Tag Archives: CBSA

Roundup: A game of chicken over a public inquiry

Posted on by

A game of chicken is shaping up around the demands for a public inquiry into allegations of foreign interference, that started with Dominic LeBlanc throwing it into the opposition’s lap to come up with a name they could agree to that could head it, along with terms of reference, knowing full well that it is going to be incredibly difficult to do, particularly because they all have competing goals, and some their demands are literally impossible, such as having an incredibly wide-ranging inquiry that could somehow complete its work in but a few months. Not going to happen.

Pierre Poilievre has decided to try and turn the tables and says that he wants the government to commit to said inquiry before he starts sharing names, which risks letting the government sit back and say that they already stated their terms. Committing to a public inquiry is one thing, but drawing up the Order in Council for it is quite another, and that requires having the commissioner(s) and terms of reference already decided.

This being said, the deadline of having this declared before Friday is wholly artificial. The government doesn’t need to table this in the House, and they can draw up the Order in Council at any time. If the aim is for the House of Commons to vote on the proposal, that’s a bad idea because then it launders the accountability for what happens, and lets the government off the hook if things go sideways, and MPs should know this because it’s fundamental to their very jobs, but they have become completely blinkered in this. At this point, I’m not expecting an announcement before Friday, and for this to drag on for several more weeks because there won’t be any agreement on names or the scope of the inquiry. That said, I do fully expect that we’ll have a summer full of “emergency” committee meetings on this and other topics, so I doubt the story will go away—just the daily demands in Question Period.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians fired another 35 Iranian-made drones into Ukraine, with some 32 being shot down, but a “critically important facility” in Lviv was struck, with no further clues as to what it was. There are also competing narratives at play—president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that they are destroying Russian forces in both the east and south, while the Russians claim that they are repelling the offences. Here is a look at some of the Canadian soldiers training Ukrainian troops at Camp Sapper in Poland.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1671118296374976513

Continue reading →

Roundup: The “filibuster” that wasn’t

Posted on by

A particular level of self-aggrandisement seems to be taking hold in the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, as he describes things that are not reflective of reality. Yesterday morning, he summoned the media to a speech he delivered to caucus—something that is not uncommon for the last caucus meeting before the summer break, but we are still two weeks away from that. There, he promised that he was going to rise in the House of Commons at 7 PM and begin a filibuster of the budget bill, and that he wouldn’t stop until the government backed down and acceded to his demands.

Except it was all bullshit.

There wasn’t going to be a filibuster. The House had already passed a programming motion, thanks to the NDP, that laid out just how many hours left of debate there were before the final debate, and Poilievre couldn’t just talk and talk past he expiry of that clock. It was already set in stone. So, after another attempted abuse of remote voting as a procedural tactic (which the Deputy Speaker lost all patience with), Poilievre got up to give his five hours of allotted time. But again, this isn’t actually a filibuster because the leader of the opposition gets unlimited speaking time to certain items on the Order Paper, and this was one of them. He wasn’t filibustering anything. He was showboating.

While Conservatives flooded social media with effusive praise about how he was standing up for defenceless Canadians against the predations of the government, and they kept praising how long he was speaking, he wasn’t actually accomplishing anything other than playing to his own backbenches. It’s not like anyone other than a few shut-ins and reporters who drew the short straw were watching. He didn’t stop the budget bill, because it was already the subject of a programming motion. He just talked for the sake of it, and was even finished before midnight hit, when the time would have expired automatically. There was nothing heroic about this action, and it accomplished exactly nothing at all.

https://twitter.com/a_picazo/status/1666653154694266880

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling for international assistance in dealing with the destruction of the Kakhovka dam, as they continue to evacuate people from floods, and local authorities rush things like drinking water to the affected area. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces have gained more ground around Bakhmut, but insist that this is not part of any ongoing spring offensive.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1666417873776959489

Continue reading →

Roundup: Involving Elections Canada?

