Roundup: No, the Supreme Court did not allow an extreme intoxication defence

Posted on by

We are now on or about day eighty of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like Russian forces took heavy losses to the tune of as many as 73 tanks in a two-day battle that saw them destroyed in a failed river crossing. So that’s something. Meanwhile, a twenty-one-year-old Russian soldier is now on trial for war crimes for killing civilians. It also looks like some six million Ukrainians are now displaced out of the country by this point, most of them in neighbouring countries, and that situation is starting to take its toll.

As for the potential expansion of NATO with Finland and Sweden about to make their applications, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan says he is not favourable to those countries joining—and applications must be approved unanimously by member countries. This may be a ploy to extract concessions by Sweden in particular, as it relates to Turkey’s domestic political interests.

Closer to home, you will have no doubt seen a bunch of headlines saying that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that “extreme intoxication is a valid defence in murders and sexual assaults.” That is not true, and is extremely misleading. The court in fact stated that extreme intoxication is not a defence that can be relied upon. What they did state was that the section in the Criminal Code that said that a state of automatism brought about by intoxication was not a defence was in fact unconstitutional, because it removed the principle around needing criminal intent. (There was a second, related decision that ruled on a few other related issues). There is a difference between extreme intoxication and a state of automatism, and it should behove news outlets to make a proper differentiation so that they’re not spreading misinformation—which they essentially are with these headlines designed to induce a moral panic. So please disregard them, because it is explicitly not what the court ruled. (I will have a piece delving deeper into its issues out in a day or two).

Continue reading →

Roundup: How to remove a central bank governor

Posted on by

It is now approximately day seventy-nine of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and war crimes trials are beginning in the country, hearing from one youth who whose father was murdered in front of him, and who was shot by Russian soldiers but who survived. Shooting at civilians—and children especially—is a war crime, and Russians will be hard-pressed to come up with justifications for them. As well, the UN is declaring a “child rights crisis” in the country, given how many children have been killed in the invasion. Meanwhile, here is a look at the “partisans” fighting on Ukraine’s behalf from behind Russian lines, which may or may not be the cause of all of those fires and explosions.

Elsewhere in Europe, Finland’s president and prime minister are urging the country’s parliament to vote in favour of making their application to join NATO, while Sweden is expected to follow suit days later. If Putin’s fig-leaf excuse for invading Ukraine was to stop NATO’s expansion, well, he’s just done the opposite, so good job there. There will be some sensitivity in managing the time between Finland applying for membership and when they are granted it, as they could be particularly vulnerable to Russian aggression during that period.

Closer to home, Pierre Poilievre’s attack on the Bank of Canada is not going unnoticed, but it helps for the rest of us to know just what he’s trying to suggest. To that end, Kevin Carmichael provides needed context to what exactly Poilievre is threatening to do to the Bank of Canada governor, and why he’s wrong on inflation. As well, this thread is a good take on the mechanism for the how governor is appointed and what it would take to remove him.

Continue reading →

QP: Border crossings and gun control

Posted on by

Even though the prime minister was mere steps away, concluding a press conference with this Latvian counterpart, he was not in the Chamber for QP today, though his deputy was, and most of the other leader didn’t bother to show up either. Luc Berthold led off in French, and he worried about Roxham Road, accusing the prime minister of creating a “gap” in the safe third country agreement, and he echoed François Legault’s demand to suspend the agreement and close the crossing. Chrystia Freeland read that they respect the immigration system, and that they work closely with the Americans on the shared border including with the agreement. Berthold then pivoted to gang violence in Montreal (and for a moment, it sounded like he was drawing a comparison because it was such a clumsy transition), and Freeland agreed with him that as a member from a big city, there is a problem with firearms, which was why the government was taking steps to limit them, and invited the Conservatives to support them in that. Berthold insisted that the prime minister was turning a blind eye, and targeting innocent people, and Freeland repeated her same response. John Brassard took over in English to decry gun violence and noted that in one arrest, the accused had been arrested on an unrelated charge 48 hours earlier. Freeland insisted that as a mother of Toronto teenagers, she was well aware of the problem of firearms, which was why they were banning military-style assault rifles. Brassard listed other gun incidents and insisted the prime minister was protecting violent criminals and not families. Freeland assured him that farmers and hunters do not use military-style assault rifles, which is why they were being banned.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried about the escalating cost of the Trans Mountain expansion, as it gets another $10 billion (loan guarantee, not actually new funds), and Freeland assured him that they did not intend to be the long-term owners and that it was a responsible investment that created jobs. Therrien bellowed louder on the matter, and Freeland repeated her response.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he worried that oil and gas companies got government money and is now raking in massive profits. Freeland listed efforts on eliminating subsidies and imposing emissions caps. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “debate” spectacle sans substance

Posted on by

It is now around day seventy-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like the Ukrainians have made some gains in the eastern part of the country, pushing Russian forces out of four villages near Kharkiv. Meanwhile, a team of Ukrainian soldiers has been tasked with revisiting recent battlefields around Kyiv to gather the dead, and have recovered the remains of around 200 Russian soldiers thus far. It sounds like they may try to return these bodies to Russia in exchange for prisoners, but we’ll see if those kinds of deals hold.

