Tag Archives: Constitution

QP: Gun buyback questions, rinse and repeat

Posted on by

The PM was still in New York at the UN, with a long schedule of meetings, while back home, the Bloc had their Supply Day motion about the federal government’s factum at the Supreme Court of Canada on the Law 21 case under debate. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he offered theatrical disbelief that the government was moving ahead with the gun buyback in spite of the minister’s private comments on tape, and demanded the government sack the minister. Gary Anandasangaree praised the pilot project moving ahead in Cape Breton in English. Poilievre, still in French, was incredulous that they were still moving ahead and listed a litany of sins from the minister, real or imagined, and Anandasangaree said that public safety is not a binary, that people can turn over their guns while the governor moves ahead with “smart” criminal justice reform. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question, and Anandasangaree was incredulous in turn that “Grandpa Joe” is using an AR-15 for hunting. Poilievre ratcheted up his histrionics about the government going after the wrong guns. Sean Fraser took this one and pointed up out that when Poilievre was in government, they cut CBSA and made it easier for guns to cross the border. Poilievre took some swipes at Fraser and said the government was doing nothing about hiring more RCMP and CBSA, and Fraser pointed out that it was an election promise that people voted on. Poilievre held up a document saying the department was “breaking their own promise” on the hiring—and got chided for using a prop—and Anandasangaree said that he didn’t understand the hiring process, before saying that Poilievre should get his security clearance. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and decried that federal factum at the SCC, and made a bunch of ludicrous claims about it. Fraser said they have had the same stance for decades, that the government weighs in when an issue is at the SCC. Normandin kept up with her denunciation of this factum, and Steven Guilbeault responded that she was the one laying it on thick, as courts cannot change the constitution. Mario Simard took over, and invited the government to reopen the constitution, to which Fraser said they are not looking to change the constitution, merely for the Court to clarify it.

Continue reading →

QP: Two ministers under fire

Posted on by

The PM was away on this grey and rainy Monday, off to the UN General Assembly in New York, while that meant other leaders felt they could get away with not showing up. Pierre Poilievre, however, was present, and led off in French, and he raised the story of the secretly recorded call with Gary Anandasangaree about the gun buyback. Anandasangaree said that his comments were “misguided.” Poilievre repeated the question in English, and this time, Anandasangaree talked about Canadians demanding gun control after mass shooting. Poilievre repeated phrases from the recording, and again thundered about playing politics with guns. Anandasangaree repeated his same points about the mass shootings. Poilievre said Liberals only tell the truth when they think nobody is listening, and Anandasangaree said it was a good thing it was on tape, and accused Poilievre of playing politics. Poilievre decried the entire gun buyback scheme, and this time Sean Fraser railed about Poilievre’s record in opposing gun control. Poilievre demanded the government pass their “three strikes” law instead, and Fraser pointed out their tabling the hate crimes legislation and said that more legislation is on the way.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and suggested the government was engaging in conspiracy theories with their factum to the Supreme Court. Fraser said they were working toward the national interest in protecting the constitution, and that the Supreme Court was the right forum to debate these issues. Normandin said that this should be litigated in Parliament, and Steven Guilbeault said that her assertions were misinformed, and that their factum doesn’t put forward that provinces can’t use the Notwithstanding Clause. Rhéal Fortin gave his own jab at the factum, which was similarly devoid of facts, and Guilbeault pointed to his own pride in being a Quebecker before pointing to the government’s record on supporting Quebec.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New hate crime legislation tabled

Posted on by

The government tabled new hate crime legislation yesterday, and while I’m not going to delve too deeply into it here because I’m writing something more substantial about it for another outlet, I wanted to make a couple of observations, starting with the complaints of every reporter in the room during the press conference, which was that they didn’t have copies available at the time, nor did they have press releases available, so everyone was essentially flying blind. Part of this is a function of parliamentary privilege—no one can see the bill until it has been tabled in the House of Commons (or it violates the privileges of MPs), and upon first reading it can be ordered printed, which is why there is a delay on seeing the bill. This isn’t the first time it’s happened, and you would think that some of the more senior reporters would know this, but of course not. It was also the fact that they had the press release immediately after it was tabled, but that was in part a function of the clock (the minister had a flight to catch). But the inability to at least furnish press releases was a legitimate complaint, and the minister’s staff (or the department) should have known better.

This being said, much is being made about the fact that certain symbols are being criminalized if used in the context of promoting hate, and some of the reporters in the room just could not wrap their heads around that context. “But what if someone is wearing a t-shirt?” “What if they have Nazi memorabilia in their house?” The minister was not going to engage in hypotheticals, but the fact that there is context to these offences was a little too abstract.

