Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Trying to escape child care obligations

Posted on by

Some Alberta daycare operators are starting “rolling closures” to protest the new funding regime that goes along with the $10/day early learning and child care programme, saying that they’re not getting enough to make ends meet. This is 100 percent a provincial problem—they signed onto the agreement with the federal government, knowing what the funding agreement was and that they had obligations for provincial funding, and that included increasing the wages of the people who work in the sector (because there’s no excuse for it being so low, particularly as there is a gendered element to it).

So what’s Danielle Smith’s response? Aside from denigrating the operators doing these rolling closures, she is trying to blame the federal government, claiming that their spending caused inflation to rise, which is what is making these operators face problems. Which is, of course, bullshit. Federal spending has nothing to do with the rise in inflation (as the Bank of Canada has stated many times over), and even more to the point, this child care programme has been disinflationary (at least for the early years, before the base-year effect kicks in, meaning it’ll be a one-time drop in inflation). Nevertheless, because she’s blaming the federal government, she wants to shake them down for more money, because that’s what provinces do every single time. Thus far, federal ministers are holding firm and pointing out that provinces knew what they signed onto, but legacy media, of course, is once again trying to make this a federal problem.

And this keeps happening. We never hold provinces of the premiers to account for anything. Another good example is social housing—as former minister Sheila Copps pointed out, back in the eighties, the provinces insisted that the federal government get out of housing because it was provincial jurisdiction, and just give them the money, and they knew best how to spend it. And happens every single time, they spend the federal money on other things, and then blame the federal government once things reach a crisis because of their under-spending. Same with healthcare. Because we are allergic to holding premiers to account in this country, and that’s a very real problem.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia is refusing to turn over any of the purported POW bodies from that downed plane, because it totally isn’t a psy-op. The head of Ukrainian military intelligence says that he expects the Russian offensive on the eastern front to fizzle out by early spring, by which point they should be exhausted. Lviv in western Ukraine has become the first city to remove all of its Soviet-era monuments.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A surprise substitution

Posted on by

As the parliamentary calendar ramps up, the president of the Slovak Republic is making a state visit to Canada today, but there’s just one little hitch. The Governor General, Mary May Simon, has COVID, and can’t engage in the usual diplomatic protocols of the initial meeting, and hosting a state dinner. Normally this would then fall to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who is also the Deputy to the Governor General—except he appears to be out of town, as he was most recently visiting the Hague where he spoke at the sixth Judicial Seminar of the International Criminal Court, and met with other judges from around the world.

So, who does that leave to do the diplomatic hosting? Supreme Court Justice Andromache Karakatsanis, as the senior puisne justice of the Court. As these things go, if the Chief Justice is unavailable, then it goes down the order of precedence in the Court (so if Karakatsanis had been unavailable, it would fall to Justice Suzanne Côté, followed by Justice Malcolm Rowe, and so on). There have been occasions where these justices have been called upon to do things that the GG would normally do, such as signing Orders in Council and so on, even though it’s fairly rare, but it does happen from time to time. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that the President of the Slovak Republic is in good hands with Justice Karakatsanis.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine’s strikes inside Russia are demonstrating that Putin’s assurances that his invasion isn’t “hitting home” aren’t true.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1751925683943534958

Continue reading →

Roundup: More of a stage than an institution

Posted on by

The House of Commons is back today after the Christmas break, and you can pretty much guarantee that there will be a level of awfulness to the discourse, because that’s where things are right now. In fact, when asked over the weekend, former prime minister Joe Clark correctly noted that the House of Commons is “more a stage than an institution” these days. You’ve heard me bang on about this more times than I can count, but it bears repeating—MPs are no longer debating ideas. They are reciting prepared talking points into the record, because those are being used to generate clips for social media. It’s not even for the benefit of news media anymore, like it used to be (which caused its own particular problems with how QP works), because they all think they can just bypass legacy media and speak directly to their own audiences over their socials.

It’s no longer politics—it’s theatre. Bad theatre. The kind where people can’t even memorise their lines, but are full-on reading the script in front of them during the performance, not even on cue-cards that are far enough in the distance, and most of them can’t even be ashamed of their own amateurishness as they adhere to their party’s message, do what is expected of them, and continue to pretend that this is all normal.