Closer to home, it was the first official English debate of the Conservative leadership race, and it was…an experience. While it was not the hostile snipe-fest that was the Conference Formerly Known As the Manning Conference debate, it was a strange format where they tried to have limited engagements between candidates, to control the temptation to talk over one another, and then insisted that the audience not clap or boo, which…defeats the whole point of a live audience, and it was a real choice to try and control their reactions. And it had a sad trombone sound. No, seriously. Not every segment was on policy—some of it were personal, asking candidates what they’re reading, or the kinds of music they like, which is fine and humanizes them a little. (But seriously, Roman Baber choosing Amy Winehouse? Has he ever listened to what she has to say in her lyrics?)

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1524548247456559104

Some observation on each candidate, in the drawn order of their opening statements:

  • Scott Aitchison: While he is aiming to be the reasonable, middle-of-the-road candidates, there are plenty of places where he displays the intellectual heft of the truck commercial he launched his campaign with. A lot of what he offered is not really credible, particularly on environmental or resource development files.
  • Roman Baber: I’m not going to mince words. Honestly, this guy is a moron. He says a lot of things that he’s picked up in the online discourse, but none of it makes any sense, most of it is contradictory, and he’s utterly vacuous—but nobody would call him on that.
  • Patrick Brown: While he kept insisting that he’s the only one who can deliver the suburbs like in the GTA, Brown also made some particular missteps, like insisting he would advance a no-fly zone over Ukraine (essentially committing Canada to a shooting war with a nuclear power), or that the point of reconciliation with Indigenous people is so that we can build more pipelines.
  • Pierre Poilievre: Aside from just using “freedom!” in as many answers as possible, he opened by outright attacking the Bank of Canada and saying he would replace the governor if he were to form government, which is a pretty big bomb to drop. He lied and prevaricated about his previous statements and positions, particularly during the Bitcoin portion of the evening. But the longer the evening went on, the more it became clear that he was just going down the right-wing populist checklist and name-checking every item on it, whether it was saying he’s reading Jordan Peterson’s book, or that he wants to fight “government censorship.” He displayed no principles, just virtue-signalling to the crowd he is courting.
  • Leslyn Lewis: Mostly said a lot of hyperbolic things about how “divided” the country is because of COVID, and that she is somehow going to heal the divides between people who believe in science and evidence, and anti-vaxxers who don’t care how many people they infect because they refuse to wear a mask or stay home. How does plan to heal those divides? Who knows?
  • Jean Charest: Charest was more pugnacious and was willing to break debate rules in order to how do you do, fellow kids?, and insist that he’s the only one who can unite east and west…but he too made a bunch of fairly questionable pronouncements. Like private healthcare delivery could have avoided lockdowns (erm, you saw the States, right?) or that he would cut income taxes to fight inflation (which is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline).

It was an event that begged for booze (which I did not imbibe in, because I had this post to write). But I will leave you with Paul Wells’ suitably acerbic take on the event, which sums the lunacy of it up nicely.

Continue reading →

QP: The person not in charge didn’t make a request

Posted on by

For proto-PMQ day, all of the leaders were present for the first time in a while, so that made for a nice change of pace. Candice Bergen led off, script on her mini-lectern, and she raised the testimony of the RCMP Commissioner at committee, saying she did not request the use of the Emergencies Act, even though she found it helpful. (Note that she would not have been the one to request it because the RCMP was not the police of jurisdiction). Justin Trudeau read a statement about the police needing the tools and that they now had the inquiry to review what happened. Bergen insisted that the use of the Act was an overreach and the prime minister was trying to cover it up. Trudeau dropped the script and extemporaneously stated that the Conservatives seem to be pretty nervous that the inquiry will uncover their complicity in keeping the occupation going. Bergen pivoted to the rising cost of living, or the line-ups at airports and Service Canada office, and tried to paint him as out of touch by pointing out that he doesn’t buy his own groceries or pump his own gas—never mind that as leader of the Official Opposition, she also gets a chef and a driver. Trudeau recited the list of benefits the government has been enriching for people. Luc Berthold took over in French, declared the prime minister to be a “master of disinformation” and decried the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Trudeau read the powers that were needed, and that there was an inquiry underway. Berthold then accused the prime minster of doing nothing about the cost of living and demanded a break on gas taxes, to which Trudeau read that if Conservatives really cared about affordability, they wouldn’t delay the budget implementation bill.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised their Supply Day motion yesterday to replace the daily prayer in favour of a moment of daily reflection, insisting that this was related to the “British Monarchy,” and demanded to know how the prime minister would vote on it. Trudeau listed the things that people were more concerned about than this issue. Blanchet tried to pin Trudeau down on it, and he called this out as a desperate attempt to find wedges to exploit.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he raised the price of gasoline before demanding new taxes on oil companies to pay for social programmes. Trudeau reminded him that they already raised taxes on the wealthiest one percent and indexed benefits to inflation, and that the NDP had voted against that at the time. Singh repeated the question in French, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Leaders’ Debate Commission has some suggestions

