Tag Archives: Environment

QP: One aborted sing-along later…

Posted on by

The PM and all of the other leaders were present, which can sometimes set the stage for a good show, and it actually delivered—more or less—today. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, starting off with a recap of the allegations about the donations to the Trudeau Foundation from Chinese sources, and demanded that the prime minister allow his brother to appear at committee to answer about the donation. Trudeau stated that he hasn’t had any contact with the Foundation for a decade, and committees decide who they will call before them. Poilievre said that Trudeau was taking people for fools if he thinks people don’t believe he has nothing to do with the Foundation, and repeated his demand for the committee motion. Trudeau responded that he hasn’t had any contact with the Foundation, and the Conservatives were focusing on him while he delivers for Canadians. Poilievre pivoted to the strike and the increasing cost of bureaucracy while Canadians are getting less service, and wondered if taxpayers need to go on strike. Trudeau replied that they respect unions and that they are at the bargaining table. Poilievre repeated the question in English, and this time, Trudeau struck back harder with the Conservatives’ cuts to services and attacks on unions, while they respect unions. Poilievre then tried to start a singalong for “New York, New York,” in reference to Trudeau heading there after QP, before the Speaker stopped him, and when he was allowed to resume, wondered if Trudeau would pay for his own hotel room on the trip. Trudeau tried to pivot this into an answer about how his government was attracting investment from companies like Volkswagen. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, started with a plea for the Speaker to allow any singing, before he tried to once again conflate PMO and PCO with that meeting between five deputy ministers and the Foundation. Trudeau restated that he and his staff did not participate in that meeting, then got in a dig that maybe it was different under the Conservatives when they tried to politicise the civil service. Blanchet tried to spin this as the prime minster is deliberately being ignorant, but Trudeau said this was part of baseless attacks on people like David Johnston, which are unworthy of this place.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, said the government was showing an ugly face in not capitulating to the civil service union. Trudeau chided the NDP for not understanding how bargaining works, and said a new offer was on the table. Singh switched to English to demand the prime minister not jet off to New York and settle the strike first, but Trudeau repeated his jibe at the NDP not understanding bargaining.

Continue reading →

QP: Rocketing up the repetitive talking points

Posted on by

Not only were the prime minister and his deputy present, so were all of the other leaders, and the benches were full. This while we had astronauts—the crew of Artemis II—in the Gallery to watch proceedings, along with the head of NASA, the US Ambassador to Canada, the head of the Canadian Space Agency, and other handlers. Even though MPs aren’t supposed to call attention to people in the Gallery, the final Members’ Statement of the day did praise said astronauts, and they got much applause, and the Speaker let this breach of the rules slide.

Pierre Poilievre led off in English for a change, comparing that the costs of the bureaucracy are “rocketing up,” and then lamented the civil service strike, wondering how much it would cost to end it. Justin Trudeau said that they believe in the importance of the bargaining table, which is why they are negotiating to reach an agreement that is good for civil servants and fair to taxpayers. Poilievre repeated the question in French, minus the pun, and Trudeau reiterated his response. Poilievre returned to English, and listed a serious of events that he incredulously wondered how anyone he could believe Trudeau was not involved with the Trudeau Foundation. Trudeau stated that he hasn’t had any contact with the Foundation, directly or indirectly for ten years. Poilievre focused on that meeting with the Foundation members and deputy ministers, and Trudeau recited his too-worn line that while the opposition focuses on him, he is focusing on Canadians. Poilievre quipped that nobody focuses more on the Trudeau than Trudeau himself, and that he seemed to think people were too dumb to see the links with the Foundation. Trudeau said that it was amazing to see the lengths to which the Conservatives would go to avoid talking about the budget, and listed about how great it was.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, recounted a storybook character that reminded him of Trudeau, and went after that PCO meeting again. Trudeau shrugged off the attack and said that he was focusing on helping Canadians. Blanchet insisted that there was all kinds of coordination in an office to have five deputy ministers hold a meeting os he must have known it was taking place, and Trudeau again listed the measures in the budget that was helping people.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded the prime minister “show leadership” and capitulate to the public sector union demands. Trudeau praised the work of civil servants but said that taxpayers also need to be respected, which is why they were at the negotiating table. Singh repeated the question in English with added emphasis, and Trudeau gave a more robust and melodramatic version of the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: No authority to examine