And that’s why our democracy is in trouble.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Security officials in Ukraine say that defence ministry officials conspired with employees from an arms firm to embezzle nearly $40 million that was earmarked to buy mortar shells. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has disclosed his own income as part of a drive for transparency and combatting corruption.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The crybully edit

Posted on by

Because yes, everything is that stupid, the Conservatives are crying that Justin Trudeau is racist because in his speech to caucus, he referred to Conservative candidate Jamil Jivani as a “twofer,” and then immediately says that it’s because Jivani is an “insider and an ideologue,” and went on to talk about how he’s a parachute candidate in the Durham by-election. Not sure why this was a topic in said speech to caucus, but it was.

Jivani then edited the video and just used the part where Trudeau referred to him as the “twofer,” said he didn’t know what that was supposed to mean—even though he deliberately edited out the part where Trudeau spelled it out—and then recited the Pierre Poilievre slogan checklist. Partisans posted a purported definition of “twofer” as a person from an underprivileged background who can fulfil two quotas or appeal to two political constituencies—a definition I have never heard in my life—and started screaming racism, and revived the whole Blackface thing, because of course they did.

The point here is that this is yet another example of the very same Conservatives who mock the “snowflakes” on the left who need their trigger warnings, and trying to play crybully at the very same time. They did it to me when I said that a joke was lame, and tried to insist that I threatened to shoot one of their MPs (which they know full well is not what I said). They are so quick to play the victim because they think that it works for “the left,” and so therefore it should work for them equally, which is dumb, and completely doesn’t get the point that people on the left make about oppressive language, or structural racism, or what have you. They make this big song and dance about how censorious the “left” is (and yeah, some of them are), but then immediately try to replicate it while at the same time try and insist that they’re the ones who are all about free speech and so on. It’s childish, it’s dishonest, and when they have to edit video and lie to try and make their crybully point, it’s even more obnoxious.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians continue to insist that Ukraine shot down that plane that allegedly contained POWs, but won’t provide evidence or access to the crash site (making it even more likely that this is an info op). There is also word that president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has invited Xi Jinping to the forthcoming peace talks in Switzerland.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Just what farm emissions are subject to the carbon levy?

Posted on by

While Pierre Poilievre continues to insist that the federal carbon levy is driving up food prices, he provides no proof of that other than his “common sense” reckon that the levy increases the price of everything.

It doesn’t really, but Poilievre likes to make you think it does. So, University of Alberta’s Andrew Leach has crunched the numbers, and lo, the carbon levy is exempt on very nearly all farm emissions, and contributes but a fraction to other expenses, like transportation. Of course, Poilievre is lying to make you angry, but it’s nice to have some receipts to know just exactly what the lies are.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The fallout of that Russian plane downing that allegedly carried Ukrainian POWs continues to reverberate, as Russia claims they gave Ukraine a 15-minute warning about said plane, which Ukraine denies; as well, Ukraine’s human rights commissioner says that he believes this is an information op because the list of supposed POWs provided included several names on it that had previously been swapped. Several Ukrainian state organisations are reporting that they are experiencing cyber-attacks. Russia is also claiming that Ukrainian drones are responsible for an attack on an oil refinery in Russia’s south.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A singular call for a leadership review

Posted on by

As the Liberals’ caucus retreat got underway in Ottawa (immediately after the Cabinet retreat), things got off to another rocky start as Liberal backbencher Ken McDonald told Radio-Canada that he thinks there should be a leadership review in the party ahead of the next election, and lo, the media leapt all over that story, and the rest of caucus spent the day insisting that no, they’re happy with Trudeau (though one anonymous Liberal praised McDonald’s bravery in bringing this up). The problem with this proposal? The party’s constitution has no mechanism for this.

