Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: A bill drawn up by deranged constitutional saboteurs

Posted on by

The fallout of the rollout of Danielle Smith’s “Alberta Sovereignty in a United Canada Act” carried on for much of the day, starting with a “clarification” that the province’s justice department sent out, but it didn’t clarify anything because it contradicted the plain language of the text, and I am forced to wonder why we aren’t seeing a raft of resignations because this whole affair has been an egregious, unconstitutional omnishambles from the get go. (From bean to cup…)

For his part, Justin Trudeau is keeping his powder dry and standing well back. While he said nothing is “off the table,” but added that he’s not looking to pick a fight, he knows full well that a fight is what Smith wants, because that’s what she hopes to use to leverage support in the next election, because there is a demographic in Alberta who likes the attitude of pugilism with the federal government, even though most of the grievances are imaginary or overblown. And no, he is not going to invoke disallowance on this because it’s a constitutional dead letter and would be provoking an even bigger constitutional crisis. But I also get the sense that “disallowance” is the new “Emergencies Act” that the press gallery in Ottawa is going to ask Trudeau about at every single opportunity, like they did through the height of the pandemic. But seriously, Gretchen—stop trying to make disallowance happen. It’s not going to happen. As for what Trudeau will do, I suspect it’ll be a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada after the bill receives royal assent, whenever that happens.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1597961310779891713

For commentary on the bill, law professor Eric Adams lists the bill’s many unconstitutional aspects which will result in court cases, one way or the other. Emmett Macfarlane pulls no punches in calling it the most unconstitutional bill in modern history, goes through the many problems, and asserts that the bill was “drawn up by deranged constitutional saboteurs,” and he’s right. David Moscrop points out that the bill gives Smith a temporary win by harnessing populist forces to her benefit, where she can play victim when the courts eventually strike this down. Colby Cosh doesn’t take Smith at her word that she hopes never to use this legislation, and hopes that people can cool down before this escalates.

https://twitter.com/tim4hire/status/1598044824380506117

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 281:

Fighting continues both in the east, as Russians continue to try and advance to Bakhmut, and near Kherson in the south. Meanwhile, nine people were killed by fire over a 24-hour period as they tried to find ways of providing heat, and it didn’t go very well for an of them.

Continue reading →

QP: Careful hewing to prepared lines about national security

Posted on by

The prime minister was in the Chamber for his usual Wednesday spot of proto-Prime Minister’s Questions, as were all of the other leaders, which hasn’t happened for a few weeks. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he once again returned to the Global News report that China had funnelled money to federal candidates in 2019, and wanted to know if the prime minister had gone back to CSIS to ask if there was any evidence to support such an allegation. Justin Trudeau said that he has to be very careful in answering questions about national security, and with a script in front of him, recited that Canada and its allies are regularly targeted by foreign states like China, including during election campaigns, and that his government had more steps than any other including creating an independent panel tasked with assessing the risk coming from foreign countries, and those panels confirmed that the electoral integrity was not compromised, and concluded with yes, he receives regular briefings. Poilievre switched to English, said it was interesting that he said he did get briefings, and repeated to know if he got one post Global News report on the allegations. Trudeau repeated his same response in English, word-for-word, but added at the end that all parties are briefed about elections. Poilievre said that wasn’t the question, and wanted a yes-or-no answer on a post-Global News briefing. Trudeau very slowly enunciated that in all of the briefings he received, there has never been any mention of candidates receiving money from China in either 2019 or 2021, and praised the panels once again. Poilievre wanted a yes-or-no answer on whether Trudeau asked for briefings after the Global News story, but Trudeau went on about how Poilievre, a former minister, knows the importance of respecting national security guidelines and that because Poilievre was the former minister for elevations integrity, he knows this, but also added that when Poilievre was minister, he did nothing about adding security against interference while the current government did. Poilievre was incredulous by the notion that Trudeau didn’t demand a briefing on the story, but moved on to ask if there was any electoral interference at all. Trudeau reminded him that Canada is regularly subject to some level of foreign interference, including from China, including during elections, which Poilievre would know when he was minister of elections, and noted that the two previous leaders did get briefings before, during and after the elections on foreign interference.

