Tag Archives: Elections Canada

Roundup: Feigning ignorance of far-right figures

Posted on by

It’s another day of Canadian politics covering itself in glory, starting with the Conservatives starting to backpedal when pressure mounted after three MPs—Leslyn Lewis, Colin Carrie and Dean Allison—attended an event with German MEP Christine Anderson, who is part of the far-right AfD party. As the pressure mounted, Pierre Poilievre issued a denunciation saying that he disavowed her racist rhetoric, and the three MPs gave a half-hearted apology, claiming they didn’t know who she was.

And that’s bullshit.

They knew exactly who she was. Carrie even quoted her in the House of Commons because she gave a speech denouncing Trudeau in the European parliament, and Canadian conservatives and far-right figures were lapping it up. (Carrie is one of the MPs who refused to get vaccinated, and has said that public health officials should be prosecuted. He can google all kinds of conspiracy theories but not the woman he’s quoting? Bullshit.) And yes, her trip to Canada included meeting with leaders from the Ottawa occupation from last year, whom the Conservatives also have associated themselves with. Even more interesting is the fact that the Western Standard asked her about Poilievre, and she said she had spoken with him a couple of times and he seemed like a decent guy, which Poilievre’s office disavowed and insisted that he had never spoken with her. But there is a pattern of behaviour here, with these faux apologies when they get caught, because they know there aren’t any actual consequences, and their followers lap it up.

Justin Trudeau got a few minutes of getting to rip into Poilievre and the Conservatives for their pattern of behaviour before he was struck with another bombshell, in which it is alleged that CSIS warned the Liberals to rescind the nomination of their now-MP Han Dong before the last election, citing that he was too close to the Chinese consulate. The PMO says that there was so much false information in the questions put them that they couldn’t answer, which doesn’t help things. But nobody is confirming anything, so this is likely to drag on into next week (where there may be some lawsuits in the works).

Ukraine Dispatch:

The Chinese government has decided they want to get involved in resolving Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and proposed a “peace plan,” but it doesn’t say anything about returning the land Russia currently occupies (including Crimea) or have any mention of accountability. To that end, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he’ll await more details (but I wouldn’t hold my breath). Zelenskyy did say there will be no peace talks until Russia leaves all of Ukrainian territory, so that’s probably China’s answer. Meanwhile, drone footage is showing how badly the eastern part of the country has been smashed by Russian forces. CBC talks to some people about their recollections of when the invasion began.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1629142902776512513

Continue reading →

Roundup: Showboating at PROC over allegations of Chinese interference

Posted on by

The Procedure and House Affairs committee met yesterday to vote on a motion around expanding their study on election interference to include the recent revelations from the Globe and Mail about alleged Chinese interference in the past two elections. Despite some arguing, particularly with Conservatives demanding both the appearance of Katie Telford (once again, for those of you at the back, you do not summon staff to committee because ministers are responsible!), and they were going to demand classified documents, which is becoming just part of the show these days, but they were eventually talked out of both of those demands and have instead summoned a few ministers, plus CSIS, the RCMP, and Elections Canada to discuss these particular allegations.

But of course, there was showboating. And the Liberals, who usually try to pretend that they’re the grown-ups in the room, were all-in on it as Jennifer O’Connell responded to the allegation that the Liberals were covering up what happened because it benefitted them (allegedly), saying “This is the same Trump-type tactics to question election results moving forward,” and that created a giant stir. She’s not entirely wrong, and the Conservatives have dealt in enough bad faith that they could start going down that particular road (and still might), but she wasn’t helping.

Amidst all of this, the Star obtained documents from the Conservatives showing that they were considering going public about the alleged interference over Chinese-language social media they were seeing during the last campaign but decided not to for fear of political backlash. Instead, they sent it to the committee overseeing the integrity of the election, but didn’t get much response from them at the time, who are now complaining that their concerns weren’t taken seriously.

