Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

QP: Inflation isn’t burning, the country is

Posted on by

As the city was blanketed in smoke from the forest fires burning further north, things got underway in the West Block. The prime minister, his deputy, and all other leaders were present for the day, which was always a good sign. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, denigrated David a Johnston and his staff, and demanded a public inquiry. Justin Trudeau said that if Poilievre wants the facts he can get the top secret briefing, but he won’t because he would rather make baseless partisan attacks. Poilievre repeated the demand in English, and this time, Trudeau recited Poilievre singing his praises a decade ago. Poilievre said that it was tragic that the prime minister destroyed Johnston’s reputation, and demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau said that he didn’t hold Johnston’s previous appointments by Conservatives against him, while it was Poilievre’s judgment that was in question because he refuses the briefings. Poilievre pivoted to the topic of deficits and inflation, with all of the attendant misinformation, to which Trudeau decried the Conservative focus on austerity and listed things the Conservatives are blocking in the budget. Poilievre repeated the misinformation-laden demand in French, and got much the same response.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he took his own kicks at Johnston, and Trudeau said that he knows Blanchet looks forward to Johnston’s public hearings, and pointed out that they too are refusing the briefings in order to make unfounded partisan attacks. Blanchet chided that Johnston said that a public inquiry would be too long and too costly, and accused of him being hired to put a lid on the issue. Trudeau said that Blanchet would be more credible if he got the briefing.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he worried about the exploding costs of houses in Toronto, and demanded steps to deal with it. Trudeau picked up a script to pat himself on the back for the action the government is taking on “so many fronts.” Singh switched to French to grouse that Trudeau has official housing which he equated to meaning that Trudeau was out to protect the rich. (How?) Trudeau repeated his list of actions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Declaring war on the budget for no reason

Posted on by

The Conservatives have declared war on the budget, and have begun a campaign of procedural warfare over it. It began on Friday, with the abuse of remote voting, where they abandoned the Chamber for a vote and instead all voted remotely, after which they claimed there was a “technical problem” and each of them requested that their vote be verified, thus slowing down the process immensely. (Seriously, end remote voting. It’s anathema to our system).

Yesterday they announced that they had a campaign of hundreds of amendments and other tactics at their disposal unless their demands were met—balancing the budget, and ending increases to “all carbon taxes,” meaning the federal carbon price and the clean fuel standard (which is not a carbon price, and may never see an increase in the price at the pumps if the minister has his way). Their justification for this—that these deficits are inflationary and driving up interest rates—is illiterate nonsense, and the kinds of misinformation/disinformation that we have come to expect from them. And yet, we have a bunch of pundits who insist this is “good politics.” I’m not sure how, but here we are.

More than anything, one has to wonder why they are going nuclear over this. These kinds of tactics are generally reserved for when the government crosses a line, does something that attacks Parliament, or seriously undermines Parliament or democracy. Using them for bullshit theatre continues this pattern of all tactics, no strategy that the NDP became famous for during their stint as official opposition, and it’s just abusing Parliament more than anything the government is doing. I simply cannot fathom how they feel this is going to help them, rather than simply looking like they are wasting everyone’s time.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces appear to have blown up a dam on the Dnipro River near Kherson, which could lead to mass flooding. Ukrainian forces appear to be attempting to punch through Russian lines in the south-eastern part of the country, which could be a sign that the counter-offensive is underway. Russians also launched yet another early-morning attack on Kyiv, where air defences have shot down at least 20 missiles so far.

