Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Setting a precedent in this privilege fight

Posted on by

There was a privilege debate in the House of Commons yesterday, and it’s expected to carry forward through today, on the subject of the refusal by certain entities, including the Auditor General, to turn over documents related to Sustainable Development Technologies Canada with the intention that they be turned over to the RCMP, even though the RCMP says they don’t want them, in part because it could be tainted evidence that may not stand up in court. This has been an abuse of the Commons’ privilege around the production of papers, in large part because they’re not for the benefit of the Commons or its committees, but to turn them over to the RMCP, which is also interference in their independence. Having politicians direct the police in terms of who they want investigated is the stuff of banana republics or authoritarian regimes, and it amazes me that neither the Bloc nor the NDP could recognize that fact in their quest to use any tool at their disposal to embarrass the government.

The government’s counter-argument to this abuse of privilege is not only that this erodes the independence of officers like the AG, or the RCMP, btu this becomes a dangerous precedent when it comes to Canadians’ Charter rights, particularly around unlawful search and seizure. The Conservatives mock this argument in saying there is no Charter right for government documents, but that’s the thing about precedents when you have a party who is willing to use the authoritarian playbook to their own ends. Today it’s government documents, but how long before it’s a private individual whom they want to embarrass or to encourage police intervention? We watched the Conservatives (with the assistance of the Bloc and the NDP) haul one of the partners from GC Strategies before the bar of the House of Commons, against his doctor’s wishes because he was in the midst of a mental health crisis, because they wanted to embarrass him publicly. It looks like we’re about to get something similar with Randy Boissonnault’s former business partner, who is the subject of the second privilege debate that will be taking place, possibly later today, who has also not turned over demanded documents to the committee as they are on a witch-hunt to find “corruption” that the Ethics Commissioner has repeatedly found no evidence of. And as a reminder, there has been no evidence of any criminal behaviour with the SDTC allegations, but they are trying to find that evidence using the most ham-fisted and abusive methods possible.

Having parliament go after private citizens because they’re on private little crusades, mostly for the benefit of social media clicks, is a terrifying prospect for the future, and yet we are careening down that pathway. Speaker Fergus has been useless in putting his foot down against the abuse of Parliament’s powers in this way, and we may yet be in for another Supreme Court of Canada showdown on defining these powers and when parliamentary privilege because state-sanctioned harassment. But in the meantime, we’ll see the Conservatives drag out these privilege debates in order to derail the government’s agenda, because that’s the level of absolute dysfunction we’re at.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian guided bomb struck an apartment block in Kharkiv late Wednesday, injuring at least ten civilians. There were also drone attacks on port infrastructure in Odesa and attacks on power systems in Sumy region. Ukrainian forces are withdrawing from Vuhledar after two years of grinding combat, which some describe as a microcosm of the current state of the conflict.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A promise to waste millions of dollars

Posted on by

There are a lot of stupid, performative things being said right now, particularly in those three provincial elections, but one of the dumbest yesterday was courtesy of incumbent New Brunswick premier Blaine Higgs, who promised that if re-elected, he will mount a new legal challenge of the federal carbon levy. And to make that worse, several Conservative MPs picked that up and declared during Question Period that the challenge was already underway (it’s not), as though it were a devastating argument for their demands to “axe the tax” or to call an election.

Higgs’ promise is premised entirely on bullshit. There is no basis for him to mount a new challenge because nothing about the programme has changed since the Supreme Court of Canada already ruled that it’s constitutional and within the powers of the federal government, particularly because of the existential challenge that climate change poses to Canadians. The fact that the price is increasing or that we have been though a bout of higher inflation—which has already stabilised and returned to target, and for which the carbon levy did not actually cause any of said inflation because that’s not how inflation works—don’t change any of the legal bases or arguments around the levy. And because the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled, any lower court that Higgs tries to mount a new challenge in is going to tell him to go pound sand.

Higgs is essentially promising to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, because you know that when the courts tell him to go pound sand, they’ll also tell him to reimburse the legal costs of the federal government because they wasted everyone’s time and money in bringing such a frivolous suit in the first place. But there is a political calculus, particularly on the right, where they are prepared to waste millions of dollars in doomed legal challenges because they think that it’s good electoral calculus to show that you’re fighting. Federally, Conservatives have made this argument a number of times when the government didn’t pursue doomed appeals and just made changes, and no doubt Higgs figures that this will work the same way for him. But then again, I guess they’re not bothered by the cognitive dissonance of “we need to balance the budget” and “we need to waste millions of dollars on a doomed legal crusade,” because that might require introspection or self-awareness, both of which are in incredibly short supply in politics these days.