Some of the reactions were expected, such as the concerns that this is going to impact legitimate protest even though the government has tried to make a clear delineation in the language of the bill that intention to intimidate because of hate is the target, and yes, there are specific legal tests about this. Of course, one of the biggest problems is that we already have laws for most of these offences, but police simply don’t enforce them, and that could be the case after this bill passes as well. Or it could wind up that this bill provides more clarity for police and prosecutors than the existing jurisprudence, but that remains to be seen.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims it has taken control over two more village in Donetsk region, while president Zelenskyy says that Ukrainian forces have inflicted heavy losses on Russians on the frontline counteroffensive near two cities in the same region. Russian jets violated Estonia’s airspace as part of their latest test of NATO resolve.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith’s Notwithstanding hypocrisy

Posted on by

Danielle Smith is planning to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to protect her anti-trans legislation before the courts can weigh in, much as what happened in Saskatchewan. If you’ve been following that case, at the first court injunction, Scott Moe hurriedly not only invoked the Notwithstanding Clause, but also enacted legislation to shield his government from lawsuits for any harm that may come to these youths as a result of his policy—because if that’s not telling on himself, I’m not sure what else is.

But it gets better. Danielle Smith is also self-righteously opposing the federal government’s factum to the Supreme Court of Canada on the upcoming challenge to Quebec’s Law 21, saying that provinces have a right to use this clause, but then says she disagrees with Quebec’s use of it, but they should have the right. So, she disagrees with using it to attack religious minorities, but she’s totally justified in using it to attack trans or gender-diverse youth? The absolute hypocritical audacity. She’s also built an entire false discourse that the federal factum is going to cause a national unity or constitutional crisis, which mischaracterises what the federal factums says. The federal government position is that the courts can weigh in on whether the law the Clause is protecting violates rights or not. A declaration of no force or effect. But she doesn’t want them to do that, because they would expose her for attacking the rights of vulnerable youth, and that makes her look bad. The poor dear.

Meanwhile, the meltdowns over the federal factum continue, with the Bloc insisting that this is an attack on Quebec’s ability to legislate for itself (it’s not), and conservatives all over insisting that this is going to tear the country apart, and that the Supreme Court needs to be removed if they impose limits, and so on. Not one of them has read the factum, of course, but they’re treating this like political Armageddon, because that’s never backfired before. I’m not sure the minister is helping by soft-pedalling the message of the federal position, especially since pretty much every media outlet is getting the very basics of this factum wrong. But of course, he would be explaining, and “when you’re explaining, you’re losing,” so they never explain, and things continue to slide downhill at an alarming rate.

Ukraine Dispatch

Fragments of a drone attack over Kyiv have damaged the city’s trolley bus network. President Zelenskyy says that Ukrainian forces are pushing Russians back in a counteroffensive along the eastern front. Ukrainian drones have hit Russia’s Gazprom Neftekhim Salavat oil processing and petrochemical complex, one of the largest in the country. Russia has turned over the bodies of over 1000 Ukrainian soldiers. Ukrainian forces are training their Polish counterparts on more effective ways to counter Russian drones following the incursion.

Continue reading →

QP: Concern trolling about Mexico’s growth rates

Posted on by

The prime minister was off to Mexico City, and most of the other leaders weren’t present either. Pierre Poilievre was, however, and he led off in English, and compared Mexico’s economic growth compared to Canada’s (as though there were different baselines or circumstances). Mélanie Joly praised Carney’s trip before reminding him that there is a global trade war that is affecting us. Poilievre insisted that we both trade with the U.S., and that they must be doing something right. Joly accused Poilievre of always talking down Canadian workers, and praised yesterday’s interest rate cuts. Poilievre switched to French to say that they support workers, then accused the Liberals of “collapsing” the economy, before repeating his first question about their growth rates. Joly said that Poilievre doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and praised the interest rate cuts as good news, and said that we need to work with trade partners to grow the economy. Poilievre returned to English to accuse Carney of only heading to Mexico for a photo op, and then repeated the line that the economy is “collapsing,” and Joly said that Poilievre believes in isolationism while the government is engaging abroad. Poilievre said that we already have trade agreements and that this trip was just for fake engagement, and said Carney could ask those other counties why they’re doing so much better than we are. Maninder Sidhu patted himself on the back for the trading relationships Canada has. Poilievre said he was taking credit for things he never did while the economy collapses, to which Sidhu said he wouldn’t go to personal attacks, before reading off some trade statistics with Mexico.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she accused the government of attacking the ability of Quebec to pass their own laws with their factum to the Supreme Court of Canada in an upcoming hearing. Steven Guilbeault says that the government has a duty to protect the Charter. Normandin repeated the accusation, which was wholly specious in its arguments, and again Guilbeault said that they are not preventing any province from invoked the Clause, and he could organise a presentation through the department of Justice. Rhéal Fortin returned to his same questions as earlier in the week, attacking a judicial appointment on false grounds. Patricia Lattanzio read a statement about the independence of the judiciary.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Asking for declaratory powers, not limits