Yves-François Blanchet wondered at what point the interference goes from a little to a lot, and wondered about Chinese money flowing into Trudeau’s riding was interference or influence. Trudeau stated that rather than allowing partisan accusations to muddy the waters, they created a panel to precisely look at those issues in an objective and non-partisan manner. Blanchet was more specific about Chinese money flowing into Trudeau’s riding at a time a bank was trying to get approval, and Trudeau said that while the Bloc was trying to cast doubt on the integrity of our institutions, he could assure them they were not affected.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, worried about an overloaded hospital in Quebec, and accused the prime minister of sitting on his hands, and demanded the government do more like they did in the pandemic. Trudeau reminded him that they have been working with the provinces. Singh switched to English to worry about Danielle Smith’s “Sovereignty Act” and that she would use it to undermine the Canada Health Act, which proves he doesn’t know what he was talking about because the whole gods damned point of the Act is to put conditions on federal dollars. Trudeau noted that he could understand why people were concerned, but he was going to focus on getting good results for Albertans.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Sovereignty Act is an attack on democracy itself

Posted on by

Alberta premier Danielle Smith tabled her “Alberta Sovereignty in a United Canada Act” yesterday, and it was worse than anyone had previously imagined.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1597736239960297473

For starters, the “in a united Canada” part is an attempt to be clever in trying to insist that this isn’t about separatism, but that’s mere window dressing. (I also suspect that it’s not much of a coincidence that just days ago, conservative luminary Ken Boessenkool declared Stephen Harper’s “The Québécois are a nation within a united Canada” motion to be a genius unifying move, never mind the fact that just who “the Québécois” were was never defined and created rifts with Anglo-Quebeckers). The substance of this bill is a wholesale power grab using the most extreme form of a Henry VIII clause known as enabling legislation. In this case, it allows Cabinet to amend any legislation they see fit to after being given a mandate by way of a resolution passed by the legislature (where they have a comfortable majority). Smith and her justice minister, Tyler Shandro, kept insisting that this resolution process was democratic and transparent, but this kind of enabling legislation is anything but, particularly because it allows Cabinet to define the terms of what they deem “injurious to Alberta’s interests,” or whatever the excuse they’re giving themselves to take these powers. It violates the separation of powers by declaring federal legislation to be null and void in the province, and directs police not to enforce federal laws, which is an attack on the rule of law.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1597732003411267584

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1597761564257701888

Smith justified the need for such powers as saying that Alberta has been “ignored” by the federal government for the past ten years, which is a) complete bullshit, and b) that’s not a justifiable reason to give yourself the power to ignore the legislative process. She insisted this was just defending rights like Quebec does, but Quebec doesn’t do this. Her list of grievances was largely all strawmen—the incoming emission cap on the oil and gas sector, the plan to reduce fertilizer emissions, environmental assessment legislation, and the worst affront of all—that the federal government would dare to try to attach strings to federal dollars. How very dare they! But this kind of mendacious grievance-mongering is how politics has been practice in the province for years now, so it’s not unexpected that this is what she would fall back to.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1597733033754386434

Smith’s apologists immediately came out to defend the bill saying that it’s “symbolic” and Smith herself was insisting she doesn’t want it to be used. That’s all horseshit. You don’t give yourself very real enabling legislation powers for “symbolic” reasons if you don’t intend to use it. The federal government has largely been signalling that they won’t be engaging, though I wouldn’t be surprised if, now that we’ve seen the text and the huge overreach, that they would refer this to the Supreme Court of Canada so fast that it will give you whiplash. While this could be Smith imagining that it’s a fight she wants, I have severe doubts that it would give her the legitimacy in a fight that she so desperately wants.

As this was all going down, Jason Kenney announced that he had resigned his seat, with a letter attached that bemoaned how polarized politics had become—after he spent 25 years actively engaging in that very polarizing behaviour and driving it to partisan effect. The kicker here is that Kenney was vehemently opposed to the proposed Sovereignty Act, and planned to oppose it in the legislature, but as soon as the bill is tabled, whoops, there he goes. I can’t quite decide if this is weaselly behaviour, or Kenney being a chicken shit. Either way, it was a choice.

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1597741099971641344

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 280:

NATO foreign ministers met in Bucharest, Romania, and have pledged additional non-lethal support with things like more blankets and generators to help Ukrainians to get through the winter, but also to send them Patriot missiles. The Americans announced $53 million to buy parts to help repair the electrical grid. Inside Ukraine, “Points of Invincibility” have bene set up which are stations to get food, drinks, and warmth as the shelling of critical infrastructure continues.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1597661671560024067

Continue reading →

QP: We created two independent panels!