Continue reading →

QP: Setting the stage for a filibuster

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town, he was not at Question Period, but his deputy was. Most of the other leaders were present, and just hours before, the Conservatives announced their plans to filibuster the budget with every tool in the book until they got their demands about a balanced budget and an end to increase on carbon prices. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, worrying that the budget adds fuel to the “inflationary fire” (it actually doesn’t), and demanded a plan for a balanced budget. Chrystia Freeland said that this shows they are completely irresponsible and trying to pick partisan fights, as they are trying to suppress the help that Canadians need, such as the Workers’ Benefit. Poilievre worried that Canadians were the most heavily indebted in the G7 ands worried about higher interest rates. Freeland considered this an adolescent position, and listed actions in the budget to help Canadians. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question around deficits and demanded a plan to balance the budget, and Freeland said that she was “truly appalled by the reckless and irresponsible behaviour” of the Conservatives, preferring adolescent partisan games instead of help for Canadians, adding in a line about “Parliamentary childishness.” Poilievre said that what was reckless as high inflation and interest rates before repeating his demand. Freeland suggested that someone who told Canadians they could opt out of inflation by crypto was in no position to offer advice on finances. Poilievre returned to French to worry about Quebec families impacted by forest fires, and wanted an update on the situation. Bill Blair said that there are 370 forest fires, with 217 out of control, and noted that Canadian Forces are involved in three provinces.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, offering cooperation on forest fires and climate change. Pablo Rodriguez gave a paean about the efforts of firefighters assisting Quebeckers. Therrien then turned over to David Johnston preemptively hiring Navigator, suggesting that he knew off the top that the fix was in. Dominic LeBlanc dismissed this, and said that Johnston did his job thoroughly and reached an independence conclusion.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he cited a survey about people struggling to make housing payments, and demanded steps to bring down the cost of rent (never mind that this is provincial jurisdiction). Chrystia Freeland patted herself on the back for the top-up provided to renters in last year’s budget. Singh railed both the possibility that the Bank of Canada raising rates, and corporations, to which Freeland assured him that the government was on the side of Canadians.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Involving Elections Canada?

Posted on by

The Chief Electoral Officer is talking about approaching parties about monitoring nomination races, which I have some mixed feelings about. While the impetus around this is of course the ongoing paranoia about foreign interference and the notion that Chinese agents are trying to stage-manage these contests, that’s really the least of our concerns, because more often than not, the real problem is party leaders gaming these races in order to get their own preferred candidates on the ballot. Mind you, that is increasingly becoming a quaint notion as many parties are increasingly just foregoing nomination races entirely, and the leader is simply using their powers to appoint people to nominations, which betrays the whole mechanism of grassroots politics, and the Liberals have become some of the absolute worst about this.

But seriously—Samara Canada did a study on this a couple of years ago, and it’s shocking just how much parties have put their thumbs on the scales of these contests. (It’s actually worse than the report describes because the researchers credulously believed the NDP around their own claims around open nominations, ignoring everything that had been printed about all of their paper candidates who won in 2011, who absolutely did not even visit the ridings they had been assigned to beforehand, let alone face an actual nomination battle). The drama with the current by-election in Oxford is because the retired Conservative MP is outraged that Poilievre and Scheer put their thumbs on the scale to get their friend parachuted and nominated against someone from inside the riding, which is why he’s now supporting the Liberal candidate.

The big drawback, however, is that Elections Canada monitoring these contests is likely to become even more intrusive, because parties are essentially private clubs, which is not an especially bad thing. But we also have a huge volume of registered parties in this country who will never win a seat, and if Elections Canada has to monitor all of their nominations as well, that could be a giant swelling of their bureaucracy in order to have people who can monitor every one of these contests, particularly in advance of an election call, and in the time between the election being called and the cut-off date for names to be on the ballot. I’m not sure how feasible that’s going to be. The way our laws are currently structured were done in a way to explicitly keep Elections Canada from getting involved (which is why we developed a system of leaders signing off on nominations, which in turn became abused and a tool of blackmail). So while I’m cognisant that we have a problem with nominations in this country, I’m not sure that involving Elections Canada is the right solution.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There was another round of fire against Kyiv early on Sunday, which was largely repelled in the city but a regional airfield was hit. Russian forces struck the city of Dnipro, killing a child and wounding at least 25 others in what President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says have been five hundred child deaths so far. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces keep up their operations around Bakhmut, preventing Russian forces from solidifying gains in the city itself. Russians claim to have thwarted Ukrainian attacks in Donetsk province. This as Zelenskyy says that they are ready to begin the spring counter-offensive. Elsewhere, that survey of air raid shelters across Ukraine found that a quarter of them were locked or unusable, which is resulting in some charges.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1665267153778401280