Posted on by

The Chief Electoral Officer is talking about approaching parties about monitoring nomination races, which I have some mixed feelings about. While the impetus around this is of course the ongoing paranoia about foreign interference and the notion that Chinese agents are trying to stage-manage these contests, that’s really the least of our concerns, because more often than not, the real problem is party leaders gaming these races in order to get their own preferred candidates on the ballot. Mind you, that is increasingly becoming a quaint notion as many parties are increasingly just foregoing nomination races entirely, and the leader is simply using their powers to appoint people to nominations, which betrays the whole mechanism of grassroots politics, and the Liberals have become some of the absolute worst about this.

But seriously—Samara Canada did a study on this a couple of years ago, and it’s shocking just how much parties have put their thumbs on the scales of these contests. (It’s actually worse than the report describes because the researchers credulously believed the NDP around their own claims around open nominations, ignoring everything that had been printed about all of their paper candidates who won in 2011, who absolutely did not even visit the ridings they had been assigned to beforehand, let alone face an actual nomination battle). The drama with the current by-election in Oxford is because the retired Conservative MP is outraged that Poilievre and Scheer put their thumbs on the scale to get their friend parachuted and nominated against someone from inside the riding, which is why he’s now supporting the Liberal candidate.

The big drawback, however, is that Elections Canada monitoring these contests is likely to become even more intrusive, because parties are essentially private clubs, which is not an especially bad thing. But we also have a huge volume of registered parties in this country who will never win a seat, and if Elections Canada has to monitor all of their nominations as well, that could be a giant swelling of their bureaucracy in order to have people who can monitor every one of these contests, particularly in advance of an election call, and in the time between the election being called and the cut-off date for names to be on the ballot. I’m not sure how feasible that’s going to be. The way our laws are currently structured were done in a way to explicitly keep Elections Canada from getting involved (which is why we developed a system of leaders signing off on nominations, which in turn became abused and a tool of blackmail). So while I’m cognisant that we have a problem with nominations in this country, I’m not sure that involving Elections Canada is the right solution.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There was another round of fire against Kyiv early on Sunday, which was largely repelled in the city but a regional airfield was hit. Russian forces struck the city of Dnipro, killing a child and wounding at least 25 others in what President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says have been five hundred child deaths so far. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces keep up their operations around Bakhmut, preventing Russian forces from solidifying gains in the city itself. Russians claim to have thwarted Ukrainian attacks in Donetsk province. This as Zelenskyy says that they are ready to begin the spring counter-offensive. Elsewhere, that survey of air raid shelters across Ukraine found that a quarter of them were locked or unusable, which is resulting in some charges.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1665267153778401280

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole claims privilege over foreign interference

Posted on by

Yesterday in the House of Commons, Erin O’Toole rose on a point of privilege to say that his briefing from CSIS warned of “active” campaigns against him from China in four categories—that they are funding operatives to build propaganda campaigns against him, funding networks to amplify it, using WeChat for that purpose, and run voter suppression against his party and one MP in particular. His claim is that the government’s inability or unwillingness to act on the intelligence of foreign interference impacts his privileges as an MP.

I’m dubious that this constitutes an actual breach of privilege, because frankly, if disinformation campaigns, social media amplification and voter suppression are happening, well, his own party is just as guilty as the Chinese regime of doing exactly the same thing. I also fail to see what the House of Commons can do about addressing this supposed breach of privilege other than vote on sending a strongly-worded rebuke to the regime in Beijing. I also don’t necessarily trust that O’Toole is giving us all of the relevant details because he seemed to be very selective with what he wrote about his meeting with David Johnston on his Substack, and I cannot stress this enough, Erin O’Toole is a serial liar. Unfortunately, because he does it with a solemn tone and not, say, a clown nose and a unicycle, he manages to bamboozle a swath of the pundit class who are convinced that he’s the upstanding guy that they all want him to be rather than who he proved himself to be during his leadership, and that somehow, now that he’s no longer the leader, he’s gone back to being the guy they all want him to be. I don’t get it.