Posted on by

Both the prime minister and his deputy were in the House together for the first QP in weeks, which is always nice to see. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, he asked if any public servants, security officials, or police inform the prime minister of Beijing’s alleged interference in elections. Justin Trudeau said that while security and police take foreign interference very seriously, he could assure Canadians that in the 2019 and 2021 elections, there was no foreign interference that could have changed any of the results in any significant way. Poilievre found the answer to be tricksy, and in English, wanted to know if there was any interference period. Trudeau pointed out that there is always some level of interference, be it cyber or disinformation, but they had assurances this was not an issue and that the elections were free and fair. Poilievre still was not satisfied, and asked again. Trudeau reiterated that they had the panel of top civil servants and national security who monitored both 2019 and 2021 and found no interference. Poilievre tried again, more slowly, if there were any briefings about alleged interference, period. Trudeau stated that he had no briefings, period, around foreign-funded candidates. Poilievre insisted this was a denial of an absurdity, and repeated yet again if he had any intelligence of any interference of any kind from Beijing during either election. Trudeau reiterated that the report from the non-partisan panel that there was no interference that impacted those elections.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the NDP, and raised that the RCMP was now investigating, and if democracy was at stake, the prime minister needed to know which alleged eleven candidates were in question. Trudeau repeated that all of the reports stated anything about any interference or funding directly or indirectly from China. Blanchet was not mollified and worried that Trudeau was somehow isolating China for the sake of grandstanding. Trudeau once again cited that China does try to interfere, which is why we work with allies to protect ourselves. 

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and worried about conservative premiers trying to privatise healthcare, and demanded the prime minister do something about that. Trudeau noted that on some days the NDP demand he send more money to premiers and today he was telling them not to, but any future transfers would be subject to the Canada Health Act. Singh switched to French and sounded concern about Quebec hospitals in particular, and Trudeau reiterated that they were working with provinces to deliver “real results.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith will threaten your funding

Posted on by

Danielle Smith’s Alberta is a place where Smith and her ministers will phone you up and threaten your funding if you have mask or vaccine mandates, it was revealed yesterday. Smith threatened funding for the Arctic Winter Games, and has been phoning film productions to threaten them if they have mandates, because of course she is. It’s an abusive, arbitrary exercise of power that is imposing conditions on these groups or productions that don’t have these obligations in their written agreements, but it’s not like she cares about things like legalities.

It was also revealed that she isn’t moving ahead with her plan to add protection for the unvaccinated in the province’s human rights legislation, and is instead going to focus on her so-called “Sovereignty Act,” but rumour is that it’s going to be something like “Sovereignty Within a United Canada” or some other similar bullshit to make it look like it’s not a full-on separatist movement that will spook investment, not that doing arbitrary things like phoning you up and threatening your funding will make anyone feel like they want to continue doing business in the province. I’m almost surprised that her caucus isn’t revolting already considering the absolute abuse of power on display.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 279:

Ongoing Russian strikes and power disruptions as a result are making it difficult for hospitals in Ukraine to carry out their work, and at times, surgeries are being performed with headlamps and flashlights. The US is expected to announce aid that will help with the restoration of electricity around the country. Meanwhile, 30 settlements in the Kherson region have been shelled 258 times in the past week, and Russia has kept up shelling at Bakhmut and Avdiivka in Donetsk province as they try to make gains there.

https://twitter.com/DavidLametti/status/1597320883441319936

Continue reading →

QP: Being happy-clappy about dental care

Posted on by

While the PM was off at James Smith Cree Nation today, his deputy was present for the first time in a week. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he misquoted Tiff Macklem’s testimony at committee about the relationship between government deficits and inflation, and tried to wedge this into his facile narrative about blaming the government for it, and demanded the government reverse their deficits. Chrystia Freeland responded with the good news that this week, Canadians can start applying for the new dental claim benefit for children under twelve. Poilivre repeated his mendacious Macklem misquote and added in a quote from an insurance company that says they won’t accept heat pumps as primary sources of heat because they can’t be counted on to not freeze pipes, and demanded the government cancel their plan to “triple” the carbon price (which is not tripling). Freeland responded with her happy-clappy good news talking point about dental care, which was not the question, and then added in the country’s Aaa credit rating. Poilievre then worried about Canadians not being able to heat their homes in the winter and again demanded the government cancel the carbon price (which won’t do anything for affordability because the increases largely have to do with the world price of oil). Jonathan Wilkinson got up this time to note their affordability measures like doubling the GST credit, and pointed out that in spite of what the Conservatives say, the carbon price rebates benefit eight out of ten families and the Conservatives campaigned on a carbon price themselves. Poilievre then misquoted the PBO’s report on carbon prices, dropped his “triple, triple, triple” ear worm, and demanded the government cancel their planned carbon price increases. This time, Sean Fraser got up to declare that Poilievre’s questions were irrational, with his newfound opposition to heat pumps, when they are important to people who live in his part of the country, and pointed out that the cost of inaction is too great to ignore. Poilievre then pivoted to the recently announced Indo-Pacific Strategy, and a statement about challenging China for their abusive behaviours, and raised the wave of protests around that country, and he demanded that the government tell Beijing to let the protests go ahead. Maninder Sidhu got up to read a script about following the events closely, and that protesters should be able to do so peacefully.

Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc, and she worried about the allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 election, and in the absences of something more concrete from the government, wondered if the Global a news story was “fake news.” Marco Mendincino stood up to reminder her that they had an independent panel in both elections that declared that there was no interference. DeBellefeuille used this as an opportunity to make the case for a return to the per-vote subsidy as “protection” against this kind of interference, and this time Dominic LeBlanc got up to reiterate the same points.

Rachel Blaney for the NDP, and blamed Loblaws for rising food prices and demanded they pay their “fair share.” Freeland recited her well-worn talking points about corporations paying more in taxes, their Recovery Dividend, and their luxury taxes. Daniel Blaikie took over in French to repeat the same question, and Freeland recited the French version of her same talking points.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Botching the Asia-Pacific Strategy Rollout

Posted on by

The federal government launched their long-awaited Indo-Pacific Strategy yesterday, which was, well, a choice. They launched it on a Sunday morning at the same time as Canada was playing in a World Cup match, and didn’t provide journalists with a technical briefing beforehand as the usually do (the technical briefing will be today, which is after the ministers have all made themselves available to the media), so they were basically flying blind about trying to figure out what’s in it as the media availability was happening. This should not have happened, and I suspect this was the old trick of trying to make announcements on a Sunday in order to try and set the agenda and tone for the week (the Conservatives used to be big fans of this, but the Liberals rarely did).

https://twitter.com/ChrisGNardi/status/1596943087930335233

What we know about it so far is that it’s two years after it was initially promised to be delivered, there’s a lot of back-patting about how this is a major foreign policy shift, and that they are going to re-engage through the region with some added spending, slightly more military engagement in the region (eventually), and maybe some intelligence operations in the area as well. I’m sure we’ll learn more later today, but yeah, the government made a lot of choices today in their communications strategy, and what do we say about this government’s communications strategies? That they can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, and well, they proved that once again yesterday. Slow clap, guys.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1596925774044405760

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1596927851130851329

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 278:

There is a renewed evacuation of Kherson now that it has been liberated (though they are fleeing to Ukrainian-held regions and not Russian-held areas) as Russia has stepped up its attacks on the liberated city, while they deal with a loss of critical infrastructure. Power and water have been restored in Kyiv, but the mood is sombre as blackouts still continue because of the damage to infrastructure as winter is setting in.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau takes the stand

Posted on by

It was prime minister Justin Trudeau’s long-awaited appearance on the season finale of the Emergencies Act public inquiry, and he defended the invocation of the Act, and he sat and answered questions for over five hours, and from the sounds of it, managed to acquit himself fairly well. He seemed to have a much better memory of events than beleaguered RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, and dismissed the so-called plan that was in the works on the 13th before the Act was invoked as not being an actual plan. There was a detour through the sub-drama about Candice Bergen, and Trudeau produced a transcript of the call where she did express concerns about setting a bad precedent around demands he meet with the occupiers—Bergen had previously told the media that the PMO description of the call was different than she recalled. (Bergen? Not being honest? Perish the thought!) In all, Trudeau says that he’s “serene” with his decision, and now it’s up to the Commissioner if that’s enough.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1596170763261935625

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1596178220701077505

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1596167087818526722

And with that, the testimonies portion of the inquiry wrapped. The parties all gave closing summaries of their arguments (though the one lawyer representing the occupiers’ read like it was coming from an alternate reality and ended with a demand for Trudeau to resign), and the judge gave his thanks to all of the participants.

Additionally, Shannon Proudfoot offers her sketch of the day’s events. Paul Wells runs through Trudeau’s testimony and sees particular places where he seems to be trying to be clever about certain things like the dismissal of the previous plan, and it’s a good read throughout.