Continue reading →

Roundup: Proactively calling in Navigator

Posted on by

There was some late-in-the-day excitement in the political sphere last night as it was confirmed that David Johnston has hired crisis communications firm Navigator to help with his media relations, because of course he has. Now, there is some context here in that he hired them off the start and not only in the last week as the toxic bullshit that surrounds his report has been cranked up to eleven, but that would also mean that they were likely the ones who advised him on how to handle the allegations of the conflict of interest, which doesn’t actually exist, but the fact that he spent so much time on it during his press conference didn’t seem to help matters any.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1664764909974896640

Yes, Navigator has become something of a punchline in Canadian politics, particularly of late, and someone remarked over Twitter that it’s on par with people hiring former Supreme Court of Canada justices to burnish their reputations. (And lo, Johnston did just that as part of his ensuring he didn’t have an actual conflict of interest). And if I were to hazard a guess, I would say that this blind spot that people in politics seem to have around Navigator’s waning reputation is in part because of their clubbiness with the people who work there. It’s full of people who spent a lot of time in politics and who are still actively involved, and everyone knows them, so they feel they can trust these people they know, never mind that their reputation as a whole has taken a beating. And yeah, that blind spot is a problem.

Nevertheless, I’m not sure this news changes anything. Johnston pretty much has to keep on working because frankly, there is no one else who can take over at this point. The field has been flooded with bullshit, and the opposition attacks have made this poisonous for anyone to step into the role, either to take over from Johnston as a special rapporteur or to head a public inquiry. (I have a column on this that should be out later today).

Ukraine Dispatch:

The total air barrage countered overnight on Thursday was 15 cruise missiles and 21 drones, while President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is ordering an audit of air raid shelters after three people died after being locked out on the street during a raid. Zelenskyy has also acknowledged that NATO membership is impossible until after they win the war against Russia (for reasons that should be immediately obvious). Meanwhile, top US military officials say that Abrams tanks and F-16 jets are long-term plans for Ukraine, and training is being organised, but they won’t happen for the upcoming spring/summer counteroffensive.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1664615530215485443

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1664600643305193472

https://twitter.com/anitaanandmp/status/1664582278897434627

Continue reading →

Roundup: No single point of failure

Posted on by

It was another big day at the Procedure and House Affairs committee as both the National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Jody Thomas, appeared, as did Bill Blair, both on the subject of what they knew about the “threats” against Michael Chong and his family. What we got was a bit more of the corroboration from the Johnston report that the process of pushing intelligence up to senior levels hasn’t been working, which is why these things weren’t noticed or acted upon earlier. Blair in particular offered more clarity about the issue with the top-secret emails and how it’s being misconstrued that he didn’t have passwords to it. No, it’s that he doesn’t have access to that system period, and CSIS prepares a package from him and brings it to him physically. He did also take a bit of a swipe at CSIS, saying that the Chong information was determined to be something that they didn’t think the minister needed to know, which is a bit petty.

What stood out for me the most was Thomas saying that there wasn’t one single point of failure here, or one link in the chain, but a flaw in the process, which is consistent with what Johnston put in his report. This is why I can’t believe that anyone who says that the report is some kind of cover-up has actually read the report because it’s quite clearly pointing to these appalling failures on the part of senior levels of government, and that is on the government to have done something about. They are responsible, and they need to fully own it in order to make the necessary changes.