Meanwhile, the NDP used their Supply Day to call on David Johnston to step down so that the government will call a public inquiry. This while Pierre Poilievre is daring Singh to bring down the government, and Singh saying he won’t until trust is restored in elections (which is tactically stupid). The government insists they have confidence in Johnston, but it does raise the point that if everyone but the Liberals vote for this, it becomes politically untenable for the government to maintain the current course of action, even if it’s the right thing to do (because I remain unconvinced that a public inquiry will do absolutely anything more in this situation other than take three years, cost $180 million, and create a media circus with a daily drip of “revelations” that will amount to nothing but will nevertheless fuel said media circus). But this may wind up backing the Liberals into a corner and forcing them to call an inquiry, lest the damage get worse.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Refusing to aid so-called “illegal refugees”

Posted on by

MPs from the Liberals, NDP and even the Bloc are condemning the actions of Conservative MP Richard Martel as he refused to assist asylum seekers in his riding who face possible deportation to El Salvador, where they are threatened by gang violence. More than that, Martel called them “illegal refugees,” which is not a Thing, but is certainly drawing from American and far-right rhetoric.

What I find most interesting in this, however, are the people who think that Pierre Poilievre should intervene if he wants to show that he’s sincere about his outreach to newcomer communities, and should send the message to “treat all refugees equally.” But this ignores that Poilievre has been following the Jason Kenney “curry-in-a-hurry” method of ethnocultural outreach, which was predicated on using these communities in wedging others, whether it was going to socially conservative communities and saying things like “You hate the gays? Us too! You should vote for us!” Even more to the point, Kenney constantly turned different newcomer communities against one another, creating an artificial division between the “good” economic immigrants who “went through the queue,” versus the asylum seekers whom he termed “queue-jumpers,” never mind that there is no queue for asylum seekers or refugees, but that it is a separate process entirely (and no, refugees are not economic migrants. Refugee resettlement is a humanitarian project, and people need to get that through their heads). Getting one group of immigrants to resent asylum seekers was what Kenney was constantly trying to do.

Mind you, he wasn’t all that successful—his efforts never really netted much of a result when you looked at the election data, but the myth of his so-called success has been cemented in the imaginations of conservatives (and a not-inconsiderable portion of the media), so of course Poilievre is going to take inspiration from it. So I don’t expect he’ll take too much exception to the “illegal refugee” line, because it’s right out of the Jason Kenney playbook.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 301:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the front lines in Bakhmut and met with soldiers there. Zelenskyy is expected to head to Washington today, his first trip since the invasion began, to address Congress as it debates further aid for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Kyiv and other cities in Ukraine are removing signs of Russian influence form public spaces now that the Russian-speaking lobby in the country has largely evaporated.

https://twitter.com/maria_avdv/status/1605101789677867009

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, LNG sales aren’t being blocked

Posted on by

It seems that Pierre Poilievre, and by extension other members of his caucus like Michael Chong, are trying to sell another false narrative to the Canadian people, and this time, they are claiming that the prime minister is “blocking” LNG sales to Germany. This is patently false, but that’s not surprising considering that this is coming from Poilievre, and he is without any sense of shame when it comes to outright lying at all times. His “proof” is a National Post article with a framing device claiming that Canada “snubbed” Germany on LNG, so they are signing a deal with Qatar.

The federal government has not blocked any LNG projects. We did not “snub” Germany either because they know full well we don’t have the export infrastructure, and by the time we could build it, it would be too late for Europe, hence why they came looking for hydrogen and got it. It wasn’t the government blocking any LNG terminals from being built—it was the market. There is very little supply along the East Coast to try and tap into for supply for export (indeed, there is one import terminal in New Brunswick), so unless you’re piping it all the way from Alberta or the United States, at an increased cost, there has been little sense in constructing it (and no, fracking is not going to happen in New Brunswick). There are terminals being constructed on the West Coast, where there is supply, but they are still being built, because it took a long time for them to secure the export contracts to make construction viable. If Trudeau was really “blocking the sale” then why would these projects still be allowed to proceed? It makes no sense.

