Tag Archives: Border

QP: Inventing an “Internet Czar” out of whole cloth

Posted on by

For Wednesday, proto-PMQ day, Justin Trudeau was present, as was the usual Liberal placeholder, Mark Gerretsen. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he led off by accusing the government of moving the goalposts on vaccines, blamed him for not getting any last winter (when no one else in the world did), and Trudeau reminded him that they had stated the goals of three million doses by the end of March and they got well more than anticipated. O’Toole raised the CanSino conspiracy theory and accused Trudeau of wanting lockdowns until Thanksgiving, and Trudeau stated that by accelerating first doses means people can do more with one another in the summer, in advance of getting their second doses in the fall. O’Toole then accused the government of “stealing doses from COVAX” and of being late by trying to partner with CanSino, and Trudeau reminded him they have seven signed contracts and none were with a Chinese firm. O’Toole declared that we were in a third wave because of the CanSino non-deal, and Trudeau called out the misinformation and disinformation coming from the opposition. O’Toole then switched to French to repeat his first question, and got the same answer about first doses meaning a better summer.

Yves-François Blanchet led off for the Bloc, and he accused the government of wanting an election and invited all leaders to have a private meeting to come to a consensus, but Trudeau denied wanting an election while they were delivering for Canadians, and the Bloc are the ones who want an election by voting against a confidence motion. Blanchet repeated his invitation for a meeting to come to a consensus — which seems to be the opposite of an open legislative process — and Trudeau reminded him that all parties can reflect on the bill at committee, and repeated that he didn’t want an election.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in English, demanded “concrete action” on long-term care, for which Trudeau reminded him that there were $3 billion in the budget, and the government has been investing to create standards and to make permanent changes, but they need to work with provinces. Singh demanded more of the same, and Trudeau declared that the situation is deplorable, but they have stepped up as a federal government to assist the provinces, whose jurisdiction this is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inflating the Line 5 drama

Posted on by

There was a lot of performative nonsense around Enbridge Line 5 yesterday, considering that today is the deadline by which Michigan’s governor gave to Enbridge to shut it down. And plenty of media outlets were playing up the drama around this, despite having been told repeatedly that it’s pretty certain that nothing is going to happen because that pipeline is under federal jurisdiction in the US, and the governor has no authority or power to shut it down. She has since shifted her rhetoric, saying she’ll go after Enbridge’s profits if they don’t follow her requests, but all of this is now in the courts.

Which brings me to my particular complaint, which is how things were characterised. The federal government filed an amicus brief in the case yesterday, which is basically just presenting its reasons for why they support the continued operation in the ongoing court case, and yet, both Erin O’Toole and most major media outlets treated this as though the federal government had applied for an injunction. An amicus brief is not an injunction – far from it. But this was the how the narrative was applied, as though that’s the only thing that happens in courts. It’s not particularly helpful for media outlets to treat it as such, but hey, it’s not like I have any say in this.

Regardless, it’s almost certain that Line 5 won’t be shut down because it’s frankly too important to both sides of the border, and this is largely a stunt on the governor’s part. It’s a stunt that the Biden Administration is handling with kid gloves, mind you, but I’m sure she’d love nothing more than the prime minister of Canada throwing a public tantrum over this, as the Conservatives are demanding, as it would be a propaganda victory for her, which we probably don’t want to give her. Let’s all keep a level head over this.

Continue reading →

QP: Being smug about a flailing minister

Posted on by

For Monday, the depleted ranks in the Chamber were a little lower than usual, and once again, the only Liberal present was Mark Gerretsen. Candice Bergen led off in person, and read that there were contradictions between Katie Telford’s testimony and something that Senior Liberal Sources™ told the Toronto Star. Harriet Sajjan insisted that they took appropriate action at the time given that they had no . Bergen tried again, got the same answer, and for her third question, Bergen tried to ask Candice Bergen how the Feminist Government™ could allow this to happen, and Sajjan have his usual lines about having a lot more work to do, naming former Justices Arbour and Fish for the work they are undertaking. Gérard Deltell took over in French and repeated Bergen’s first question, got the same answer. Deltell then tried the tactic of asking Freeland about how she could have let this happen, but Sajjan repeated his well-worn lines.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he groused that Bill C-19 was being put under time allocation, and Dominic LeBlanc reminded him that nobody wants an election but they wanted to respond to the Chief Electoral Officer’s report. Therrien insisted that by imposing time allocation, the government was tacitly admitting they want an election as soon as possible, and LeBlanc repeated his answer.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP by video, and he accused the government of ignoring the Deschamps Report before hiring Justice Arbour, and Sajjan repeated his lines that they have know they have more work to do. Lindsay Matthysen repeated the question in English, and Sajjan repeated his answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to make an election happen