Pretty much all of #cdnpoli. It's really hard to be optimistic about any of it right now.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-10-01T14:21:44.377Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Six civilians were killed and more wounded when Russian artillery struck a bus stop in Kherson. Russian troops have also reached the centre of Vuhledar, a Ukrainian bastion in the strategic high ground of the Donbas region, which is significant because of where it borders and the supply routes it controls. Ukraine is also investigating an apparent shooting of sixteen POWS by Russian troops.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A double standard on barring speeches

Posted on by

There was a story in the Star yesterday that I hadn’t actually noticed happening, which is that Liberal MP Yvan Baker has been barred from speaking in the House of Commons until he apologises for saying that the “Putin wing” had taken over the Conservative Party on March 20th. Baker says he has no intention of apologising for what he considers to be the truth, and the Speaker, as usual, makes little tut-tut noises about what Baker said, never mind that there is a giant double-standard at play.

If Fergus is concerned about MPs alleging that their colleagues “stand four-square behind dictators,” it’s funny that the consequences only seem to apply to Baker. After all, Conservatives on a frequent basis have said that Trudeau is in the pocket of dictators, and that he allowed foreign interference on their behalf because it benefitted his party. (There is absolutely no public evidence of this). And most egregious was that Conservative MP Rachael Thomas has said on the floor of the Commons that Justin Trudeau is a “dictator,” and she faced absolutely no censure for saying it, which makes it really hard to see why Baker is being singled out for being hyperbolic—the point was about which elements of the party’s base that Poilievre is pandering to as opposed to saying that Poilievre is under Putin’s sway—when nobody else is. (I will note that Conservative MP Mark Strahl was barred from speaking for several weeks because he refused to withdraw the remarks that someone was lying, which is a big no-no under the rules of Parliament—rules which are now being absolutely abused—but he did eventually do so).

What is perhaps the most galling in all of his was the statement that Andrew Scheer gave to the Star, in which he says “Liberals should not whine and complain because they were caught spreading disinformation and lies to divide Canadians and cover for their own total failures on Ukraine.” Erm, serial liar and promoter of conspiracy theories Andrew Scheer is lecturing Liberals on the subject, when he faces zero consequences for lying in the House of Commons on a daily basis. We already knew he had absolutely no sense of shame, but it definitely extends to a complete lack of self-awareness as well. Just utterly ridiculous.

Ukraine Dispatch

It was another bloody weekend in Ukraine which saw waves of drone attacks targeting Kyiv last night, the pounding of Zaporizhzhia with guided bombs earlier, the death of a top judge after an attack on Kharkiv, and an attack on a hospital in Sumy that killed ten. President Zelenskyy says that the front lines are “very, very difficult” as autumn descends on the conflict.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Bloc vs the Senate

Posted on by

The Bloc Québécois are getting a taste of what the Senate does and why, and they’re not happy. The Senate has been slow-walking Bill C-282, which aims to forbid a government from negotiating any further reductions to Supply Management in trade negotiations, and it’s a bad bill. Nevertheless, it passed the House of Commons, because MPs are sometimes sentimental fools and will vote for things that they think are feel-good without actually thinking through the consequences. This was one such bill, where MPs voted on it nearly unanimously because they fell all over themselves to show how much they all loved Supply Management, neverminded that it’s a bad bill. Now that it’s in the Senate, with some actually knowledgeable former senior civil servants in the Chamber who know what they’re talking about have the bill in their hands, and they’re not giving it an easy ride.

The essential complaint is that the bill constrains the royal prerogative around trade negotiations, which could have serious consequences down the road. I’m not sure it’s quite as serious as that—you can’t really bind future governments and this bill, should it pass, could be easily repealed (say, in the next budget implementation bill), but there won’t be an easy passage on this, and for good reason. The Senate exists to put a check on the populist excesses of the House of Commons, which is why they have an absolute veto (only exercised in extreme circumstances, mind you), and who can say “Hey, you guys didn’t do your due diligence, so now we’re going to.” It is their raison d’être, whether MPs like it or not, and it’s especially important for private members’ bill because they are pre-time allocated under the rules and get very little scrutiny, even when they really need it.