And then, by sheer coincidence, it also happened to be the night that Trudeau made his appearance on Canada’s Drag Race, and yeah, as with any political appearance on the show, it was slightly cringe and not terribly critical, but that’s pretty much how these shows happen these days. Still, good on him for making the appearance at a time when drag is being heavily politicised (though drag is by its nature political), and where it is under attack in certain American states. Having a world leader show support does help.

https://twitter.com/canadasdragrace/status/1596332148297912320

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 276:

Russians bombarded Kherson again, killing ten civilians and wounding more, damaging more power stations, though most were back online in much of the country by the end of the day.

https://twitter.com/kovaliv_y/status/1595861029514256384

Continue reading →

Roundup: More Macklem misquotes

Posted on by

I’m going to revisit more of Tiff Macklem’s appearance at the Commons finance committee, because things he said were being taken wildly out of context in Question Period yesterday, and we all have an obligation to call out egregious bullshit when we hear it. For example, when Macklem admits that stimulus may have been applied for too long, nobody knew if it was safe to withdraw it yet and they were operating on best guesses and advice from observers, and more to the point, the Bank was also engaged in forward guidance, and they needed  a cycle to wind that back before raising rates, otherwise they risked damaging their reputation as doing what they way they’re going to. This is a very important consideration for a central bank. As well, the questions about the level of spending during the height of the pandemic and whether that led to more inflationary stimulus ignores that it was impossible to better target supports like CERB because the government and its IT structure had no real ability to do that. That’s why the used the CRA’s system to kludge together CERB as quickly as they did—there wasn’t an ability to be more targeted (even though it was temporary). Trying to elicit quotes to blame the government for inflation is both cheap and intellectually dishonest, but that’s pretty much par for the course these days.

Meanwhile, former governor Stephen Poloz told an audience at Western that the economy is much more sensitive to interest rate hikes than it was ten years ago, so we should start seeing inflation start to fall shortly, but he also stated that it will only get part of the job done, so other policy action will be needed to get inflation back to its target zone. This said, Poloz also says that it’s impossible to say if rates were hiked too much over a short period, because as we should know by now, inflation can move about 18 months later than the rate changes happens, so stay tuned.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 275:

As Russian bombing of critical infrastructure continue, people in Kyiv are collecting rainwater to survive, while Kherson is facing renewed attacks. Russia is openly admitting to these attacks now, claiming it’s about disrupting military command and control and stopping the flow of ammunition, never mind that they’re openly admitting to war crimes as they do.

Continue reading →

QP: Directly quoting selectively from the PBO

Posted on by

The prime minister was present once again, while his deputy was busy testifying at the public inquiry. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he worried about deficits causing inflation (which they’re not), and demanded a course correction. Justin Trudeau reminded him that they were there for Canadians during the pandemic in order to ensure it was less severe than other places on the world, and that our economy bounced back faster, and insisted that the Conservatives only want to cut. Poilievre switched to English to denounce alleged comments from Seamus O’Regan, and demanded they cut the carbon price. Trudeau dismissed the concern as twisting the words of minister, and pointed to the PBO report on the carbon price and how it helps eight out of ten families. Poilievre picked up that report and cited several numbers out of context to “prove” his talking points. Trudeau, looking rather pleased, insisted that Poilievre did not look at the section about the rebates, and called him out about not caring about climate change. Poilievre insisted that the rebates were “tiny” and didn’t cover costs—and was called out by the Speaker for using the report as a prop—and Poilievre went on a tear about how the price is ineffective and hurts people. Trudeau disputed that the rebates were tiny, and noted the other benefits they have delivered, noting that Poilievre is only playing rhetorical games. Poilievre tried to bring up the cost of the hotel for the Queen’s funeral and insisted that the report proved that people are being hit hard. Trudeau countered that the report shows that the rebates compensate most families more than they pay, because fighting climate change is important while Poilievre only wants to nickel-and-dime them.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he returned to the alleged contradictions in the reports about the Xi Jinping confrontation and demanded a return to the per-vote subsidy to prevent foreign funding. Trudeau clapped back that the Bloc only want the subsidy because they can’t raise money on their own. Therrien was incensed, and insisted that China was exploiting this vulnerability, and Trudeau countered that political financing is robust and transparent, and pointed out that the media are invited to his fundraising events, and encouraged other parties to do the same.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and decried the crisis in emergency rooms and demanded the federal government show up. Trudeau took exception to the insinuation he doesn’t care about children, and pointed out that they have transferred billions to provinces and are sitting down with provinces. Singh switched to French to repeat the question and got the same response.

Continue reading →