QP: It wasn’t about sex!

Posted on by

The prime minister was on his way to Montreal with Emanuel Macron, and his deputy was elsewhere, while the Conservatives were mid-Supply Day, moving yet another confidence motion that was doomed to fail (not that it matters because the whole point is to get clips for social media). Before things got started, Speaker Fergus said that per his ruling earlier, he offered the leader of the opposition an opportunity to withdraw words he spoke last week, and because he didn’t get such an offer to do so, he would remove three questions from him in the opening round. Poilievre got up and in French, read off their non-confidence motion, and asked the government to support it. Jean-Yves Duclos responded by chiding Poilievre for not even reading the first chapter of an Economics 101 textbook about the independence of the central bank. Poilievre read the slogan-filled motion again in English, and Karina Gould said the simple answer as to who was opposed to the motion was Canadians.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and wondered how the government could be opposed to increased support for seniors. Steve MacKinnon said that it was funny that the Bloc opposed all other measures to help seniors, including dental care. Therrien said that if the government didn’t want to fall, they should support that bill, and Duclos got back up to point out the supports the government has provided and wondered if they really wanted to support the Conservatives. 

Alexandre Boulerice read a letter purportedly to be from a constituent about the housing crisis, to which Duclos reminded him of how damaging Poilievre’s would be. Blake Desjarlais railed about the delay in providing promised Indigenous housing, and Patty Hajdu pointed to the millions of dollars that have flowed to communities.

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 →

QP: Spiralling into a cavalcade of bullshit

Posted on by

The prime minister was back from New York and in Question Period for his proto-PMQ day, and his deputy was then along with him, in advance of the confidence vote that was to happen right after. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and rattled off some slogans to demand an election. Justin Trudeau said that they only thing they have to offer are cuts and austerity, while the government was investing in Canadians and Quebeckers. Poilievre trotted out the lines about people in poverty already living in austerity, made claims about when he was “housing minister,” and demanded an election. Trudeau said that if Poilievre was so concerned about single mothers, he shouldn’t have voted against child care or the Child Benefit. Poilievre switched to English to rattle off his slogans again to preface the confidence vote. Trudeau dismissed this as a “clever little slogan” that disguises his self-interest rather than help for Canadians, before saying they would have an election “in the right time,” but the rest got drowned out by competing applause. Poilievre said that if he wants an election if he would call it today. Trudeau said that today, they would see that the House doesn’t have confidence in the leader of the opposition, before mouthing pabulum talking points. Poilievre again called for an election and made some swipes about politicians versus people deciding, while Trudeau rattled off the lines about eight out of ten families getting more back, before saying that Poilievre doesn’t understand science, math, or economics, and and that they can arrange briefings for him that won’t require a security clearance. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and asked if the government would agree to their demands on the OAS and Supply Management bills. Trudeau said that they have already shown a commitment to seniors and to protecting Supply Management. Blanchet again wanted assurances, but Trudeau took this as an opportunity to plug dental care, which the Bloc didn’t support.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and Jagmeet Singh complained that Trudeau wasn’t standing up to Danielle Smith on healthcare. Trudeau said that they stand up for universal healthcare, and that in those provinces, the NDP couldn’t stand up to conservatives in those provinces to protect healthcare. Singh demanded Trudeau use his powers to stop Smith (HOW?!), and Trudeau talked up their agreements to get accountability from provinces for the money that gets sent to them.

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 →

QP: Griping about the Colbert appearance

Posted on by

The prime minister was still in New York, but his deputy was present once again, while the Conservatives were revved up because this was their Supply Day, and they were busy gathering clips from their prepared speeches in favour of their non-confidence motion. With that in mind, Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he immediately demanded that the Bloc vote against the government. The Speaker warned him about questions being related to administrative responsibilities of government, but Jean-Yves Duclos stood up anyway to denounce that Poilievre told people dental care doesn’t exist. Poilievre again listed the government’s supposed failures to demand the Bloc vote against them, and Soraya Martinez Ferrada decried that Conservative MP Jeremy Patzer got a trip paid for to Florida from a pro-life church. Poilievre switched to English to recite slogans and demand an election, and Mark Holland listed things the Conservatives would cut. Poilievre accused Holland of coming unglued before saying completely untrue things about pharmacare and demanded an election. Holland pointed out his scare-mongering before saying that free diabetes medication and contraceptions are actually freedom. Poilievre again claimed that pharmacare would “ban women” from using their existing drug plans before trotting out the “nuclear winter” line to demand an election. Karina Gould got up to say that freedom doesn’t look like trips to Florida to meet with anti-abortion groups.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded “justice” for seniors via enhancing OAS, and Steve MacKinnon listed efforts to help seniors and that the Bloc voted against it. Therrien declared that seniors deserve better than partisanship, and again demanded the OAS enhancement. MacKinnon again noted that the Bloc has always voted against more help for seniors, including dental care.