The Bloc, however, are trying blackmail. In Question Period yesterday, they were demanding that the government tell senators to pass the bill, or they’ll topple the government. But the government can’t tell the Senate what to do, and as I mentioned in a previous post, there is no mechanism by which the Government Leader in the Senate could fast-track such a bill, even if they wanted to, because it’s a private member’s bill. Furthermore, with a Chamber of mostly-independent senators who have a job until age 75, they are not bothered if the government falls. The blackmail doesn’t really work on them because their seats aren’t in jeopardy, and I’m not sure what the Bloc thinks they’re doing, particularly in trying to blackmail the government into passing this bill as well as their OAS bill (which remains unvoteable as they are unlikely to get a royal recommendation). In either case, they are learning the hard way that the Senate is not a rubber stamp and they can’t expect to order it around as though it were.

Ukraine Dispatch

Three people were killed in a Russian missile attack on the central city of Kryvyi Riv, and another three were killed in a drone attack on the southern city of Izmail. Nine children taken to Russia during the invasion have now been returned to their families in Ukraine thanks to help from Qatar.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A promise to interfere with media

Posted on by

It was late in the afternoon yesterday that CTV announced that the two-person team responsible for the manufactured quote of Pierre Poilievre “are no longer with CTV News.” The breach of journalistic ethics in manufacturing a quote because you needed it to fit your narrative, despite the fact that the quote you had available wasn’t really useable, makes this understandable, and these are consequences that can happen. I’m less concerned about that as much as I am about the other signals that have been sent, particularly by the Conservatives.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1839452343596720522

The fact that Conservative MP Michelle Ferreri, a former journalist herself, is promising that Poilievre is going to “restore journalistic ethics and integrity” should be lighting up every single alarm around the country because that is a promise to politically interfere in the media and its independence. It’s not enough that they have successfully bullied and intimidated one of the largest media outlets in the country, but they are promising more of this, but they plan to ensure that media falls in line. And then there’s the hypocrisy—that they align themselves with PostMillennial, True North, and The Rebel, all of whom have demonstrated a lack of ethics, or commitment to things like facts. The fact that this is a party that has made outright lying their chief strategy shows exactly why this kind of war with legitimate media outlets is so dangerous for our democracy.

On another note, there were a number of stories yesterday about NDP MP Leah Gazan tabling a bill to make residential school denialism illegal, and that this was done in advance of National Truth and Reconciliation Day. The problem? Not one of the stories from any of the outlets (National Post, CBC or The Canadian Press) bothered to mention that Gazan has already used her private members’ business slot in this parliament for her cockamamie “basic income framework” bill, and it went to down to defeat earlier this week. That means that this bill is going to languish on the Order Paper and never see the light of day. The CP copy did note that “The chances the bill actually will be debated and pass into law are slim without it being adopted as a government bill by the Liberals,” but that obscures the fact that she used her spot, so the whole point of her tabling this legislation is performative.

Parliamentary procedure and rules matter, and if you ignore it, you wind up looking like a fool for spending your dwindling resources covering legislation that will never, ever see the light of day.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Russians launched a five-hour aerial attack on Kyiv overnight, again targeting the power grid. There was also shelling of Kherson in the south that killed one, rockets launched against Kharkiv, and more shelling in the Donetsk region that killed three.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Why the Bloc’s two-bill demand is actually impossible

Posted on by

In advance of yesterday’s confidence votes, Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet laid out his new conditions for support ongoing—government support for Bills C-282 and C-319, and for them to pass by October 29th. The problem? These are both private members’ bills, and the government has little control over when either can pass, and you would think that as parliamentarians who know the system and who like to pretend that they are the adults in the room would know that such a deadline is an impossible ask, but we are unfortunately in the stupidest timeline.

For starters, Bill C-282, which seeks to protect Supply Management in future trade negotiations, has already passed the House of Commons and is in the Senate, but senators don’t seem keen on passing it with any alacrity because they want a better sense of how this will tie the government in the future. The truth is that it can’t—you cannot actually bind a future government with legislation, so this is little more than a handwavey gesture that a future government can repeal at any point, making this a giant waste of everyone’s time and resources. But more to the point, as a private member’s bill, there is no mechanism in the Senate to speed it along, and certainly not one that the Government Leader in the Senate possesses. In fact, when the Conservatives tried to change the rules of the Senate on this in the Harper years, there was tremendous pushback and the attempt was dropped.

The other bill, C-319, is the bill to increase the OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74, for which there is no reasonable justification for (there are other mechanisms to deal with the needs of low-income seniors), and would cost something in the order of $3 billion per year. It passed the House of Commons at report stage yesterday, but again, it’s unlikely to pass third reading by October 29th even if it gets a royal recommendation, which it needs to spend money (which PMBs are normally forbidden to do). So if the government gives it the royal recommendation, and if they get it passed the House of Commons before the 29th, once again, there is no mechanism to speed its passage in the Senate. None, for very good reason. The Bloc made a big show yesterday of insisting that their demands were reasonable and that the bills were sufficiently advanced to make the deadline reasonable (when it’s really chosen so that an election could theoretically be held before Xmas), but they are in fact impossible, and nobody actually pointed that fact out yesterday.