Posted on by

There is a bunch of confusion and/or bad faith arguing going on around just what the federal government said in their factum to the upcoming Supreme Court of Canada hearing on the challenge of Quebec’s Law 21, which they claim is “state secularism” but is really just wholesale discrimination and racism. The reporting hasn’t been great—in fact, the National Post’s is downright misleading—because they keep describing this like it’s a reference question to the Court, which it isn’t, but rather, the argument that they’re putting forward during the existing challenge, and something that they feel the Court should address (which is how factums tend to work).

What their argument consists of is that the Court should be able to declare when a law that is protected by the Notwithstanding Clause is actually unconstitutional. They can’t strike it down, but they can weigh in and say “Yeah, this contravenes Charter rights.” They also want the Courts to be able to do this when something has been ongoing in its use of the Clause (which only lasts for five years before it needs to be renewed in legislation), and to rule on whether it may result in the “irreparable impairment” of rights, because they argue that repeated use of the Clause amounts to “indirectly amending the Constitution.” This is also not coming out of nowhere—the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal just recently ruled that they have this right when it comes to the challenge around the province’s attack on trans youth, saying that invoking the Clause should not be the last word.

Why is this important? Because the point of the five-year time-limit on the Clause is that it allows that government to be voted out before it can be renewed. Having the courts weigh in and say “Yeah, this is discrimination,” even if they can’t strike down the law, is powerful information for voters to have. And it’s absolutely democratic. But you have conservative thinkers who are trying to say that this will cause a “constitutional crisis,” or a national unity crisis if it offends Quebec or Alberta, is frankly absurd. It’s trying to give cover for attacks on minority rights and abuse of the Clause, and they should be honest about those intentions rather than trying to sow confusion and undermining the Court.

Ukraine Dispatch

An overnight Russian attack on the Kirovohrad region has partially cut power and disrupted railway operations. A top Russian commander claims they are advancing on all fronts, in contravention to Ukrainian reports. Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies say they need more resources to crack down on the “shadow economy.”

Continue reading →

QP: The “sword” hanging over the PBO

Posted on by

All of the leaders were present today, as is customary for a Wednesday, even if Wednesdays are no longer the pronto-PMQs of Trudeau’s era. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and demanded to know the size of the deficit. Prime minister Mark Carney responded that the budget will be on November 4th, and it would have the biggest investment in the country’s future. Poilievre asked the same in English, and got much the same response. Poilievre returns to French to lament that we still don’t have an answer on the deficit, which creates uncertainty for business, and demanded to know the number. Carney thanked him for the compliment about being a fiscal expert, and said that the trade war left uncertainty that made sure they have to do what they can control. Poilievre repeated the same in English, and this time, Carney boasted that interest rates were lower in Canada than the U.S. Poilievre dismissed this as saying that was because the economy was collapsing, and then claimed that a liberal members of the finance committee threatened the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s job (while someone chirped that didn’t happen). Carney said that he just the PBO, and that he didn’t recognise the characterisation. Poilievre said that the post was temporary in order to hold a sword over his head, and then demanded he be made permanent and demanded a deficit figure. Carney said that if they wanted him to be permanent, he would be open to consulting on that in the new spirit of collaboration.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried that the government was going to table something on the use of the Notwithstanding Clause, and demanded it be allowed to be used by provinces, even in a “preventative” measure. Carney said that the government’s job is to uphold the Charter and it was up to the Supreme Court to determine what is and is not legal. Blanchet claimed that putting limits on use of the Clauses was denigrating the Memory of a Pierre Trudeau, and Carney dismissed this, saying this was up to the Supreme Court to rule on.  Blanchet accused the government of hiding behind the Court, and attacking Quebec’s state secularism, to which Carney reminded him that this is the legislative branch, not the judiciary. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Going to war over the EV mandate

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre called a press conference yesterday in rural Saskatchewan to declare that he’s going to war with the government over the EV mandate, during which he said that he’s going to call it a “Carney tax” (for the nonsense reason that manufacturers that don’t meet their targets can face penalties), and he lied entirely about what the mandate does, right up to claiming that this is about killing rural and small-town life in Canada. It’s not only unhinged, but entirely indicative of the fact that Poilievre hasn’t learned a single gods damned lesson about why he lost the last election. These kinds of stunts for the sake of the attention economy aren’t exactly showing him to be credible about, well, anything.