Posted on by

I find myself growing increasingly tired of the media’s singular focus on a snap election, wedging every possible story they can into this narrative. And every time I see it, I keep thinking “Gretchen, stop trying to make an election happen. It’s not going to happen.” Honestly, no party is suicidal enough to pull the plug with the third wave raging across the country, and the legislation to make safer elections happen still stuck at second reading and has been for months because the Conservatives have been playing procedural games in the Commons (though the government is hoping to finally get it to committee this week). And given next week is a constituency week, the soonest it might pass at this point is maybe – maybe – the first week of June. Maybe. And then it has a 90-day implementation period, so Elections Canada could not safely hold an election until maybe mid-September. Maybe. Yeah, it’s not going to happen.

Undaunted, The Canadian Press’ big story this weekend is about how parties are gearing up for a potential election, and how to do everything virtually if they can’t go door-knocking and so on. And I get that they are probably in the midst of doing some rudimentary preparations because this is a hung parliament and anything can happen, but honestly? It’s not going to happen until later in the fall at the very earliest. But this constant obsession with pumping out election stories is starting to look both desperate and tacky, especially because it’s not going to happen.

With that in mind, I found Chantal Hébert weekend column to be lacking, where she questions the need for the Liberals to have a majority if legislation is finding “dance partners” in the Commons. The problem there is that it’s a fairly facile measure of things, given that there are bigger problems than the few bills getting passed with a sufficient “dance partner” available – there have been so few bills passed this session because the Conservatives in particular are slow-walking every bill they can, and only recently did the Bloc and NDP wake up to that fact when they have bills they want to see advanced as well. Add to that, most of the committees are now in a state of dysfunction because of partisan dickishness, and most of them are in endless cycles of witch hunts on would-be “scandals” that have long-since played themselves out. I’m not sure how she sees this as being remotely productive, but that’s me.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Telling them nothing of consequence

Posted on by

Yesterday was the big day that the Commons defence committee had been waiting for – prime minister Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, had volunteered to testify about what she knew about the General Vance allegations, and the moment that she volunteered, opposition parties should have known that she wasn’t going to actually say anything of use to them. (And the fact that she volunteered after the government has been pushing the point for weeks that staffers shouldn’t be testifying because minsters are responsible under our constitutional framework is another problem, not the least of which is that they appear to have given up on being consistent).

And for nearly two hours, full of interruptions, points of order, and a whole lot of preening for the cameras by opposition MPs, Telford basically told them nothing of any consequence. She didn’t of the nature of the allegations, but she reached out to ensure that they weren’t a “safety issue” (i.e. assault as opposed to harassment). But in spite of her concerns, they didn’t learn any details, and on a broader picture, she often looks back in hindsight to wonder if she should have been pushing harder for transformational change in the military, or to look past Vance’s assurances that he was committed to doing that work. We should have expected that there wouldn’t be any sweeping new revelations going into this, and there weren’t. Of course, to the Conservatives, this “proves” that there is some kind of cover-up, but trying to go after Telford seems like a poor use of time when Harjit Sajjan is right there, waiting to be held to account for his numerous failings on this file. There needs to be some accountability on this, but the opposition just keeps flailing around performatively rather than being focused in holding the one person to account who needs it, and it’s not Telford.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt equates Telford to someone from the bomb squad in a movie, carefully dealing with possible explosives to ensure the PM doesn’t come to harm. Matt Gurney makes the salient point that it’s hard to fathom why Sajjan or Telford didn’t do more once they learned the PCO investigation was stalled (though I’m not really keen on Gurney trying to police Telford’s feminism).

Continue reading →

QP: Getting the minister to stick to his talking points

Posted on by

While we had a couple of leaders present in the Chamber today, the Liberal benches remained largely empty, with only Mark Gerretsen and Francis Drouin present. Erin O’Toole led off, his scripts on his mini-lectern in front of him, and in French, he quoted the Globe and Mail by saying that it was amateur hour on Bill C-10, and selectively quoted Michael Geist’s concerns about freedom of expression, and demanded the bill be withdrawn. Steven Guilbeault read a script that C-10 forces web giants to invest in Canadian and Quebec creators, and the Conservatives, by blocking the bill, were merely shielding web giants. O’Toole repeated the question in English, and got the same answer in English. O’Toole claimed that Guilbeault doesn’t understand his own bill, and he tried to conflate this with media funding, and called it a direct attack on free speech (something none of the experts have actually said), and Guilbeault suggested that O’Toole actually read the bill, because Section 2.1 states that individuals who upload content are not considered broadcasters. O’Toole the switched to French to complain that it was taking longer to approve immigration files in Quebec than in the rest of the country, and Marco Mendicino recited some reassuring lines about the value of immigration and reaching the right levels. O’Toole pivoted again, and in English, demanded action on Line 5, for which Seamus O’Regan noted the importance of the pipeline on both sides of the border, and why they were making that case.

