Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

QP: The first attempt to publicly undermine Speaker Fergus

Posted on by

The prime minister and his deputy were in town but away, hosting CARICOM meetings instead, while the other leaders were all present. Speaker Fergus wanted to make a statement about decorum before things got underway, Pierre Poilievre decided to throw a tantrum because he started right now, and had Andrew Scheer fight on his behalf. There was a back-and-forth on the rules and consultation with the Table Officers, and Fergus trying to assert his authority as the Conservatives tried to undermine him publicly. Eventually, Fergus did get to his speech, and faced attempts by the Conservatives to interrupted him with points of order, and eventually he got to the point about excessive and loud heckling, while recognising that there is a place for witty comments as a feature of our system; the use of “provocative” terms that lead to tense exchanges, such as calling one another racists or shouting obscenities; and the tendency to the make personal attacks, including coming up with fake titles, or drawing attention to absences. He promised to use what tools he has to limit those attacks, reinforcing that he has the authority to preserve order and decorum. That would include refusing to recognise a member, or to name a member.

Poilievre finally led off in French, and he decried “inflationary deficits” with a couple of bespoke mentions of Quebeckers. François-Philippe Champagne trotted out the “take no lessons” line and decried the cuts the Conservatives would make cuts to services. Poilievre switched to English to worry about the “middle-class homeless,” and demanded an end to deficits, to which Anita Anand recited the points about the country’s Aaa credit rating and that the government invests in Canadians. Poilievre shrugged off the “incompetent ratings agencies” before worrying about homeless seniors with a specious connection to deficits. Mark Holland said that cuts to social programmes like Poilievre was peddling would make people worse off in the long-run. Poilievre boasted that the previous government balanced the budget will increasing healthcare (false), and Anand got back up to insist that they won’t balance the budget on the backs of Canadians. Poilievre retorted that the government runs massive deficits on the backs of people before turning to the hospital in Gaza, and demanded that they denounce terrorists for inflicting it. Karina Gould said that their hearts were broken for the innocent Palestinians affected and that they have denounced terrorism while they stand with Israel.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he demanded Canada work with allies to get humanitarian aid to Gaza. Gould insisted that they were calling for a humanitarian corridor and to protect the lives of civilians. Blanchet was incredulous that Trudeau had not apparently spoken to Joe Biden since the attack in Israel, and Gould reiterated that they are in contact with allies and stakeholders. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and mocked Champagne’s inability to get answers on how the grocery chains were lowering prices, and wanted support for a motion to call them to committee. Champagne insisted that his summoning those CEOs was unprecedented. Singh got back up ask the question in French—because he needs clips in both languages—and Champagne says that he wrote to the chair of the committee to ask him to summon the CEOs, so he was glad the NDP was on board.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Openly pursuing creeping illiberalism

Posted on by

You may have heard mention of a lavish trip that Conservative MPs took to London courtesy of a Hungarian think tank, but as you might expect from Canadian legacy media, the focus remains on the costs of the trip, and the stupid little partisan games in trying to get the ethics committee to look into it. What isn’t being mentioned is the fact that the think tank, the Danube Institute, is closely tied to the Orbán regime, and that is a worrying problem because of what it signals about right-wing parties in North America cosying up to Orbán.

Why this matters is because Orbán is undermining the rule of law and public institutions in Hungary, and is praising greater illiberalism. By cosying up to Orbán while has-beens like Stephen Harper try to sanitise his image through his IDU social club is because it creates a permission structure for right-wing parties like the Conservatives to start normalising the same illiberalism, pretending that this is all standard stuff for small-c conservative parties these days. The “don’t say gay” legislation in the US all came from Orbán’s playbook, and that is crossing over into Canada as well, with Conservatives openly winking and nodding to it, while you have conservative premiers invoking the notwithstanding clause to take away the rights of gender-diverse youth. This is the canary in the coal mine.

On the subject of creeping illiberalism, Conservatives (and MP Rachael Harder in particular) tried to get the public accounts committee to haul the CBC executives before them to “explain” why they don’t use the term “terrorist” when referring to Hamas, never mind that this is a practice shared by other news organisations like the BBC and The Associated Press. This kind of attempted intimidation is absolutely out of order, and represents political interference in the public broadcaster, which would be bad enough it Harder wasn’t the one always screaming about so-called “government censorship” with the Online Streaming Act and the Online News Act, as though that were a credible problem. It’s not, but it also seems to be both projection and an admission, that they want to control the news and programming, while accusing the Liberals of doing so (even though they absolutely are not). This is extremely dangerous for our democracy, and we should absolutely beware what they are trying to get away with.

Ukraine Dispatch:

While the attacks on Avdiivka continue, Russians struck an apartment building in Zaporizhzhia and killed two people. Ukraine has claimed responsibility for an attack on two Russian airfield in occupied areas using longer-range ballistic missiles quietly provided by the Americans, which is an unusual admission for them, but also signals that they can now hit Russian supply lines in more protected areas.

Continue reading →

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 →