He also once again demanded that the prime minister cancel the loan to BC Ferries for the ships they plan to get from China, because of the canola tariffs, which again, is not how this works. The prime minister can’t tell the Infrastructure Bank what they can and can’t do, because it was set up to ensure that it wasn’t ministers directing their investments. That’s the whole point of making it an arm’s-length agency. (And also, once again, no Canadian shipyards bid on this contract).

But Poilievre also decided to blame Carney for China’s bullying tactics, saying that they smell weakness. Erm, China bullies regardless. That’s why we shouldn’t be giving into their pressure tactics, because it’ll embolden them to do more again, and to do other things, like kidnapping more Canadians, and engaging in hostage diplomacy. Again, did Poilievre pay absolutely no attention for the past decade? Or is this yet more elaborate performance art for the sake of getting clicks on his social media, in the hopes that those clicks turn into gullible people opening up their wallets to him. The answer, of course, is the latter.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-08-14T14:08:08.062Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces say that they have stabilised their eastern front after that brief breakthrough by Russians earlier in the week. The latest prisoner swap with Russia returned 84 Ukrainians, many of them civilians.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A disinformation fest in the English debate

Posted on by

Day twenty-six, and the second day of debates. Both Mark Carney and Jagmeet Singh had photo ops in Montreal before the debate, while Pierre Poilievre stayed quiet. And it looks like no one is downing tools today, in spite of it being a statutory holiday—Carney will be in Niagara Falls, followed by Colborne and Brantford. I didn’t get Poilievre’s itinerary, while Singh starts the day in Yamachiche, Quebec, and then ends the day in Burnaby, BC.

In other campaign news, the Conservatives had other incumbents release the second part of their Arctic defence policy, and it appears that they didn’t consult with any Northerners or Inuit for this part either.

And then the English debate, or as it should more properly be called, a disinformation fest. The sheer volume of utter horseshit uttered was absolutely astonishing, and yet nobody was challenged or called out on hardly any of it. Steve Paikin as moderator had a fairly light tough for much of it, and allowed a lot of talking over one another, but did keep things moving at a fairly good clip in order to have a couple of rapid-fire rounds at the end, though near the end, there was a “Leader’s Choice” segment where each leader could ask a question of one another, and everyone chose Carney to attack (quelle surprise), while Carney picked Poilievre, and returned to the security clearance issue (which Poilievre yet again lied about). I also note that at the top of each thematic section, Paikin asked a different question of each of the leaders, so they weren’t answering the same and made it hard to compare them.

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3ln2atae4lk2y

Poilievre is again lying about "printing money" and inflation. Carney: "I know you want to run against Justin Trudeau. Justin Trudeau is not here." #debate

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-04-18T00:41:27.247Z

Poilievre lying about being "gagged" if he gets his security clearance. He would merely need to be responsible in his commentary, which he refuses to do. #debate

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-04-18T00:46:11.096Z

As for the leaders themselves, Carney again kept his cool, even when constantly being talked over, and just kept trying to make his point with “If I may,” before they shut up. I also noted that he would keep saying how many points he had for responses before listing those points, but he also did have the occasional misspeak (for example referring to TMX as “Keystone.”) Poilievre pretty much spent the whole exercise lying about absolutely everything, shamelessly, and was not challenged on about 99 percent of it, which doesn’t help the average viewer. Singh was a little less hyper than last night, and we avoided any tantrums tonight, because the moderator did give him the chance to talk about healthcare, but also challenged him on it about the jurisdictional issue, which Singh, of course, talked around rather than answering. And as for Blanchet, he kept trying to make a pitch for a minority parliament where he can exert influence. He also demanded that whoever becomes prime minister call the other leaders to meet one week after the election in order to discuss the various crises we’re facing. (Here are the recaps from The Canadian Press, CBC, National Post, and the Star, and six takeaways from the debate).