Throughout this, I keep going back to my misgivings about the way in which the original Globe and Mail story was framed, particularly in giving the impression that the Chinese were trying to engineer a minority parliament, which is impossible to do. The piece should have simply stated that the Chinese preferred it because of chaos, but there is no interference they could do, short of stuffing ballot boxes in certain regions, to hope to achieve it, and that’s not going to happen in our system. Likewise, with the allegations around campaign financing, which don’t make any sense as written. Of course, the Globe has a well-known tendency of producing a lot of smoke for very little fire, but all of that smoke is just fuelling the MPs’ showboating, and it’s making it difficult to demonstrate that we have a serious parliament as a result.

https://twitter.com/mrmubinshaikh/status/1628216781901905922

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 364:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that Ukrainian forces are holding positions on the front lines in the east, while Russia claims that they are advancing in the Donbas region toward Bakhmut. Here is a look at five significant battles over the past year. Meanwhile, Ukraine is asking Canada to lend rail expertise and parts to help keep its crucial system running (but seriously? We’ve not been good to rail in this country).

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1628044033321848833

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1628137356556439585

Continue reading →

Roundup: Opposing amendments at committee

Posted on by

I find myself amused by the ongoing stories that some Liberal MPs may vote against the official languages bill when it comes out of committee as amended, and the constant oh noes! Trudeau is losing control of his caucus! narrative that accompanies it. This said, there are egregious amendments that I have a hard time believing that they’re in order, because they reference provincial legislation in Quebec. For example, the change to the preamble of the bill to acknowledge Quebec’s Law 96 should have no place in federal legislation. There is also an amendment that says that if federal and provincial language laws come into conflict, the provincial law (especially Quebec’s Law 96) takes precedence, which is against every single constitutional practice and statutory interpretation principle in this country, and beyond that, it sets an absolutely terrible precedent for other areas of the law where one level of government tries to impose something on another jurisdiction, and because this one went unchallenged its okay. Yeah, we don’t want that to happen.

As mentioned, these are a result of Conservative and Bloc amendments, and the Conservatives are back to pandering to Quebec voters (and François Legault) by being as shameless as possible in trying to out-bloc the Bloc, and in some cases, they are being supported by the NDP’s Niki Ashton. It stands to reason that if the government objects to a number of these amendments, they can vote them down during report stage debate, and that would mean the whole chamber is voting, not just the Bloc and the Conservatives, so it could be enough votes to ensure that these amendments are left out of the final bill, which would mean this “rebellion” by a few Liberal MPs has done its job. There are still a couple of meetings left for this bill in committee, so we’ll see what the final shape of the bill looks like.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 358:

Russian troops are mounting constant attacks, and are claiming to have broken through two fortified lines in the Luhansk region (but they make lots of claims that aren’t true), while the regional governor denies that Ukrainian troops are in retreat. The Russians have been changing their tactics at Bakhmut, moving in smaller groups, without the support of tanks or armoured personnel carriers, and the Ukrainians are adapting to the new tactics. Reuters has a photo essay of one family’s evacuation from the area near Bakhmut, during which their grandmother died in the van.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1625861957549948929

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith’s Nice History of Canada

Posted on by

Alberta premier Danielle Smith took the opportunity to shoot a video on Parliament Hill when she was in town earlier this week, and it’s a doozy. It’s so bad. Some of it is outright revisionist history—Danielle Smith’s Nice History of Canada, where the Indigenous People and settlers got together to “tame an unforgiving frontier.” No, seriously. She actually said that. And there was so much nonsense about the energy industry and market. We know that the people she listens to engage in outright residential school denialism, but this is just galling.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 353:

Kyiv and Kharkiv were among the cities hit by a renewed Russian attack on critical infrastructure, particularly on the country’s power supply. Zaporizhzhia has faced a relentless barrage, as have the front lines in the east, where they are continuing their concerted push toward Bakhmut. Meanwhile, here is a look at the “drone hunters” trying to bring down those Iranian-made drones as best they can.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1624078327664242692