Rhéal Fortin led for the Bloc, and he raised the General Vance allegations, and wondered if the prime minister considered it a problem that his defence minister didn’t alert him. Harjit Sajjan insisted that he followed the right procedures, and that they were committed to culture changes in the military. Fortin raised the notion of seeking Sajjan’s resignation and replacing him with a female defence minister, and Sajjan, naturally, disputed this.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, he demanded the government commit to waiving COVID vaccine patents, to which Mary Ng recited that they would participate in these negotiations at the WTO. Singh repeated the question in English, and Ng repeated her response.

Continue reading →

QP: The repetitive hyperbole around C-10

Posted on by

On a gloomy day in the nation’s capital, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was present in the Chamber for this proto-PMQ exercise, with only his steady side-kick, Mark Gerretsen, in the otherwise empty benches behind him. Erin O’Toole led off, script before him, and he conflated the allegations against General Vance with the Special Forces commander who wrote a glowing letter of recommendation for a soldier who was convicted of sexual assault. Trudeau responded by reading a list of actions they are taking to combat sexual misconduct in the military. O’Toole tried to find out what the advice was given when Vance was given an extension to his contract and a raise, Trudeau read a laundry list of actions being taken to combat gender-based violence. O’Toole was not mollified and demanded an answer, but Trudeau stuck to generalities about providing safe spaces for victims. O’Toole switched to French to repeat his first question and the disingenuous conflation of the cases, for which Trudeau read the French script for the list of actions taken to combat sexual misconduct in the military. O’Toole then complained about the silence when victims come forward, and wanted to know who would be held to account. Trudeau, without script, spoke about the appointment of former justice Louise Arbour as a step in changing the culture of the military.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and raised the case of a victim of CERB fraud where he lost his GST reimbursement and was asked to pay $3000 in taxes, and Trudeau read that they have given resources to combat CERB fraud and to support victims, who were not to be held responsible for the sums. Blanchet said these words for cold comfort, and Trudeau repeated that victims were not to be held responsible. 

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and in French, wondered why the government didn’t create the independent centre for sexual misconduct complaints for the military as the Deschamps Report called for. Trudeau read some generalities about the work of changing the culture in the military. Singh switched to English to repeat the demand, citing that the figures work out to three allegations per week. Trudeau repeated his answer in English.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Committee rudeness undermines their work

Posted on by

There is a piece on the Canadian Press’ newswire right now about how victims of sexual assault who went before House of Commons committees to testify, whether it’s on the PornHub issue or the Canadian Forces’ problems with sexual misconduct, have been ill-treated by MPs, usually by rudeness, or not allowing them time to deal with the trauma related to this kind of testimony. And they’re absolutely right – and Commons committees are some of the worst offenders for this kind of behaviour.

Why? Part of this is because MPs lack some basic self-awareness. There are tight rules around timelines in committee hearings, as to how long an MP has to ask questions and get answers, and they get so wrapped up in the issue of their time that they get tunnel vision, and witnesses essentially get railroaded by it. The bigger and more prevalent part, however, is that MPs are more concerned about scoring points at these hearings that they are simply being partisan dicks about everything. Ask anyone who has testified before both Commons and Senate committees, and they will tell you that Senate committees are far more preferable, as they are more interested in the subject matter and the actual expertise or experiences of the witnesses than they are in using those witnesses to score points on their behalf. And much of the time, they’re barely paying attention, because they don’t have to actually write the report at the end – the analysts provided by the Library of Parliament do, and MPs simply approve it or write dissenting recommendations. It’s a problem and it really, really devalues the role that Commons committees should be playing in our basic democratic processes in this country.