The new constitution, which was adopted after the Liberals formed government, only has one avenue for a leadership review, which is that one is to be held if they lose an election. And fair enough—that’s really the only time they could hold one, because it essentially means running an entire leadership contest but with only the leader canvassing sign-ups and votes (because they no longer have paid memberships), and his or her opponents trying to organise a no vote. There is no way a sitting prime minister has the time or capacity to do this while running the country, and it’s one more reason why the way we run leadership contests is made to obscure accountability. It also guarantees that bellyachers like McDonald can’t get their wish because frankly there is no capacity for this to happen while they are governing.

This all points to reasons why we need get back to the system of caucus appointing and disposing of leaders. It restores accountability because the leaders are once again afraid of their own members, and must be more responsive to their concerns rather than doing things like threatening to withhold the signature from their nomination papers if they don’t toe the line. It also precludes these mini-leadership contests as a “leadership review” (where past examples such as Jeremy Corbyn and Greg Selinger were not great examples of the membership being able to get rid of problematic leaders). It would make for one quick vote and being able to put the matter to bed rather than this interminable grousing that we’re seeing now, and an immediate replacement of a leader rather than a months-long leadership race that includes egomaniacs who have never won a seat, let alone have any idea how politics works. But people who don’t know how the system works insists that this is somehow “anti-democratic” (which is bullshit), and so this bastardised status quo continues to make our system worse.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine shot down 11 out of 14 Russian drones targeting the southern part of the country in the early hours of Thursday morning. A Russian military plane crashed, and they claimed it contained 65 prisoners of war headed for a swap and that Ukrainian forces downed the plane, but couldn’t produce proof; Ukraine didn’t confirm or deny this, but made it clear that if Russia was transporting POWs this way without notice it was unacceptable.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Federal Court says Emergencies Act didn’t meet the threshold

Posted on by

The Federal Court ruled yesterday that the invocation of a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act didn’t actually meet the threshold for such a declaration. (Full decision here). As a result, some of the uses of emergency powers were overbroad, such as the curtailment of freedom of expression in clearing the occupation, or that the police just kind of made it up as they went along as they froze the bank accounts of the owners of trucks participating in the occupation (and really, only about 57 individuals were affected). The federal government declared immediately that they were going to appeal this decision, citing in part the fact that the public inquiry didn’t come to the same conclusion. While I have a full story coming out later today on this, it’s important to note that the ruling was fairly narrow and technical, rejected a number of the complainants that were part of it, and largely affects future invocations of the Act, having little effect on what happened (because we can’t turn back time).

Amidst the various reactions, revisionism certainly was on display among the talking heads over the course of the evening, who insisted that the government had more “surgical” tools they could have used instead of invoking the Act, erm, except no, they didn’t. The problem was that Doug Ford washed his hands of the whole thing, and eventually the federal government had no other option than to invoke the Act because nobody else was getting control of the situation. And the Conservatives? They are eating up this decision and spreading shitposts far and wide over their socials about how this was a condemnation of Trudeau, and how “divisive” he was, and so on. This feeds directly into their dystopian world-building where they are pretending that Trudeau is some kind of jackbooted dictator taking away people’s rights, when that’s explicitly not what happened here, or any reflection of our objective reality whatsoever. But they want to create the illusion that this is true for their believers, because when you can get them to stop believing in our objective reality, people are so much easier to manipulate.

In commentary, Emmett Macfarlane makes a reasoned case for disagreement with the decision which is well worth reading, while Paul Wells makes more of a case for this decision over the public inquiry, though I suspect he too falls a little into the trap of revisionism because the existing tools weren’t working precisely because Doug Ford refused to act.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missile strikes on Kyiv and Kharkiv have killed 18 people, which Russia claims are all hits on the military-industrial complex. It is more likely that Russia is probing Ukraine’s defences for weakness as they suffer from shortages because Western arms manufacturers are slow to produce new ammunition and equipment, and the US’ budget deadlock is not helping matters any. On the front lines, the reliability of drones used by Ukrainian troops is of varying quality because many of them are cheaply and hastily assembled.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Atwood on authoritarianism

Posted on by

For a change, I’m not going to give you much in the way of musings, but rather to exhort you to watch this short video, narrated by Margaret Atwood, about how easy it can be for democracy to slip into authoritarianism from either the left of the right, because each has their own motivations for doing so. Knowing their tactics is one effective way of stopping them, because it robs them of their rhetorical power and punch. We need more of this, not less, as things in the Western world get increasingly pulled into the orbits of those justifying authoritarianism, or “illiberal democracy” as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán likes to describe it as. These same actors are on the move here in Canada as well, and we need to shine a light on them and their tactics.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles have hit Kyiv and Kharkiv early Tuesday morning, killing at least three. Poland’s new prime minister visited Kyiv to meet with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and help smooth over the issue of Polish truckers and farmers blockading border crossings. Zelenskyy also said he is looking to make changes to the country’s constitution to allow for dual citizenships, except for those living in “aggressor countries.”