Posted on by

We are now on or about day seventy-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russian forces are now pummelling the strategic port city of Odessa, especially to disrupt supply lines. This is particularly key for grain shipments, which are already being blocked by the blockade of the Black Sea, and which are going to keep driving up world food prices, and hit areas of food insecurity even harder. It also looks like Russia is increasingly using Soviet-era munitions, which suggests that they are rapidly using up their supply of precision weapons. As for the Ukrainian fighters still in Mariupol, they are appealing to the UN to evacuate their wounded as they did with the civilians beneath in the steel plant there.

Closer to home, the Leaders’ Debate Commission released their report on the 2021 federal election debates, and lo, they concluded that the formats were clumsy and had too many moderators. Gosh, you think? Setting aside the fact that they had pollster Shachi Kurl to moderate the English debate, which was a questionable choice at best, the fact that they had a line-up of journalist co-moderators boils down to the fact that the broadcasters and media outlets who participate insist on having their talent featured as part of their participation, and one has little doubt that they don’t want to participate if they don’t get their way on this, and Kurl was likely the compromise if nobody could get their own talent to be the sole moderator for the event, and lo, in her desire to be tough, she gave François Legault what he had been begging for the entire election, so good job there. (After all, it’s bad enough that the broadcasters have to give up a couple of hours of American programming prime time that they rake in the ad dollars from).

The report also noted the unhappiness with the debate format, but their recommendation of firmer control and “working with stakeholders” is a bit weak. Yes, we need a simplified format, but will the leaders actually play ball with that? The insinuation is that the leaders like the convoluted format because it is easier to draw clips from, and avoids prolonged engagements with other leaders that can draw them into *gasp!* a substantive conversation. And that’s really the rub with this whole thing—it really requires the participation of reluctant broadcasters and reluctant party leaders, and too many compromises get made along the way. I’m not sure what the solution to that winds up being in the end, because the alternatives we saw in 2015, with the myriad of debates and formats, had far less engagement and that’s not good for democracy either.

Continue reading →

QP: Stop spreading information!

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau back in the House of Commons after his visit to Kyiv, only one other leader was actually present, which is curious in and of itself. Candice Bergen led off, with her script in front of her, and she decried the former Bill C-69, noted that the Alberta Court of Appeal declared it to be unconstitutional, and demanded the government repeal it. Trudeau read a script that noted the Act created stability after the previous government gutted environmental assessments (and simply turning everything to litigation), and stated that they would appeal that decision. Bergen pivoted to gasoline prices and demanded Action, but Trudeau was not done with the Impact Assessment Act. He noted that the same Alberta court found the national carbon price unconstitutional until the Supreme Court of Canada told them it was. Bergen then decried that the Canadians were suffering and that this government was raising taxes every year, and then demanded that the prime minister “stop spreading information.” Trudeau replied that he would indeed keep spreading information, especially about things like climate rebates. Luc Berthold took over in French, and accused the government of misinformation, insisting that the prime minister has not helped people, to which Trudeau repeated the points about climate rebates in provinces that participate. Berthold decried the rising prices in the grocery store—ignoring that the main cause of those rising prices is drought—and Trudeau read that they were helping by means like the Canada Child Benefit, which is indexed to inflation.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he accused the government of trying to anglicise Quebec by not applying the province’s language Charter. Trudeau read that their bill to modernise the Official Languages Act would protect French in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Therrien was not mollified and decried this supposed anglicisation, and Trudeau repeated his same script.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP, and in French, he bemoaned profits in the oil sector and executive compensation, demanding the government do something. Trudeau reminded him that they already raised taxes on the wealthy and were adding taxes on big banks. Rachel Blaney repeated the question in English to demand the companies pay, to which Trudeau read the English version of the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Soon there will be two Victory Days

Posted on by

It is now approximately day seventy-six of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and there was an expectation of some kind of declaration by Russia of general war or similar given that it was Victory Day in that country, but it did not come. Instead, Vladimir Putin framed the invasion as a necessary move to ward off potential aggression by the west and NATO (which, erm, is a defensive alliance). In Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy used the occasion to reframe Victory Day for Ukrainians, as having defeated Nazism in their country once and they are moving to do so again, and that soon they will have two Victory Days.