Meanwhile, the Star has gamed out other demands from both the Bloc and the NDP for potential support going forward, and how feasible or how costly they are, and most of it remains in the domain of fantasyland. Price controls? Giving Quebec full immigration powers? Nope and nope.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian guided bombs struck Kramatorsk in the east, killing at least two and injuring twelve more. As well, 28 out of 32 Russian drones were downed overnight. Also in east Ukraine, Russian forces claim to have captured two more villages on the path to attacking the town of Vuhledar, considered a stronghold.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Add another boycott to the list

Posted on by

The Conservatives have decided that they don’t accept CTV’s apology for reconstructing a Poilievre quote for a piece, and have decided to boycott them, which basically adds to the list, on the flimsiest of excuses, while Poilievre goes about trashing the company CEO and claiming that he somehow directed the journalists in the piece to mangle the quote for some unknown end (it certainly wasn’t “malicious” as they are whinging), because if there’s one thing the Conservatives love to do, it’s to drum up some elaborate but stupid conspiracy theory.

Some people have asked why exactly he’s doing this, and it’s not just rage-farming. It’s a very careful and systematic war against media outlets because one thing that authoritarians and wannabe authoritarians do is delegitimise media sources so that they can undermine the shared reality we live in. The Americans have long-since done this with Fox News being a separate and alternate reality to our own, with a whole set of separate facts and narratives that don’t correspond to objective reality. And as the joke goes, the Fox News of Canada is Fox News—people simply consume it over the border. Poilievre is taking this page out of the authoritarian playbook and is running with it to its fullest. This is deliberate, just as it’s deliberate that they want you to believe that Justin Trudeau is a censorious jackbooted dictator who has turned Canada into a communist hellhole, and they don’t want media to dispute that depiction through things like facts. Legacy media is hurting these days, but it remains important for these very reasons.

(Meanwhile, can I just point out that of course JP Tasker, who wrote the CBC piece, went to Peter Menzies for comment. Menzies recently wrote an op-ed in The Line that we need to validate the feelings of white supremacists if we want to avoid race riots like we saw happen in the UK. There were so many more qualified people to speak to the situation of journalism and politicial parties going to war with outlets, and Tasker chose him. Honest to Hermes…)

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian guided bombs hit an apartment block in Kharkiv, and Russian attacks on two other towns in the eastern part of the country, filling three more. Ukrainian forces say they dislodged Russians from a processing plant in Vovchansk after hand-to-hand combat. At the UN, president Zelenskyy called for support for their actions with their “peace plan” rather than just talks with Moscow.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An own-goal that makes it worse for everyone

Posted on by

It was an own-goal for the media today as CTV was found to have spliced a Poilievre quote in a news story and was forced to apologise for it. Of course, this had every single Conservative salivating and insisting that this was “proof” of “fake news” and that media were trying to be unfair to Poilievre, and that this was in service of their government funding (which television outlets like CTV don’t get), and other ridiculous accusations of bias. Because that’s where we are now.

While I don’t personally know what happened, what is likely to have happened was you had someone trying to fit the story into their both-sides narrative frame and needed a short quote, and took the long paragraph from Poilievre and extracted words to come up with what they were looking for to fit the piece. It’s bad practice, but it’s almost certainly not done with malevolent intention, but because they’re overworked, under-resourced, and lacking proper editorial supervision, as with nearly every outlet these days. Because that’s where every media outlet is at, and it’s not sustainable, and things are going to continue to deteriorate if we try to keep doing what we’re doing.

