that they were actively lying to the public throughout the incident and its aftermath.

One of the other aspects yesterday that deserves to be called out even more is that the interim RCMP Commissioner was given the report the day before, and he couldn’t be bothered to read it, or to have an adequate briefing on its contents, before he went before the media. It’s rank incompetence, and all the more reason why the Force needs to be disbanded.

Ukraine Dispatch:

At least six Russian missiles hit the city of Kharkiv yesterday. Here is a look at Bucha, one year since its liberation.

Continue reading →

QP: Ignoring the Mass Casualty report

Posted on by

The prime minister was away in Truro, Nova Scotia, for the release of the Mass Casualty Commission report, while his deputy was on the west coast getting a head start on selling her budget to the public. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he accused the government censoring debate on a bill that would censor what people can watch online—which is a complete fabrication, because closure is not censorship, and Bill C-11 is about making web giants pay into CanCon funds and has nothing to do with censorship—saying that the bill would give “woke” Ottawa control over Quebeckers’ media, called out the Bloc for supporting the bill, and instead that only the Conservatives stand against censorship. Greg Fergus got up and insisted there is a consensus in Quebec that artists deserve to be paid, and only the Conservatives are offside. Poilievre insisted there was no culture without freedom of expansion, accused the government disinformation, said that Margaret Atwood opposes the bill (note: she did not understand what was in it, but was taken in by misinformation), he called the CRTC a “woke agency” (which is risible), said they could use algorithms to censor debate (false), and insisted that Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was not an instruction manual. Fergus insisted that these were just the same talking points of Big Tech, and that the Conservatives won’t stand against them. Poilievre insisted that the bill would shut down any voices they don’t like, and demanded to know why the prime minister was shutting down debate. Fergus insisted that web giants are not paying their fair share, and wondered why the opposition was against that. Poilievre tried to insist this was about free speech, and tried to use a prop before he got warned about it by the Speaker. Mark Holland got up this time, and used his sanctimonious tone to admonish the Conservatives for pretending that anyone in the Chamber doesn’t believe in free speech, and that they have the free speech enough to go around the country spreading misinformation. Poilievre insisted that he would keep beating the government in debate, before switching to the topic of carbon prices, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on carbon prices and insisting it “proved” the Liberals were wrong (never mind they cherry pick figures and butcher the statistics and distributional effects). Terry Duguid recited the good news talking points about rebate in return. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he raised the money for countering foreign interference in the budget, and demanded a public inquiry. Maninder Sidhu read talking points about those line items. Therrien insisted that this was proof that they already had concluded what David Johnston would find and demanded a public inquiry, and this time, Mark Holland got up to sing Johnston’s praise.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and he raised the conclusion of Mass Casualty Commission report and demanded immediate funds for victims of domestic violence. Pam Damoff recited that they will examine the report and come back with actions in due course. Alexandre Boulerice took over in French, and demanded the government copy Joe Biden’s green industrial policy. Seamus O’Regan insisted that the projects will be built either by union jobs or paid prevailing union wages, which was proof they were on the right track.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Continuing the budget reactions

Posted on by

Now that the budget is out, and people have had a little more time to digest it, more reactions are pouring in. Without further ado, let’s review some of them:

  • AFN national chief RoseAnne Archibald says the budget failed to make progress on a new “economic deal” with First Nations.
  • The aviation industry has some mixed feelings about the measures to address delays.
  • Veterans groups are afraid that they may face possible cuts, because the budget was vague on commitments to their needs.
  • Public sector unions welcome the cap on outsourcing, but are worried about coming cuts as part of the programme review.
  • Humanitarian groups are decrying the $1.3 billion cut to foreign aid in the budget, which is moving further away from our goals.
  • The proposed mortgage code of conduct is welcomed, but there is almost nothing else in the budget around the housing crisis.
  • Here is how the alcohol industry says they got the government to back down on the planned escalator tax.
  • There are hints as to how the assault-style weapon buyback will be handled.
  • Quebec already wants to opt-out of the not-yet created federal dental care programme (with full compensation, of course).

Meanwhile, the debt bomb “it’s 1995 and will always be 1995” crowd is lighting their hair over the deficit, even though it’s really not that big, and it’s not 1995.

https://twitter.com/BrettEHouse/status/1641196835468374017

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces are saying that Russians have had some limited success in Bakhmut in recent days, while there are concerns that Russians have been significantly increasing the number of troops around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which they are occupying. Here is a look at how president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been travelling across the country recently. Zelenskyy says he has invited Xi Jinping to Ukraine, since China wants to play a role in peace talks, but he hasn’t heard back.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1641149869975797774