Posted on by

It was not unexpected, but the Auditor General did confirm yesterday that she wasn’t going to be looking into the Trudeau Foundation’s private donations because it’s not within her wheelhouse. Which is what I’ve been saying for over a week now—the Foundation isn’t a Crown corporation, its only reporting relationship to the Industry Minister is around the status of the initial endowment, and the Conservatives put them under the Access to Information and Privacy regime in 2007 because they put all kinds of organisation with a tangential relationship to government under the regime during their performative toughness. It doesn’t fall under the Financial Administration Act, so there is no basis for the AG to examine their books.

This news of course has the Bloc somewhat apoplectic, and they insist that if she doesn’t have the authority to look into their books, then Parliament should give her that authority. Which is, frankly, boneheaded. She already has more than enough work to do. The very last thing we need to do is turn her into some kind of roving commission of inquiry for MPs to sic her upon anyone who turns their ire (through a motion in the House of Commons that she would “consider”), especially because she’s already unaccountable for her parliamentary audits. Extending those into past Parliament or Crown corporations would be a disaster.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have bene trying to weaponise the Public Accounts Committee into looking into the Foundation, which again, is beyond their ambit. It’s especially beyond their ambit because the Auditor General hasn’t produced a report on them, and she won’t—because she has no authority to—so that particular committee has no authority to look into it. And yet, they voted on doing just so, but with the caveat of not calling any elected officials or members of the Trudeau family to testify. I can’t believe that the committee clerk didn’t warn the Chair this is out of bounds, but this is an opposition-chaired committee—in this case, Conservative John Williamson—and it sounds like he opted to ignore that warning and proceed anyway, which is incredibly poor form, especially since this whole exercise is about little more than letting Garnett Genuis perform for the cameras. And once again, we prove that ours is not a serious Parliament.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Estonia’s prime minister met with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the northwestern city of Zhytomyr, and said that she supports Ukraine’s accession to NATO “as soon as conditions allow” (which means the war has to be over and Russian forces no longer occupying territory).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions on regulatory efficacy

Posted on by

The Environment Commissioner released a series of reports yesterday, and I have some questions about a couple of them. His first report looks into the plan to plant two billion trees and states that it won’t be achievable unless there are big changes, citing that last year’s targets weren’t met, and that the agreements with provinces and territories around this are still being worked out. While I did notice that his graph about the plans for planting these trees does backload much of it because it will take time to grow enough saplings to plant, I’m not sure that one year’s data is enough to declare imminent failure. Maybe I’m just being optimistic.

One of his reports also criticises that the government can’t track which regulations reduce how many emissions, which makes it hard to assess their efficacy. I’m just not sure how a government would go about doing so, because there are so many overlapping measures including the carbon price, and emissions have started to bend, so that we’re slowly dropping below pre-pandemic and 2005 levels, particularly as the economy is growing, which is a good sign that measures are working overall, but there is more to do. And while I appreciate what he’s trying to say, I’m just not sure how someone goes about calculating how much the inventory changed for each regulatory measure. He did also talk about how many missed targets there were, but didn’t differentiate between which stripe of government was in power, and how the previous government set targets that they deemed “aspirational,” meaning that they did nothing to attempt to meet them, while the current government’s targets are for 2030, and they could very well still meet them if they continue their current trajectory. I’m sure he doesn’t want to get into that difference as part of his role as non-partisan quasi-Officer of Parliament (he is not a standalone officer but is part of the Auditor General’s office), but it is relevant to the state of the discussion.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces had a misfire, and accidentally bombed their own city of Belgorod, near the Ukrainian border. Oops. Meanwhile, the head of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, visited president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, and declared that Ukraine’s future is in NATO (but that can’t happen under NATO rules so long as they have Russians occupying their territory). Ukraine has trained eight storm brigades worth 40,000 troops for the upcoming counteroffensive. Treason charges are being laid against several Ukrainian servicemen for giving away information to Russian force during an unauthorised mission, and those Russians damaged a Ukrainian airfield as a result.