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3ln2afzfgac22

Poilievre's dodge on Indigenous incarceration was astounding. Just absolutely amazing that he could get away with that. #debate

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-04-17T23:42:39.614Z

Paikin actually corners Singh on how he would deal with provinces who don't want to spend his healthcare dollars the way he wants. Singh just talks around it, doesn't actually say how he would force the provinces. #debate

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-04-18T00:19:58.773Z

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3ln2bndu4ds2h

The other notable part of the evening was that the post-debate scrums were cancelled, because of an ostensible safety issue after Rebel media started trying to accost other journalists, including trying to interrupt CBC’s broadcast before the debate. The fact that the Debate Commission’s chair didn’t even realise that Rebel and Ezra Levant had registered as third party advertisers with Elections Canada should have meant an automatic disqualification, but he said he was so afraid of losing another lawsuit meant he just caved to their demands, which is yet again another sign of democracy being under assault in this country.

Debates Commission has cancelled the post-debate scrums after this English leaders debate. This cancellation follows an altercation prior to the debate involving Rebel News and other journalists. #elxn45

— davidakin (@davidakin.bsky.social) 2025-04-18T00:23:05.379Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian missiles struck Kharkiv, killing one and injuring at least 57, as president Zelenskyy notes that Russia has shifted from targeting energy facilities to civilian targets. Russians on the front lines appear to be shifting to using mass-assault tactics as they try to advance. Ukraine says they have signed a memorandum as a first step toward a mineral deal with the US, which would involve setting up an investment fund for Ukraine’s reconstruction.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1913102312286900366

Continue reading →

Roundup: Letting a hockey game take precedence

Posted on by

Day twenty-four, and the announcements didn’t really matter because the only thing anyone was concerned about was the fact that tonight’s French debate was at the same time as a Montreal Canadiens hockey game, and the Bloc and NDP demanded the debate be rescheduled (but when exactly, given that it’s Easter weekend and that’s when the advance polls are open). So, the organizers and the networks agreed to change the time to 6 from 8, which means that it’ll be on at 3 for anyone out in BC. Yeah, that’s going to get viewership by francophones in the west. We are such a parochial country sometimes.

Mark Carney was in Saint-Eustache, Quebec, and announced a plan to provide more assistance for job training or retraining in certain priority areas, with some additional promises for those whose jobs are affected by the tariffs. Carney will have a photo op in Montreal around noon before the debate, now two hours earlier.

Pierre Poilievre was in Montreal, and he announced plans to crack down on people who scam seniors, which means forcing phone companies and banks to have mandatory “scam detection systems,” which sounds a bit like a magic wand given that the field is constantly changing to keep one step ahead. I also fail to see what tougher penalties will do given that the vast majority of these scams operate overseas. Poilievre will hold a press conference this morning, in advance of the debate.

Do we need to have a conversation about why those prices are up? -Beef continues to rise because drought has meant culling herds, which raises prices-Eggs are up because we have bird flu outbreaks, albeit not as bad as the US-That fruit figure is mostly oranges, because the FL crop was devastated

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-04-15T19:02:03.936Z

Are the Conservatives planning to do anything about climate change that has meant more droughts on the prairies? Nope. Part of what devastated the Floria orange crop were hurricanes, which are exacerbated by climate change. Again, do they want to do anything about that? Nope.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-04-15T19:02:03.937Z

Now, have the Liberals pointed any of this out? Of course not. They're too busy patting themselves on the back for killing the consumer carbon levy, and pretending that it was imposed by some mysterious force. We have real issues to discuss in this election, but they're not being discussed.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-04-15T19:02:03.938Z

Jagmeet Singh was also in Montreal, where he promised to restore the changes to the capital gains inclusion rate, under the rubric of making the ultra-wealthy pay the price, and promising to use these revenues to fund all of his promises (good luck with that magical money tree), but didn’t actually spell out the actual issue of tax arbitrage and fairness for all different types of capital gains to be taxed at the same rate. Singh’s only engagement today is the debate.

In other campaign news, Poilievre is now saying there’s no timeline for defunding CBC after previously saying he wants to do so as soon as possible. Carney says that he wants the F-35 review to go swiftly, but DND is still establishing the parameters of said exercise. And the White House confirmed that annexation talk is still on the president’s mind.

This election is *really* testing my limit.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-04-15T21:35:48.964Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones hit homes on Odesa overnight, injuring at least three. This after NATO secretary general Mark Rutte was in Odesa to reaffirm “unwavering” support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, life in Sumy is carrying on after Sunday’s deadly attacks.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1912116063560495426

Continue reading →