This being said, the Conservatives’ war against the media is only going to get worse, and this incident, plus others, shows that they have a vested interest in catching out every single mistake from media, or to invent problems where they didn’t actually exist. For example, Poilievre likes to go on about the three corrections that The Canadian Press made to a story about his remarks, but the “corrections” were because the writer had spelled out what Poilievre was only referring to obliquely (quite deliberately) and Poilievre complained that he didn’t say what the story says he did, even though he actually did if you thought about it for more than five seconds. But this is the kind of petty, bad-faith bullshit that they’re going to engage in, and most of our media outlets are unprepared to deal with it. Legacy media is in serious trouble in this country, and it’s only going to get worse as this campaign against them from Poilievre intensifies.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian forces made a new series of strikes on Zaporizhzhia, killing one. At the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague, Ukraine is accusing Russia of trying to illegally seize control of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. President Zelenskyy is in the US, not only to attend the UN, but to discuss his “victory plan” with the American government.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hoping it won’t be that bad (but it will be)

Posted on by

Because we’re in the middle of re-litigating the carbon levy yet again ahead of the Conservatives’ planned confidence vote, some familiar patterns are emerging, some of which are from the Elder Pundits who are, yet again, playing the “It won’t be that bad!” card, when in fact, yes it will be. Case in point was John Ivison reaching out to Ken Boessenkool, former Conservative advisor, to talk about the industrial carbon price, and Boessenkool (whose post-political career involves a lot of validating the Elder Pundits’ belief that it won’t be that bad) told him that the majority of those prices are provincially regulated, so they should remain intact. Which is not an assumption I would make because we have several provinces who believe that they can reach their reduction targets without any price (which is stupid), and they want to keep attracting investment, particularly in oil and gas, so they are likely to either greatly reduce their industrial price, or kill it altogether. This will in turn trigger a race to the bottom among other provinces, so the prices become useless. This is the whole reason why a federal benchmark and backstop were created—so that provinces couldn’t do that, and why the Supreme Court validated this as a legitimate exercise of federal powers. (Incidentally, Jenni Byrne disavowed Boessenkool after that piece went to print, which pretty much validates my point).

Meanwhile, other Elder Pundits are trying to write about the alternatives the Conservatives will use instead of the carbon levy, but even there, as they assert that while the levy is the best mechanism but there are others (because remember, they want to keep insisting it won’t be that bad), but that is a misread of what the Conservatives are actually promising, which is to tear up everything the Liberals have done, and rely on magic (in part because they don’t want to do anything, excuse themselves from doing anything by insisting that we’re only two percent of emission so what we do doesn’t matter, and any action they do take will only be “aspirational.”) For what it’s worth, the NDP also believe in the magic that they can only price carbon for corporations and it won’t be passed along to consumers, or that consumers won’t have to change any behaviour because corporations are evil. And it’s really, really depressing because the actions are having a difference, we have bent our emissions curve downward, and this is going to just upend everything for the sake of authoritarian populism, while the gods damned Elder Pundits tut-tut that the carbon levy must be bad because it’s unpopular, never mind that their refusal to understand of communicate it, or to refute the lies about it, have contributed to this situation. Good job, everyone. Enjoy your summers of wildfire smoke, and your melting icecaps.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians struck an apartment building in Kharkiv, wounding 21 civilians, as Ukraine destroyed 71 out of 80 attack drones overnight. There were also air strikes on Zaporizhzhia that injured 13 civilians. President Zelenskyy is hoping for faster action from the Americans, ahead of his visit to the White House, given that Ukrainian drone strikes have hit Russian arms depots, destroying thousands of tonnes of weaponry.

Continue reading →

Roundup: What the Bloc are demanding

Posted on by

As part of their demands in order to support the government, the Bloc Québécois have been making enriching pensions one of their main demands, and the government has (rightfully) been pushing back, and I’m not sure that everyone understands the issue. Certainly, there are columnists who have missed the details of this, which are actually long-standing, and think that there is enough fuzziness that the government can negotiate around it. No. This has been a specific Bloc demand since the Liberals first put in the policy of enriching OAS for seniors over the age of 75, because those seniors have greater needs and many have depleted their savings. The Bloc even have a private member’s bill that they are currently debating, but naturally this bill is out of order because PMBs can’t spend money, and that’s exactly what this bill is directing them to do. So, they are very specifically demanding a royal recommendation for this bill in order for it to actually be in order, voteable, and that it can do what they want.

It’s not going to happen. It shouldn’t happen, because the whole rationale is off. But they’re going to make life uncomfortable for the government soon enough if they don’t get their way, which is why this issue has taken over the spotlight over the past week.

Here’s Tyler Meredith to explain the proposal and the financial costs, and why it’s not something the government wants to sign onto.

https://twitter.com/tylermeredith/status/1836962451264327962

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians made three strikes on Kharkiv, injuring 15. Residents of Kyiv are being told to stay indoors because of smoke from nearby fires. Ukraine has banned officials using the Telegram app because they fear that Russians can access their conversations. President Zelenskyy says that top officials have discussed and come to an agreement around the need for more domestic arms production on faster timelines.

Continue reading →