I would also add that while this testimony was good to have, I still don’t see how this relates to Chong’s privileges supposedly being breached, and what remedies should be applied. There seems to be an effort to make this into a bigger issue around foreign interference, and not on the specific issue of Chong, and what the House of Commons should do if his privileges as an MP were specifically breached,  and I’m not seeing much of that.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians fired over 30 missiles and drones against Ukraine overnight, and all appear to have been shot down. The Russians also claim that they destroyed Ukraine’s “last warship” in a strike on Odessa, but Ukraine won’t talk about whether it’s true or not. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Moldova for the NATO meeting, calling for security guarantees if Ukraine can’t get NATO membership until the war is over. The European Court of Human Rights also ruled against Ukraine in denying same-sex marriage licences, which is going to need to be part of Ukraine’s hoped-for European integration.

https://twitter.com/internewsua/status/1664252937156059140

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1664311594858299402

Continue reading →

QP: Conspiracies and scrambling the speaking list

Posted on by

The prime minister was off to Toronto to mark the first day of awareness of gun violence, and his deputy and at least one other leader was away as well. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, insisting that the House of Commons declared non-confidence in David Johnston, said that Johnston’s declaration that he works for the government and not Parliament was part of the problem—never mind that Johnston is not an officer of parliament, and any public inquiry would also report to the government and have its terms of reference set by government, so functionally it would be no different. Bill Blair responded that Johnston was doing the work asked of him. Poilievre switched to English and haltingly asked Blair about the wildfire situation in Nova Scotia, and Blair assured him that they responded immediately to the request for assistance. Poilievre then pivoted to the news that Bay du Nord was being postponed for three years, blaming government “gatekeepers” as he blamed the government for other projects that have not gone ahead (mostly because oil prices didn’t warrant them). Steven Guilbeault said that he did approve the project but they paused it because of market conditions. Poilievre scoffed at the notion of market conditions, and this time Julie Dabrusin said that they have tabled a bill to help Atlantic provinces diversity their economies with offshore energy projects. Poilievre insisted the government keeps suffocating projects, and Dabrusin disputed this, listing mining projects approved. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he decried that Johnston reports to the government and demanded a public inquiry. Pascale St-Onge said she was disappointed that the opposition parties were not being responsible about combatting foreign interference or strengthening democracy, and implied them to get the briefings. Therrien was not mollified and tried again, and got the same response. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and worried about the early and severe wildfire season. Blair got up to note the size of the fires but also the federal assistance. Singh switched to French to asked about the opioid crisis, which gave Carolyn Bennett an opportunity to denounce Poilievre’s retrograde beliefs on drug policy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Johnston carries on with the job

Posted on by

As expected, all of the opposition parties voted for the NDP’s motion to call on David Johnston to step aside and for the government to call a public inquiry, and it passed. It’s a non-binding motion, and so it doesn’t have much weight, and Johnston put out a reply shortly thereafter saying that his mandate comes from government and not Parliament, so he’s going to keep doing his job. (Of note, only government and not Parliament can call a public inquiry as well, so the notion that Johnston is “not independent” because his mandate comes from government is stupid, illogical, and made in bad faith). The NDP motion also ignores one other crucial bit of reality, which is that there is almost zero chance that there would be a suitable replacement who would actually want to subject themselves to ongoing character assassination and harassment, whom every party leader can also agree to because they have no conflicts of interest, real or invented (and there are a hell of a lot of invented ones at play).

I will note that David Cochrane put these questions to Jagmeet Singh on Power & Politics last night, and Singh just flailed and kept repeating his talking points about the “appearance of bias,” and accusing Johnston’s lawyer of being biased because she has been a Liberal donor (never mind that she doesn’t actually make any decisions here), and kept saying that he wasn’t casting aspersions on Johnston when he obviously was by repeating the false accusations of bias.

Meanwhile, here’s Jessica Davis on how untenable this situation has become, which is why Johnston unfortunately remains the best-placed person to finish the job (click through for the whole thread).

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians have kept up their air attacks on Kyiv, and at least three people were killed overnight as a result. Russians are claiming that Ukrainians shelled one of their towns, and that their drones struck two oil refineries (the veracity of said claims remains untested).