Jagmeet Singh demanded the Liberals stand up to Doug Ford around private health care, and Mark Holland said that if he wants to talk courage, the NDP capitulated to the Conservatives when bullied. Singh switched to French, and swapped François Legault for Ford, but asked the same thing. Holland urged parliamentarians to stand up to what the Conservatives would do to the healthcare system.

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 →

QP: The Bloc have demands—or else!

Posted on by

The prime minister was off at the UN in New York, leaving his deputy to attend QP in his stead, and only some of the other leaders were present as a result. Speaker Greg Fergus started off with a warning about behaviour and questions that relate to the administration of government, and said that he would have more to say on it later, but he hoped for better from MPs. Andrew Scheer led off by rattling off a list of slogans, before concern trolling about tent cities and food banks, and claimed that the government’s solution was for people to pay more taxes, which is juvenile in the extreme. Chrystia Freeland praised the fact that inflation is coming down, and interest rates along with it, which makes the Conservatives mad because they can’t use it as a wedge. Scheer insisted that it was cold comfort that prices weren’t coming down (which is generally how inflation works), and took a swipe at the NDP before demanding an election. Freeland noted that the Conservatives have a hidden austerity agenda, and wondered aloud what exactly they planned to cut. Scheer then raised the capital gains tax changes, and claimed this would affect housing (extremely unlikely), and Freeland took the opportunity to praise their mortgage rule changes from last week. Luc Berthold took over in French to decry students using food banks, and demanded the carbon levy be cut. Jean-Yves Duclos called this nonsense, and called out the belief that school food programmes are “bureaucratic.” Berthold took a swipe at the Bloc, and demanded an end to the government. Duclos kept on the points about the depiction of the school food programme.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded an enrichment to OAS, or face an election. Steve MacKinnon pointed out the Bloc’s record  voting against returning the retirement age to 65 and enriching the GIS, as well as dental care. Therrien thundered that the government could afford this instead of funding oil companies, and made his threat again. MacKinnon reiterate that they have never cut help for seniors, only ever increased it even when the Bloc voted against it.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and complained that Loblaws wants to charge people $100 for a doctor’s appointment, which is provincial jurisdiction and he should take that up with Doug Ford. Mark Holland called him out for caving to a bully. Singh repeated the accusation in French, and Holland kept on his tear about the NDP caving not only on the agreement, but also on the carbon levy.

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 →

Roundup: Speaker Fergus on the spot in new privilege battle

Posted on by

The brewing privilege battle over the Sustainable Development Technologies Canada documents is largely going under-reported, save for the National Post, but it’s going to be an interesting showdown with the Speaker about the refusal to turn over these documents. The government’s argument is that the stated purpose for demanding these documents is not for Parliamentary business, such as committee study, but because they intend to be turned over to the RCMP, which is in and of itself a problem because it does violate the separation of powers and really, really looks like politicians trying to direct the police (who have said that they don’t want the documents, because it would violate the Charter rights of any accused). I think this is a sound argument, and one that is necessary because of the ongoing abuses of privilege that the past couple of parliaments have engaged in.

Yes, Parliament has unfettered authority to send for the production of papers, but there have to be limits on this privilege, or it can be abused, and I think that this case demonstrates the limits. The complicating factor is that limits are especially difficult to maintain in a minority parliament situation because all of the opposition parties tend to be all be interested in embarrassing the government at any turn (and this is not unique to this government, but any government). It’s partly why NSICOP was fine during a majority Parliament but became the subject of political manoeuvring during the minority years—because opposition parties will try to use their leverage to embarrass a government or score points when they think they can.

I don’t envy Speaker Fergus in having to make this decision, but this kind of exercise is clearly beyond the pale. It’s not up to MPs to get information on behalf of the RCMP, and that crosses so many red lines that it should be blinding. He’s going to be criticized whatever he makes, but hopefully for the sake of precedent, he makes the right choice and rein in some of this foolishness, because once MPs feel empowered enough to do this to one organisation—SDTC in this case—they’re going to start going after anyone they disagree with ideologically on an increasing base going forward.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians targeted a geriatric centre in Sumy, as well as the power grid, which a UN body believes is probably against international humanitarian law. Russia says they are ramping up their drone production tenfold (but that may just be all talk, given the sanctions and the availability of components).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1836807096391676132

Continue reading →