https://twitter.com/euromaidanpress/status/1649030309109813248

https://twitter.com/minpres/status/1649093237632647179

Continue reading →

QP: A special kind of incompetence to read the same script over and over

Posted on by

Neither the prime minister nor his deputy was present today, but neither were any of the other leaders, so that didn’t necessarily bode well from the start. Pierre Paul-His got things started in French, and he repeated Pierre Poilievre’s lead talking points from yesterday—that the prime minister has a “special kind of incompetence” for increasing the cost of the bureaucracy while still allowing them to go on strike, and demanded he fix what was broken. Mona Fortier praised the work of civil servants, and that they continue to bargain in good faith for a fair agreement. Paul-Hus demanded to know why the prime minister wasn’t answering, speculating that it was because he was too busy planning his next vacation, to which Mark Holland somewhat crankily responded that for the third day, yes the prime minister took a vacation with his family, and they stayed at the home of a family friend. Jasraj Hallan took over in English, and repeated the same “special kind of incompetence” talking points with an angrier tone, and Fortier repeated her same points about praise and good-faith negotiations. Hallan then insisted that the only people getting ahead are “crony insiders,” blamed the government for inflation, and turned this into a rant about the “scam” of the carbon price. Holland noted a lot of hypocrisy in the question, then listed the ways in which the leader of the opposition avails himself of government funding—house, car, office, staff—before he talks on the phone with American billionaires to try and destroy the CBC, and wondered if Poilievre should have a Twitter label that notes he’s 99 percent government-funded. Hallan got indignant, and said that nobody believes the government, before he completely mischaracterised the PBO’s report on carbon prices, and Holland needled back and wondered how the Conservatives are trading in conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he tried to insist that appointing people who have connections to the Trudeau Foundation could mean that the prime minister has nothing to do with it. Holland got up and recited that Trudeau has not been associated with the Foundation for ten years. Therrien went on a tear about Beijing-backed donations and demanded a public inquiry. Holland insisted that foreign interference is concerning for everyone in the Chamber.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and ranted about contracts to consultants rather than giving civil servants a good deal. Helena Jaczek stated that there is a need for flexibility but they are keeping an eye on contracts. Gord Johns repeated the same accusation in English, and Jaczek stated that the budget had plans to reduce that kind of consultant spending.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Impressing the Scots

Posted on by

The Speaker of the Scottish Parliament paid a visit to Ottawa’s Parliament earlier in the week and was apparently so impressed with our Question Period that she plans to write a report to take suggestions from it. I’m frankly a little dumbfounded, because our QP is pretty gods damned terrible in pretty much every respect, but let me first take what her observations are.

One of them is that ours operates bilingually fairly seamlessly. Well, she didn’t see the seams, in any case. In Scotland, they have translation available for those who speak Gaelic, but it’s not automatically provided like English/French is here. But she didn’t seem to see the stress that the pandemic has caused our simultaneous interpretation abilities, from the injuries to interpreters, or the strains to resources that are now severely limiting the function of our Parliament because MPs didn’t care enough about those interpreters as they abused them over Zoom, and lo, we’re staring down a crisis.

She was impressed with the “brevity” of our QP, where it operates in thirty-five second questions and answers. I’m not sure that’s a good thing, frankly, because it has largely just created a demand for talking points, both in asking and answering questions, and so much of the exercise is useless—the questions must contain key phrases (and that’s getting worse), while the answers are frequently non-sequiturs or just bland pabulum that is disconnected from what has been asked. I’m not sure what she saw that was so impressive. The fact that it happened at a rapid pace and bilingually looks impressive from afar, but spend more than a day here, and the uglier underside quickly becomes apparent. Yes, ours can be more dynamic than Westminster’s because we don’t require questions be asked in advance in order for briefings to be prepared, so the PM must be nimble when answering, but again, most of those answers are going to be vague and superficial.