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1663786012164734977

Continue reading →

QP: Poilievre won’t be gagged, but he will spread vile smears

Posted on by

On a scorching day in the Nation’s Capital, the prime minister and all other leaders were present, for what was about to come. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he asked how many Chinese-operated police stations were in Canada. Justin Trudeau expounded on how unacceptable it was that this interference was taking place, but the RCMP were investigating. Poilievre reiterated in asking how many. Trudeau repeated that the RCMP were on the case. Poilievre went on about how he admitted they existed and asked again how many. Trudeau reiterated that the RCMP are dealing with them, and said that if he wanted to know more about foreign interference he should take the CSIS briefing. Poilievre switched to English to decry that taxpayer dollars went to work of these organisations hosting the stations, and demanded to know how many more there were. Trudeau repeated that the RCMP were looking into it, and that Poilievre could take the briefing if he wanted to know details. Poilievre demanded the prime minister brief all Canadians right now on how many there were on our soil. Trudeau reiterated that if Poilievre took foreign interference seriously, he would get the facts from the briefing, and that he knows full well the RCMP is conducting their investigations.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and declared the death of democracy in Canada because the prime minster won’t call a public inquiry. Trudeau noted that Blanche has also chosen not to get a briefing in order to get the facts, preferring partisan facts instead. Blanchet insisted that this secrecy was hiding close connections between the government and China, and Trudeau noted that Blanchet complains about secret information when he has the opportunity to see it.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he cited a former CSIS investigator who testified at committee calling for a public inquiry. Trudeau noted that the current leadership have said that a public inquiry is not the best way because all of the secret information needs to remain behind closed doors, before praising David Johnston. Singh switched to French to raise that Johnston’s counsel is a Liberal donor and again demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau listed the actions they have taken to combat foreign interference.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole claims privilege over foreign interference

Posted on by

Yesterday in the House of Commons, Erin O’Toole rose on a point of privilege to say that his briefing from CSIS warned of “active” campaigns against him from China in four categories—that they are funding operatives to build propaganda campaigns against him, funding networks to amplify it, using WeChat for that purpose, and run voter suppression against his party and one MP in particular. His claim is that the government’s inability or unwillingness to act on the intelligence of foreign interference impacts his privileges as an MP.

I’m dubious that this constitutes an actual breach of privilege, because frankly, if disinformation campaigns, social media amplification and voter suppression are happening, well, his own party is just as guilty as the Chinese regime of doing exactly the same thing. I also fail to see what the House of Commons can do about addressing this supposed breach of privilege other than vote on sending a strongly-worded rebuke to the regime in Beijing. I also don’t necessarily trust that O’Toole is giving us all of the relevant details because he seemed to be very selective with what he wrote about his meeting with David Johnston on his Substack, and I cannot stress this enough, Erin O’Toole is a serial liar. Unfortunately, because he does it with a solemn tone and not, say, a clown nose and a unicycle, he manages to bamboozle a swath of the pundit class who are convinced that he’s the upstanding guy that they all want him to be rather than who he proved himself to be during his leadership, and that somehow, now that he’s no longer the leader, he’s gone back to being the guy they all want him to be. I don’t get it.

Meanwhile, the NDP used their Supply Day to call on David Johnston to step down so that the government will call a public inquiry. This while Pierre Poilievre is daring Singh to bring down the government, and Singh saying he won’t until trust is restored in elections (which is tactically stupid). The government insists they have confidence in Johnston, but it does raise the point that if everyone but the Liberals vote for this, it becomes politically untenable for the government to maintain the current course of action, even if it’s the right thing to do (because I remain unconvinced that a public inquiry will do absolutely anything more in this situation other than take three years, cost $180 million, and create a media circus with a daily drip of “revelations” that will amount to nothing but will nevertheless fuel said media circus). But this may wind up backing the Liberals into a corner and forcing them to call an inquiry, lest the damage get worse.

Continue reading →