Continue reading →

Roundup: A failure to condemn Carlson

Posted on by

The increasing unseriousness of our Parliament continues apace. After Question Period yesterday, NDP MP Matthew Green stood up to move a unanimous consent motion to condemn Fox “News” personality Tucker Carlson for his comments calling for an armed invasion of Canada in order to depose Justin Trudeau, apparently before we “become Cuba.” (Carlson also called for a “Bay of Pigs” invasion, apparently not understanding how badly that went for the Americans). And when the Speaker asked if there was consent to move the motion, a few Conservatives said nay (and no, I couldn’t tell which ones did).

https://twitter.com/markgerretsen/status/1620592776697237505?s=61&t=KIxQXaMgTmXV7qHS5V9-FQ

A couple of points. Number one is that Green shouldn’t have bothered because this just gives Carlson the attention he craves, but we know what this is for—social media clips, so that he could plaster it over Twitter and whatever other socials he’s on that he got Parliament to condemn Carlson, and isn’t he a hero for doing so. It’s performative bullshit, and that’s what our Parliament runs on these days to our detriment. Point number two is that the Conservatives could have shut up and not shown support for foreign regime change, but they did not, meaning they a) agree with Carlson, b) want to appease the Carlson fans in their base, or c) didn’t want to give Green the clip he was fishing for. None of those three are good looks, and just shows the continued decline in the state of debate. Everyone should rethink some of their life choices here.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 343:

The villages of Klishchiivka and Kurdyumivka, which are on the southern approach to Bakhmut, came under renewed Russian fire. As well, a new assault against Vuhledar is unlikely to make gains. Meanwhile, a new US aid package to be announced later this week is said to include longer-range rockets, which Ukraine has been asking for.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1620441189710450690

Continue reading →

Roundup: Say no to a Consultant Commissioner

Posted on by

Because a lot of people continue to be wringing their hands over government contracts to outside consultants, we’re starting to hear a few…less than stellar ideas. One of them came from Paul Wells yesterday, while on the CBC’s Front Burner podcast (Wells’ portion starts at 20:46). While there is some good context from Carleton University professor Amanda Clarke on the size of the problem (thread here), Wells is wrong about two particular portions, and he would have avoided this had he listened to my conversation with professor Jennifer Robson on my YouTube channel last week.

The first is the notion that when these consultants’ job is done, nobody is accountable for the work because most of their agreements mean that it can’t be subject to Access to Information rules, which is wrong. Fundamentally the minister is accountable no matter what. It wouldn’t matter if the work was done by outside consultants or the civil servants in the department, the minister remains responsible, and people seem to be forgetting this in their rush to condemn the consultants. The other part where he’s wrong is his idea to create a “consultant commissioner of Parliament” or other such independent officer.

No. Absolutely not.

We already have way too many gods damned independent officers of parliament, who are unaccountable, and to whom MPs have completely abandoned their constitutional responsibilities of oversight. Sure, the media and the opposition want someone independent they can quote on command to say mean things about the government, but that winds up just creating more bureaucracy, and doesn’t help the overall situation, especially as it drags us further down the road to technocracy rather than parliamentary oversight. The absolute last thing we need are more independent officers, and I wish to gods people would stop proposing them.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 335:

Russian forces have continued to pound the Donetsk region in the country’s east. Russians are also claiming Ukrainians are storing Western weapons in the country’s nuclear power plants, but have provided no proof. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is promising personnel changes at both senior and lower levels after high-profile graft allegations, as part of the country’s attempt to clean up its corruption problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On tight camera shots in the Commons

Posted on by

One of the particular sub-plots of the interminable Speaker election south of the border is the discussion around camera angles on C-SPAN, and how suddenly they’re dynamic during this process. There’s a good explainer here about how the usual rules around tight shots are relaxed because this is considered a special event and not usual proceedings, and it normally only takes two or three hours and not three or four days, but that’s why suddenly they get to be much more dynamic about what they’re seeing.