And I can speak to some of this from personal experience. I was once invited to testify before the Procedure and House Affairs committee as they were contemplating hybrid and remote voting rules, and it quickly became apparent that I had been asked not for my expertise or my insights as someone who had been watching Parliament longer than any member of that committee had been an MP – I was there to be treated as a reactionary whom they could hold up their proposals to and show that they were being reasonable and my opinions weren’t. It was kind of a gross experience, and I was rudely treated by a couple of Liberal MPs (one of whom has since become a minister), because they were interested in scoring points. I also didn’t have the added weight of having to re-traumatise myself to provide this testimony to be treated in such a way, like some of the women in the piece were. It’s pretty gross, and it’s a poor reflection of how Parliament operates, particularly in the current climate and context. MPs really need to shape up and do better, if they want to retain any credibility at all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Offering disinformation in a clownish motion

Posted on by

Yesterday was a Supply Day for the Conservatives, and they decided to push a motion about access to vaccines – but because they are committed to a certain number of narratives that don’t belong in the real world, it was about as cartoonish as one might expect.

Part of the premise of why this so ridiculous is because the notion that sufficient vaccine supply could have been delivered in January and February – let alone right now – belies a belief that we live in some kind of post-scarcity society like in Star Trek: The Next Generation, where replicator technology basically eliminates these kinds of problems, such as supply chain issues, or the time it takes to scale up manufacturing, or the time to actually make the vaccine itself. It also seems predicated on the belief that Canada is apparently the only country in the world suffering from the pandemic, and that we should have some kind of claim to all of the vaccine first (even though we were far less badly hit than many, many other countries). There is a blatant falsehood in the motion where it claims that it was the federal government that recommended that the interval between first and second doses be extended to four months – that was not a federal decision. It was a recommendation by the arm’s length National Advisory Committee on Immunization, and they weigh their recommendations based on the current epidemiology, and it was in there considered opinion that there was a greater good in getting as many people their first dose as quickly as possible given supply constraints, and that the four months is likely to shrink as more doses arrive. More to the point, provinces decide whether or not they will accept NACI’s guidance or not, and not the federal government. The inclusion of this in the motion is pure disinformation designed to stoke anger. Finally, it ignores that the reason there are increasing “lockdowns” (and in most parts of the country, they’re not real lockdowns) are because premiers failed and didn’t properly control spread – most especially in those provinces where they re-opened too early, in spite of warnings that the new variants would cause spread faster, and yet they went ahead and did it anyway. This, again, is not on the federal government and it was always a fallacy that we could have vaccinated our way out of the second or third wave without lockdown measures.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1387827704204906497

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1387847095357485057

 

Of course, this is happening in the shadow of an oncoming surge of new vaccine deliveries, which has Ontario and Quebec are promising that everyone should be eligible to get a first dose before the end of May, which is not far from what O’Toole and company were demanding in their clownish motion. So, was this is a play to try and claim victory when the vaccination numbers start to climb? Or is this just a play to the base where facts don’t matter when there are emotions? Either way, it’s not the best look for the party that considers itself the government-in-waiting.

Continue reading →

QP: Duelling quotes on the Broadcast Act

Posted on by

For a Thursday in the Chamber, we had two Liberals present among the otherwise empty benches — Mark Gerretsen, and Francis Drouin. Erin O’Toole led off, scripts on mini-lectern, and he lamented the third wave and compared our vaccination rate to the US, asking why the government failed on vaccines. Anita Anand replied with a list of vaccine deliveries. O’Toole switched to French to repeat his preamble, but at the last minute, switched the question to the border, but Anand simply repeated her response. Still in French, O’Toole raised the question of what date Canada would achieve 75 percent first doses and 20 percent second doses. Patty Hajdu replied that Canada’s vaccination story was a good one as we are number two in the G20 for vaccines administered. O’Toole returned to English to raise some hyperbolic concerns over the Broadcast Act amendments, for which Stephen Guilbeault read back quotes from Conservatives who claimed the bill initially was not strong enough. O’Toole quoted Michael Geist’s criticisms of the the bill, for which Guilbeault quoted several other organisations who said these concerns were dangerously misleading.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he complained that people in hotel quarantine were getting EI, to which Carla Qualtrough insisted that this wasn’t possible under the rules. Therrien said that TVA reporting disputed this, and Pablo Rodriguez stated that this was a question written before they got the answer, and people who took a vacation could not get government assistance.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded that the most vulnerable get vaccinated first — which is provincial jurisdiction. Patty Hajdu listed assistance that were given to provinces, but did not point out that basic jurisdictional issue. Singh then dismissed jurisdictional concerns around paid sick leave and demanded a magical fix to the federal sickness benefit. Qualtrough responded that they have made programmes available to those who need it— but gave no correction around jurisdiction.

Continue reading →