It’s kind of flattering that they’re seeing the good we have to offer, but these days, our rules and system has given rise to an increasingly unserious Chamber, and that’s not something we should be exporting to anyone.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the border with Poland and Belarus, citing a need to be ready in case Belarus became another invasion route for Russia.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1648688637670830083

Continue reading →

QP: That big, imaginary IOU

Posted on by

The prime minister was present today, for the second day in a row, and all of the other leaders were as well, all eager to get their clips for their respective socials. Pierre Poilievre led off in English, unusually, and he chided the government for allowing the public service to go on strike, questioning his competence, and demanded to know how the prime minister would “fix the government he broke.” Justin Trudeau said that unlike the Conservatives, they respect unions, which is why they are making progress at the bargaining table. Poilievre switched to French, and repeated the same accusation of incompetence, and Trudeau reiterated his same response. In English, Poilievre moved onto the subject of the prime minister’s vacation and asserted that the stay at this resort comes with a “big IOU,” because those Trudeau Foundation donors would obviously expect something in return, and demanded that the prime minister pay back the “$80,000 gift.” Trudeau insisted that these were family friends, that he has stayed at this place many times since he was a year-old, and that they worked with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure the rules were followed. Poilievre insisted that they didn’t begrudge vacations, and that he took one at the same time on a Sunwing package that he paid for himself—which earned him sycophantic applause from his caucus—and demanded again to repay the cost of accommodation so that he “doesn’t owe anyone anything.” Trudeau once again reiterated that these are family friends for 50 years, and he has been to that resort many times with his family, and made mention of the security requirements. Poilievre repeated that this was about wealthy donors who expect IOUs and would have “inordinate influence” on him (so family friends wouldn’t have the same influence without the stay at their resort? Really?) to which Trudeau hit back about Poilievre running to billionaire tech giant fiends to attack local news, which Canadians should be concerned about.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised the Chinese donations to McGill and the Trudeau Foundation, citing it as being too close to Trudeau, so they needed a public inquiry. Trudeau insisted that they were after the wrong Trudeau, he is not his father, and has not had anything to do with the Foundation for a decade. Blanchet insisted that Trudeau must have known about the Green Family donation to the Foundation, and Trudeau insisted that because he doesn’t deal with the Foundation, he wasn’t aware.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, lamented that the civil service unions have gone on strike, took some jabs at the government and demanded that they negotiate a solution and not impose back-to-work legislation. Trudeau insisted that they continue to bargain in good faith. Singh repeated his demand in French, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

QP: Interminable questions about Trudeau’s Xmas vacation

Posted on by

Both the prime minister and his deputy were present, together, for the first time in probably two months, which should have been notable, but ended up not being as a result of today’s news cycle. Pierre Poilieve led off in French, cited a poll that said many Canadians had to cancel summer vacation plans, and then raised that CBC story about the prime minister’s Christmas vacation where he stayed at the villa of someone who donated to the Trudeau Foundation. (Note that this link is entirely specious), and asked if the prime minister paid for his lodgings at the villa. Justin Trudeau noted that he has been friends with that family for 50 years and that they worked with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure that all rules were followed, and if Poilievre was really preoccupied by the cost of living, he would support the budget. Poilievre switched to English to reiterate the question, with some added smarm, and Trudeau repeated his response with a couple of added attempted jabs. Poilievre insisted that nothing was free and demanded to know who much was paid for the accommodation, to which Trudeau noted that Poilievre seems to have struggle with the concept of friendship, and that this family friendship goes back fifty years, before he pivoted to Poilievre running to American billionaires in order to attack the local news that Canadians rely on. Poilievre insisted that this was about power and influence, and took a swipe at the Aga Khan, before Trudeau hit back that there were security considerations before chiding Poilievre for not voting to support Canadians. Poilievre took more swipes, including at the Queen’s funeral (which he termed “a vacation”) before deploying his tired “this prime minister is out of touch while Canadians are out of money” line. Trudeau said that if Poilievre cared about Canadians as he did about partisan attacks, he would support their plans for things like child care and dental care.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he took his own swing at the vacation story, and Trudeau insisted that the Ethics Commissioner cleared everything. Blanchet tried to pivot to that dubious Chinese donation to the Trudeau Foundation, and Trudeau stated bluntly he hasn’t had anything to do with the Foundation for ten years.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he demanded help for workers instead of CEOs. Trudeau recited his lines from a script about the grocery rebate and the help they are delivering. Singh repeated the question in French, and Trudeau repeated his response extemporaneously.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Troll-bait taken