Continue reading →

QP: Facile questions about the deficit

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town and in his office, he was not available for QP on Wednesday as is his usual practice, as he was instead speaking virtually at the Summit for Democracy, before he and his deputy whisked off to a photo op. That’s right—the day after Budget Day, and the finance minister was also absent from the Chamber. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and both gave several falsehoods about deficits and inflation before complaining there was no path to balance in the budget. Randy Boissonnault pointed out the measures to help, and that this was a budget about hope. Poilievre listed four things that Chrystia Freeland said last year that he deemed false (to varying degrees of veracity), and wondered how anyone could trust anything this government says. Boissonnault listed the declining deficit and low debt-servicing charges. Poilievre returned to French to complain the government has “lost control” of finances, and this time François-Philippe Champagne said that it was the Conservatives who were disconnected because the government did the three things that Canadians were asking of them. Poilievre switched back to English to worry about people living in their parents’ basement while the country “goes broke.” (It’s not going broke). This time Karina Gould got up to decry that the Conservatives had already declared they were going to vote against things like the grocery rebate and supports for families. Poilievre denounced the budget as “tax and squander,” and once again, Gould reiterated the things the Conservatives were voting against.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he listed measures that were not green, and wanted an admission that money was going to oil companies. Steven Guilbeault said that this was not the case, and quoted the David Suzuki Foundation’s praise. Blanchet complained the budget was anti-Quebec because it meddles in provincial jurisdiction on things like dental care, but Guilbeault just kept reading praise for the budget.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, patted himself on the back for the things in the budget he liked, and said that if the government needs more ideas, they can tackle the housing crisis. Ahmed Hussen recited the elements of the National Housing Strategy that he trots out. Singh repeated his backpatting in French, and this time, Irek Kusmierczyk read their plans about reforming EI, and that it is on the way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Budget 2023 highlight reel

Posted on by

And with that, Budget 2023 is now out in the wild. It’s much more pessimistic than the fall economic update was, reflecting the softening global economy—even before the current spate of bank problems happening in the US and Europe. And because GDP growth is projected to be virtually non-existent next year, while spending is increasing, it does mean the debt-to-GDP ratio is going to climb a tiny bit higher than projected earlier, causing no end of grief to a certain class of economic watcher.

The common refrain I heard from the television panellists in reaction was that the budget was clearly defined by its co-authors—Jagmeet Singh, and Joe Biden—each who had their demands, which wound up in the document. In terms of what’s in the budget, here’s an overview, while the highlights include:

  • Rebranding the added GST credit as a one-time “grocery rebate,” while the rental supports are ending because of low uptake.
  • Dental care is planning to be turned into a full insurance programme for the uninsured, administered through Health Canada rather than the CRA.
  • There is money to deal with countering foreign interference, money laundering, and other financial crimes.
  • There are a tonne of subsidies and tax credits geared toward the green economy, with more rewards for companies with better labour practices.
  • The wealthiest Canadians are facing an Alternative Minimum Tax increase.
  • The share buyback tax is in the budget.
  • The excise tax on alcohol is going to cap at a lower rate after a massive outcry (never mind it was adding less than 1¢ to a can of beer).
  • There is more money for consultations on Indigenous resource sharing.
  • They are promising a federal spending review and cutting back on consultants and travel (but we’ll see if that sticks).
  • More money to keep the Phoenix pay system stable while they work on a replacement.
  • There will be a $2.4 billion loan for Ukraine, on top of another $200 million for military equipment (most of which has been announced).
  • Here are sixteen points that are prominent, and that are a little more hidden in the text.

Surprising absolutely nobody, Jagmeet Singh says he’ll support the budget, while Pierre Poilievre put on a big song and dance in the Foyer before Question Period saying that unless the government met his demands, he wouldn’t support it—not that he would support it anyway, so it was the dumbest, hollowest threat imaginable. Honestly. Meanwhile, here is some reaction from business leaders to the document.

https://twitter.com/Dennismolin11/status/1640822353461489664

Ukraine Dispatch:

In spite of the relentless bombardment of Bakhmut and Avdiivka, Ukrainian forces say the Russians have made no advancement on either position (even if the Russians insist they are). The first of the British Challenger 2 tanks have begun arriving on Ukrainian soil, as have Leopard 2 tanks from Germany, while France is pledging more ammunition. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the Sumy region, which was retaken from Russian forces in early April of last year.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1640785827210067968

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1640759675699298316

Continue reading →

QP: Launching a new, unconstitutional talking point

Posted on by

It was a surprise that the prime minister was present when he wasn’t initially planning to be, though most of the other leaders weren’t. Pierre Poilievre led in French, demanding to know if the debt-to-GDP ratio would fall in the coming budget. Justin Trudeau responded that he knew everyone was on tenterhooks waiting to hear what is in the budget, but reiterated what their priorities are. Poilievre changed to English, listed the number of violent deaths in the past few days and demanded the prime ministers reverse the policies that made this happen. Trudeau said that while they are concerned, they have invested in public safety while the Conservatives cut funding to them. Poilievre insisted that in Vancouver, 40 repeat offenders were arrested 6000 times in a year, and demanded the prime minster “replace bail with jail.” (That is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Trudeau said that if the Conservatives were concerned, they would support their gun control bill. Poilievre insisted that the government was letting violent criminals go free, and Trudeau accused the Conservatives of distracting away from their opposition to gun control bill. Poilievre made a number of specious correlations, pretended there was causation, called it “evidence,” and Trudeau said that the Conservatives loosened gun control which caused the spike in violent crime. (Erm, not sure that’s true either).

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, raised the allegations against Han Dong, and accused the government of being asleep at the switch. Trudeau cautioned Therrien of being sure of his facts so that he doesn’t mislead the House, and stated that the government took actions where necessary. Therrien wondered if Trudeau was naïve or incompetent and demanded an immediate public inquiry. Trudeau said this was just the Bloc trying to score points rather than getting to the bottom of things, which is why we should count on David Johnston.

Heather McPherson rose for the NDP, and noted that Ukrainians in Canada on visitor visas can access training programmes, to which Trudeau noted that he did sit down with union leaders, gave some bland statements about supporting Ukrainians while growing the economy. Lisa Marie Barron worried about seniors who can’t make ends meet, and that single seniors pay more in taxes than their coupled counterparts, and Trudeau insisted that they did increased the GIS for single seniors, which the NDP voted against.

Continue reading →