There is also the consideration that Canadian LNG is more expensive than that coming from Qatar, which is a large part of why it has been unattractive to the European market (especially when it was coming pretty cheaply from Russia). It’s why most of the proposals aren’t getting off the ground–these projects won’t make their money back for thirty or forty years, by which time we will be deep in decarbonizing and reaching Net Zero targets. Even if we could somehow build an export terminal and a pipeline to supply it, the market for the product is likely to rapidly decrease, which means we’d be stranding those assets and have billions of dollars in these terminals going nowhere. The market doesn’t want to invest for a reason, and it’s not the Canadian government.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 283:

In a rare admission, a top aide to president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that between 10,000 to 13,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed since Russia’s invasion began in February. (The Russian losses have been much higher). The International Atomic Energy Agency says a deal aimed at safeguarding the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant is almost completed. Here is a look at how school children in Kyiv are faring between Russian bombardments and blackouts. Meanwhile, here’s a look at a Canadian-funded work doing de-mining work in Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A scolding from Xi Jinping

Posted on by

Much of the conversation yesterday was about a piece of video was captured at the G20 meeting in Bali, where on the sidelines, we saw Xi Jinping scolding Trudeau for “leaking” their conversation to the press, except there was no “leak.” It was a bog-standard readout like is sent out after any conversation with a foreign leader, with its vague wording and fairly inscrutable pabulum. And Trudeau told him as much about Canada believing in “free and open and frank dialogue.” Xi, however, put on a show of scolding, which some have said was more about saving face than anything. Nevertheless, this became something of a Rorschach test, based on your feelings about Trudeau—if you like him, he’s standing firm in the face of Xi, but if you don’t, he’s either looking chastened, or weak, or that Xi is taking Trudeau down a peg. It’s both fascinating and crashingly dull that these same narratives keep getting trotted out time and again.

https://twitter.com/Dennismolin11/status/1592905231427592193

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1593073811481853952

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 267:

Russian attacks in the east of Ukraine intensified as they were reinforced with troops fleeing from Kherson, as Ukrainian cities were working to restore power after the missile attacks earlier in the week. It also looks more likely that the missiles that struck Poland were Ukrainian anti-missile missiles, which still leaves Russia culpable, given that they fired some 100 cruise missiles at civilian targets in the first place. Meanwhile, two Canadian companies that produce electrical transmission towers are looking to assist Ukraine by offering their emergency replacement pylons to local companies.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1592980519997751297

Continue reading →

QP: Is it federal hostage-taking, or provincial?

Posted on by

As Trudeau was at the G20 summit in Bali, his deputy was present for QP once again. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, as he usually does, and he decried the crisis of families trying to pay for home heating, citing that Acadians on the East Coast and Franco-Ontarians in Northern Ontario use diesel (because he wanted to address francophones not in Quebec as Quebec has a cap-and-trade system), which are being impacted by the so-called “triple, triple, triple” carbon price (which isn’t not until 2030). Chrystia Freeland insisted that her economic plan was responsible and caring at the same time, such as doubling the GST credit and the rental support for low-income people. Poilievre switched to English to denounce that Freeland boasted about not needing a car because she lives in downtown Toronto, and denounced the supposed tripling of the carbon price. Freeland responded that she has probably driven more pick-up trucks than Poilievre has, and began laying into his advice about investing in crypto, and demanded he apologies to Canadians. Poilievre decried $3/litre diesel, and what that will cost people who need it for heating, and demanded the carbon price be cancelled. Freeland insisted that the Conservatives only want to eviscerate EI, pensions, making polluting free, and to claw back climate incentive cheques, or depriving low-income people of rental supports or dental care. Poilievre retorted “false, false, false, false,” and then misquoted the PBO’s report on carbon prices, and repeated his demand to cancel the price. Freeland took the opportunity to read a script about what the Conservatives are “blocking” in the budget implementation bill. Poilievre insisted that they have a majority with the NDP, so they can do what they like, then blamed them for rising house prices before repeating his “triple” ear worm. Freeland slowly recited that they have a plan that is compassionate and fiscally responsible, citing items like ending interest on student loans and the changes to the Canada Worker Benefit.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and accused the government of encouraging the anglicisation of Quebec through their official languages bill. Freeland said that while she is an anglophone, the government considers French a priority, supporting them to keep speaking French on an English continent. Therrien railed that companies like Air Canada and VIA Rail continue to flout their obligations and are trying to avoid Quebec’s language laws, and Freeland insisted that they do understand how hard it is to protect the French language but they support doing so.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, he raised the crisis in emergency rooms, and accuse the federal government of inaction, as though it was their jurisdiction to do so. Freeland insisted that she was sure that every member in the Chamber understand how precious children are, and insisted that they are a priority, and that as for healthcare, they have are increasing transfers by eight percent. Singh repeated the question in English and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Counting votes is not a measure of the Senate’s health