This problem of camera angles is a familiar one here in Canada, where the directive, since about day two of televised proceedings in the House of Commons, has also been on tight shots, with no wide shots or reactions. This is at the behest of MPs themselves, who came up with these rules, in part because they’re convenient for them, but if you watch the very first televised Question Period, you’ll see wide shots and reactions, and it’s much more dynamic and engaging, and it’s something we should see more of. MPs, however, don’t want that. They like being able to fill camera shots (and frequently play musical chairs to do so, most especially on Fridays), because they don’t like to show how empty the Chamber is during non-QP debates, or on Fridays. They don’t like camera operators and CPAC producers to have the latitude of choosing shots in real-time, so they don’t allow it. It’s really too bad, because it could make for better viewing. That said, it’s also one of the reasons why I attend QP in person—so that I can see the full picture of what’s happening in the Chamber and not just the tight shots that obscure more than they illuminate.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 317:

While the Russians are proposing a truce over Orthodox Christmas, the Ukrainians reject it, saying that this is simply a cover to bring in more ammunition and troops to try and halt Ukrainian advances in the Donbas region. Meanwhile, American analysts suspect that one of Putin’s allies is trying to gain access to salt and gypsum mines near Bakhmut, which is why they are trying so hard to take it over.

Continue reading →

QP: Directly quoting selectively from the PBO

Posted on by

The prime minister was present once again, while his deputy was busy testifying at the public inquiry. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he worried about deficits causing inflation (which they’re not), and demanded a course correction. Justin Trudeau reminded him that they were there for Canadians during the pandemic in order to ensure it was less severe than other places on the world, and that our economy bounced back faster, and insisted that the Conservatives only want to cut. Poilievre switched to English to denounce alleged comments from Seamus O’Regan, and demanded they cut the carbon price. Trudeau dismissed the concern as twisting the words of minister, and pointed to the PBO report on the carbon price and how it helps eight out of ten families. Poilievre picked up that report and cited several numbers out of context to “prove” his talking points. Trudeau, looking rather pleased, insisted that Poilievre did not look at the section about the rebates, and called him out about not caring about climate change. Poilievre insisted that the rebates were “tiny” and didn’t cover costs—and was called out by the Speaker for using the report as a prop—and Poilievre went on a tear about how the price is ineffective and hurts people. Trudeau disputed that the rebates were tiny, and noted the other benefits they have delivered, noting that Poilievre is only playing rhetorical games. Poilievre tried to bring up the cost of the hotel for the Queen’s funeral and insisted that the report proved that people are being hit hard. Trudeau countered that the report shows that the rebates compensate most families more than they pay, because fighting climate change is important while Poilievre only wants to nickel-and-dime them.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he returned to the alleged contradictions in the reports about the Xi Jinping confrontation and demanded a return to the per-vote subsidy to prevent foreign funding. Trudeau clapped back that the Bloc only want the subsidy because they can’t raise money on their own. Therrien was incensed, and insisted that China was exploiting this vulnerability, and Trudeau countered that political financing is robust and transparent, and pointed out that the media are invited to his fundraising events, and encouraged other parties to do the same.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and decried the crisis in emergency rooms and demanded the federal government show up. Trudeau took exception to the insinuation he doesn’t care about children, and pointed out that they have transferred billions to provinces and are sitting down with provinces. Singh switched to French to repeat the question and got the same response.