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1749686187516739639

Continue reading →

Roundup: Debunking Singh’s dunks

Posted on by

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh’s political comms lately have been a little bit…cringey. Not like that TikTok in the shower staring blankly cringey, but saying ridiculous things that he should have thought about for thirty seconds before posting cringey. Like this housing development in Edmonton, that he’s denouncing as “luxury condos.” Except they’re not, that whole concept is dated, any market housing that increases supply helps push down prices, and oh yeah, it’s a Métis-led development that is geared largely for affordable housing, and most of them are to be pegged at below-market. Yikes.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1748311506620428422

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1748313113206636842

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1748314188756251009

As if that wasn’t bad enough, he’s pretending that Poilievre will cancel rent control, which, erm, doesn’t exist federally, and then goes on a conspiracy theory about being beholden to developers who contributed to his campaign, in the low thousands of dollars, because remember, this is Canada and we have campaign contribution limits. If you think you’re buying a politician for $1200/year, you’re out to lunch.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1749125638961652148

Of course, this is what happens when as a party, you crib all of your ideas from the “justice Democrats” in Washington, and ignore that we’re two separate countries with different laws, demographics, and circumstances. Unfortunately, this keeps happening, and it makes our politics in this country dumber as a result.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia had to suspend operations at a Baltic Sea fuel terminal after what appeared to be a Ukrainian drone strike caused a major fire. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is concerned by Trump’s rhetoric of unilateral action and claiming he could end the conflict in 24 hours, and wants Trump to visit Ukraine so he can see the situation for himself.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A ridiculous court appeal

Posted on by

There is a court case in Ontario, now being appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, filed by election reform advocates claiming that the existing single-member plurality voting system is unconstitutional because it violates Charter rights. It was rightfully dismissed by the Superior Court judge, because obviously, but there is something I did want to remark on. No, I’m not going to go into another rant about why I’m not a fan of proportional representation systems, or how most of their arguments deliberately misconstrue how single-member plurality works, but rather about how this is yet another attempt to use the courts when you lose at politics.

Beyond this kind of challenge being just on this side of lawfare, what gets me is how these kinds of groups seem to have zero conception of just what they want the courts to order in terms of a remedy, because that’s a pretty big deal. You want the courts to declare that the current system violates the Charter? Ignoring for the moment that their arguments are specious and jejune, what exactly do they think the courts are going to do? Order the federal government to implement a PR system? Which one? Because that’s kind of a giant sticking point. One of the main reasons why the electoral reform committee in Trudeau’s first parliament failed is because the recommendations in that report were hot garbage—design a bespoke system with a bunch of factors that rendered it virtually impossible to achieve without some major constitutional changes. PR is not one system you can just plug-and-play—there are so many variations of it that can wildly affect outcomes that it’s not inconceivable that it would degenerate into a major fight for years, while the court’s declaration of invalidity hangs over them. How does that work, exactly?

There are similar problems with other court challenges, such as the ones purportedly launched by youth over climate change. What exactly do they think the courts are going to propose as a remedy in that kind of a situation—and if you say “follow the science,” you deserve a smack upside the head, because science is a process, not a declaration. Science is not policy. The courts cannot impose policy, which is why it’s a really dumb idea to resort to the courts when you lose at politics. But that’s what we’re getting a lot of, and it means using the wrong tools and wasting a lot of time and energy to attack the problem in entirely the wrong way.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian drones attacked an oil storage depot in western Russia, causing a massive blaze, as a way of unsettling voters ahead of their presidential election.

Continue reading →