Posted on by

The National Post did an analysis of the “new, independent” Senate to see just what has changed since the prime minister Justin Trudeau began his bid to reform the Upper Chamber through the appointment process, and lo, the analysis misses the whole gods damned point. You don’t judge the effectiveness of the Senate by counting votes. It has never operated in such a way, and (quantitative) political scientists and journalists can’t get that through their heads. The Senate is not going to vote down government legislation unless it’s a dire circumstance, and usually they will only insist on an amendment once before they will let a bill pass. How many times they vote against the government is not a measure of independence either, because the objective of most senators is to let a bill get to committee where the real work happens, and they will try to amend any flaws (and even then, we’ve had a problem of this particular government needing to sponsor amendments to fix their flaws that they bullied through the Commons, until the more recent and destructive trend of telling them to pass it anyway and that they would fix the flaw in a future piece of legislation).

There are plenty of other measures by which we could talk about why the “new” Senate isn’t working from the fact that they can barely organise a picnic anymore because most of the Independent senators can’t stick to agreements on procedural matters, or the fact that the pandemic has gutted their ability to be useful aside from adding a few speeches to the record because legislation is being bullied through without time for scrutiny, or the fact that they no longer have the interpretation capacity to run many of their committees like they used to thanks to hybrid sittings burning out the interpreters. Those are all very real problems that are hurting the Senate, but it requires journalists (and academics) who know the place and what is going on, and what questions to ask, and those are almost non-existent. But hey, we counted votes, so that means something, right? Nope.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 265:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the recently liberated city of Kherson to declare it the beginning of the end of Russia’s invasion, but also notes that the city is laced with boobytraps and mines, and that they have a significant challenge ahead in repairing critical infrastructure so that people can get electricity and water.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1592179845311635463

Continue reading →

Roundup: Contradictions and poor intelligence practices

Posted on by

There has been a number of competing threads in the ongoing Emergencies Act public inquiry, and a lot of police testimony that is contradictory, and contradicting their own documentary evidence. For example, one senior Ottawa police officer is claiming that they had the tow trucks all lined up and ready to go without the invocation of the Act—erm, except the documents don’t show that at all, and that they needed the Act to secure those services. There has also been a lot of alarming signs about the quality of police intelligence about the make-up of the occupation (which many leaders subsequently ignored anyway). The OPP did see an increasing risk of violence the longer it dragged on, particularly by those in the occupation who felt they were “at war” with the federal government, along with growing anti-police sentiment (presumably because police weren’t doing their bidding to arrest members of the government). The Commission has agreed to hear CSIS’ evidence behind closed doors.

Here’s former CSIS analyst Jessica Davis on the quality of that intelligence, and yikes:

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 245:

Both Russian and NATO forces carried out annual nuclear exercises, while Russia carries on its false narrative that Ukrainians plan to detonate a “dirty bomb” on their own soil in order to blame Russia—information operations entirely. While this was happening, Russian forces targeted 40 towns in Ukraine, killing at least two more people.

Continue reading →