Closer to home, we had yet another incident of an MP being on Zoom while in the bathroom, and I just can’t, you guys. This situation was pretty intolerable to begin with, and was only supposed to be for a short duration, but MPs keep extending it, never mind the fact that there can be no moral justification to do so when it endangers the health and safety of the interpretation staff (seriously, they are subjecting themselves to strain that could result in permanent hearing loss), because MPs can’t be arsed to create safe conditions to meet in person, and the government is too busy patting themselves on the back for being good role models for working from home rather than being an example of an institution that created the safe conditions to return to work. And two years later, we still have MPs who can’t be bothered to use their microphones properly, who can’t mute and unmute themselves properly, and who keep bringing their gods damned computers with them to the bathroom.

Enough is enough. It’s time to end hybrid sittings once and for all. There is no justification for it, particularly if you insist that MPs be masked in the Chamber at all times except for when they’re speaking (looking at you, Conservative caucus), and that they can organise themselves to minimise travel or public exposure. Their choice to be selfish and lazy is just that—a choice. And it’s one we should be holding them to account for.

Continue reading →

QP: Insisting there is a cover-up on the Emergencies Act

Posted on by

While the PM and his deputy were in Poland for meetings following their visit to Kyiv yesterday, Candice Bergen was back on the job after her bout of COVID, though as a colleague who has been tracking her absence noted, it had not been five days since her office said that she tested positive and that she was isolating. For what it’s worth. Bergen led off, script on her mini-lectern, and she asked about flood measures are being undertaken in Manitoba, to which Bill Blair read that they are engaged with the province and affected communities, and that they have offered every assistance they could provide, though the province has stated that they are currently within provincial capabilities. Bergen then pivoted to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, going to bat for the occupiers and calling them innocent, and insisted there was a cover-up underway. Marco Mendicino insisted that they have been transparent and that they will cooperate with the inquiry. Bergen ramped up the insistence that there was a cover-up, and Mendicino pointed out that Bergen was trying to shift culpability away from herself and her caucus who we encouraging the occupiers. Luc Berthold took over in French, and he railed about high gas prices, and demanded that people be given “a break,” but did not specify what kind of break. Randy Boissonnault appeared by video and accused the Conservatives of playing petty politics. Berthold was incensed, and assured the government of simply hoarding taxes, and Boissonnault wanted a discussion on facts, pointing out the global situation, while the Conservatives keep voting against their affordability measures.

https://twitter.com/journo_dale/status/1523730236688506885

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she accused the government of violating the principle of taxation without representation, complaining about the budget implantation bill. Mark Holland pointed out that the Conservatives have been delaying legislation including Bill C-8. Normandin was not mollified and insisted the government was abusing the process, and Holland repeated that they have been trying to have reasonable debate but the Conservatives are obstructing. 

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and in French, he decried the rising cost of housing because of the “financialisation of housing,” to which Ahmed Hussen stood up to recite his well-worn talking points about the programmes the government is deploying for renters. Jenny Kwan took over in English, and made the same points, to which Hussen stated that he agreed with her, and repeated the supports for new rental housing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau visits Kyiv

Posted on by

It is now on or about day seventy-five of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like all of the civilians have been evacuated from under the steel plant in Mariupol. Up next to be evacuated are the wounded and medics, presuming that the agreement continues to hold, while the remaining Ukrainian forces under that plant make a final stand. As well, Ukraine’s counter-offensive near Kharkiv continues, as it remains the target of Russian shelling. The heavy weapons arriving from the West could be the key to turning the tide of this particular front. Russians also targeted a school being used as a shelter in Zaporizhzhia, where sixty people are feared to be dead. Also this weekend, US First Lady Jill Biden was in the region to hear from mothers who had evacuated to Romania, and later went into Ukraine and met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s wife, Olena Zelenska, as a show of support.

The big news for us, however, was the arrival of Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland, and Mélanie Joly in Ukraine, first to visit the Kyiv suburb of Irpin, where they witnessed the devastation at Russian hands for themselves, before heading into Kyiv to raise the flag and reopen the Canadian embassy, and then to meet with Zelenskyy. Trudeau announced a new round of supports and sanctions, and was soon after followed by a declaration from G7 leaders to pledge solidarity with Ukraine, with the added symbolism that it was Victory in Europe Day, which marked the end of the Second World War.

https://twitter.com/PaulCTV/status/1523303970571452416

Continue reading →