Continue reading →

QP: A lacklustre showdown on Chinese interference allegations

Posted on by

The prime minister was present for the first time in over a week, but curiously, not every leader was. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, as he usually does, and he quoted the prime minister in saying that state actors from elsewhere act aggressively toward our institutions and democracy, and he wondered what kinds of aggressive games they are playing. Trudeau said that whether it’s Russian disinformation on Ukraine, or Chinese interference in the diaspora or the media, or the Iranian government putting pressure on Canadians of Iranian origin, they always remain vigilance. Poilievre switched to English to wonder if the prime minister was briefed on any Chinese interference activities in the country. Trudeau remarked that he is regularly briefed by intelligence and security experts on threats to Canada, whether it’s cyber threats or interference in diaspora communities or online disinformation, there are a range of threats out there that our security agencies are vigilant against. Poilievre wondered what specific interference was referring to when he raised concerns with Xi Jinping, and Trudeau said that there are consistent engagements by Chinese officials into Canadian communities, such as the reports on the illicit “police station,” which they continue to be concerned about. Poilievre then changed topics to the carbon price, worrying about heating costs doubling in some communities and deployed his “triple, triple, triple” ear worm, concern trolled that the implementation of the federal price in three more Atlantic provinces was just delaying damage, and demanded the price be scrapped entirely. Trudeau reminded him that the price returns more money to most households, so it not only took climate action but it helped them as well, then called out the misinformation and disinformation that was being spread. Poilievre insisted that the PBO—whom he pointed out that the PM appointed—indicated otherwise (he didn’t), and demanded it be scrapped. Trudeau countered that the PBO did indeed prove that most households get more money back,  and decried the disinformation. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he returned to the allegations of Chinese interference in elections, and wanted clarity and the names of those allegedly funded. Trudeau took a script to insist that they had a non-partisan committee to assess threats to electoral integrity and they established that there was no compromise in either 2019 or 2021, as well as the Chief Electoral Officer didn’t see any interference, and he worried about creating false concerns. Therrien insisted he was confused, and wondered if the PM went after Xi Jinping on the basis of a newspaper article alone, and Trudeau insisted that every briefing that he has had about security or intelligence and those monitoring elections, that the integrity of elections were not called into question.

Jagmeet Singh got up, and in French, made up an allegation that wages were being blamed for inflation (they’re not), and demanded that corporate greed be tackled. Trudeau recited the well-worn talking points about raising taxes on the one percent and lowering them on the Middle Class™, stopped sending child benefit cheques to millionaires, and they raised corporate taxes and instituted their recovery dividend. Singh switched to English to decry rising interest rates, insisted that he was respecting the Bank of Canada but demanded the government do more about inflation using fiscal policy instead of monetary policy (which was entirely economically illiterate). Trudeau recited that they stepped up with supports like the doubled GST credit, the rental supports, or dental care for children (as Peter Julian kept shouting “Thanks to the NDP!”)

Continue reading →

Roundup: Benefits based on political rather than economic need

Posted on by

Alberta premier Danielle Smith paid for television airtime last night to announce that she would be making “inflation-fighting measures,” which are mostly cheques to people, but targeted payments rather than just the old model of money to everyone. Of course, where she blamed the cause of inflation is pure fiction, so that was classic Smith, and common among populist “conservative” parties these days. There were some good measures in there like re-indexing several social programmes (the decision not to index them being purely spiteful legislated poverty).

This being said, the targeting is done pretty deliberately, and it’s not entirely based on need, unless you count her political need as what she’s addressing. Money for relatively affluent seniors, and to families with children are politically motivated—seniors vote, and suburban mothers are a highly desirable demographic because women are less likely to vote conservative, and while Smith is likely to clean up in rural ridings by default (because this is Alberta), her problem are the urban ridings (and when I say urban, I really mean suburban because again, this is Alberta and its cities all have miniscule urban cores surrounded by endless suburbs). And while it wouldn’t be a political party pandering or bribing voters by ensuring that singletons get nothing, as usual, this is done with a little more intention than the usual policy objectives of appealing to families. It’s about buying the votes she needs to hang onto power in the spring, and it’s so blatantly obvious that it’s pretty insulting.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 273:

Fighting continues near Bahkmut, and Russians accused Ukrainians of targeting power lines in Donetsk (but they also are masters of projection, so take that as you will). Meanwhile, the government has begun evacuating people from Kherson to prevent them from freezing to death over the winter, and to prevent any losses of life due to the cold. As well, Ukraine’s counter-intelligence forces searched an Orthodox Christian church in Kyiv, shortly after its priest was speaking favourably of Russia, and they wanted to ensure that there are no Russian operatives working out of the church.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1595260762532229121

https://twitter.com/CFOperations/status/1594799007750295552

Continue reading →