Posted on by

Well, Pierre Poilievre’s troll-bait worked, and everyone was frothing at the mouth over the application of “government-funded media” to CBC’s main Twitter account (but not its news accounts, or any of their French accounts). And the Conservatives lapped it up; Andrew Scheer, pleased as punch and in full smirking doofus mode, even gave a trollish member’s statement ahead of Question Period which was quickly clipped for use as a shitpost. In protest, CBC declared they would “pause” their use of Twitter, which just cedes the field the flood of bullshit. And then later in the day, Elon Musk decided to adjust his tag to say “70% government-funded,” as if it makes a difference to the insinuation Poilievre was trying to impart, only for a short while later, change that to “69% government-funded,” because this is Musk and Poilievre we’re talking about, and they have the mentality of twelve-year-olds in their quest to become shitposting edgelords.

 

Justin Trudeau, somewhat cleverly, noted that Poilievre ran to the arms of American web-giant billionaires to support his attack on Canadians, which bolsters the Liberals’ narrative about their legislation to curb the power of web giants and forcing them to pay into the Canadian content ecosystem (which the Conservatives have been falsely decrying as government censorship). The NDP and the Bloc went with the tactic of calling this an attack on Quebec culture, which may do more damage to the Conservatives in the province where they are hoping to make inroads.

But this is all culture war bullshit, and yet, people fell for the troll bait. The Liberals immediately tried to fundraise off of this, and played right into the Conservatives’ hands.

I did note that three former CBC bureau chiefs did impart their experiences about editorial independence, and governments going after them for their reporting, which is not exactly the narrative that Poilievre has been trying to prompt.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The Ukrainian grain deal is threatened as Poland, Hungary and Slovakia have all banned Ukrainian grain as part of protectionist measures, and the EU is likely to mount some kind of response. The prisoner exchange on Sunday saw 130 Ukrainians returned, but it’s not clear how many Russians were turned over. A top Ukrainian official said that they will launch their counteroffensive when they’re good and ready, and not before.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1648018653885898756

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1647891561915596800

Continue reading →

QP: Useless responses to bad faith questions on carbon prices

Posted on by

While the prime minster was in town earlier in the morning, he headed off to Montreal for private business instead of attending QP, while his deputy continued her weeks-long absence from QP. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and accused Trudeau’s brother of accepting the dubious Chinese-funded donation to the Trudeau Foundation, and wanted him summoned to committee. Mark Holland insisted the prime minister had no relationship with the Foundation. Poilievre repeated the same in English with some added flourish, and Holland repeated his same response. Poilievre then moved onto the GHG emissions inventory, noted that it did increase in 2021—without noting that the curve has been bent and emissions are falling overall, to which Terry Duguid recited a script about the rebates. Poilievre cherry-picked figures from the PBO’s report that distorted what it claims, insisting the carbon price was useless and costly, and Duguid proved his own uselessness in repeating another good news talking point. Poilievre then demanded the government cut taxes and their “inflationary deficits,” to which François-Philippe Champagne listed priorities that Canadians told them they held, and that the government was acting on them.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and spun a narrative about David Johnston and the Trudeau Foundation, and demanded a public inquiry at once. Dominic LeBlanc disputed that the government has done nothing, and listed some of their actions. Therrien then raised Katie Telford’s testimony at committee and complained about it, to which LeBlanc praised the work that Johnston is undertaking.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and demanded the government “get serious” in negotiating a “fair contract” with public sector workers. Mona Fortier read a script about a good offer on the table and that they expect both parties to act in good faith. Singh repeated the question in French, and got the same scripted response.

Continue reading →