Tag Archives: Environment

Roundup: Evading a direct question with fiery rhetoric

Posted on by

Yesterday’s press conference with the prime minister and US president was the first opportunity to ask Justin Trudeau about the allegations made against MP Han Dong, and whether he believed them. Trudeau said that he accepts that Dong left caucus to fight the allegations, prompted people to watch Dong’s speech in the House of Commons, and then went on a tear about how any foreign interference was unnecessary, and it was why the G7 meeting at Charlevoix set up the Rapid Response Mechanism to deal with it in elections. And it sounded like the kind of answer he should have been giving three weeks ago when he was simply flailing, until you stopped to realise that he didn’t actually answer the question, but sidestepped it with the rhetoric. So that’s a choice.

Meanwhile, here is an interesting deep dive thread into what the Globe and Mail published on Thursday night, and the subtle shade they were throwing at Global about the decision not to print allegations they could not confirm without seeing the transcript of the alleged call or listen to audio. I still think it’s interesting that this seems to confirm that the same source appears to be shopping leaks to both outlets.

Stephanie Carvin answers some questions about the kinds of warrants that could be in play as it appears that CSIS was monitoring the calls of the Chinese consulate.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1639255538021339136

Former national security analyst Dennis Molinaro gives a good gut-check about the kinds of intelligence we’re dealing with, and why none of it can be taken as conclusive, particularly as much of it is time and context specific, which may be why it wasn’t acted upon at the time.

https://twitter.com/dennismolin11/status/1639402944708632576

And finally, while some are hoping that a public inquiry might stop the leaks, I wouldn’t be so sure. The leaks are intended to cause damage, but to the government in particular, and that’s partly why they are being shopped to the journalists that they are. That they are causing damage to the intelligence service and institutions seems to be considered collateral damage, particularly if the op-ed from last week is indicative of a narcissistic personality who thinks they know better.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces attacked stretches along the northern and southern fronts in the Donbas region, as their assault on Bakhmut has flagged. Ukrainian forces are using three Soviet-era helicopters to pummel Russian forces on the front lines from afar. Slovakia has delivered the first four of 13 MiG-29 fighters to Ukraine. The UN’s human rights monitors have seen cases of abuses and killing of prisoners of war on both sides of the conflict (though disproportionately more on the Russian side).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1639257619071213568

Continue reading →

QP: A strange Poilievre-Trudeau show

Posted on by

In spite of it being a Wednesday, the benchers were not as full as they might have been but all of the leaders were present, for what that’s worth. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he accused the prime minister of failing on affordable housing over the eight seven years he has been in office. Justin Trudeau responded with some back-patting on the investments they have delivered to Canadians. Poilievre gave the average monthly housing rate in 2015 and demanded to know what it is today. Trudeau deflected by saying it varies across the country and launched into more back-patting. Poilievre accused Trudeau of not answering because he’s out of touch, and asked a similar comparison question. Trudeau again simply listed good news talking points about what they have delivered. Poilievre gave his “he wants you to believe Canadians have never had it so good” line and complained about how much more things cost now than in 2015. Trudeau again listed good news back-patting, but acknowledged that people are still struggling which is why they moved on like child care and dental care, which the Conservatives voted against. Poilievre noted, correctly, that Trudeau would not respond to the question on housing, and railed about how much the prices have increased. Trudeau noted that in the last election, the only Conservative plan was to give tax breaks to landlords.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised concerns about China, people crossing on Roxham Road, the Biden visit, and then demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau said calling a public inquiry shouldn’t be up to him which is why they got an unimpeachable advisor to recommend next steps. Blanchet listed sins of the Chinese regime, and took a swipe at David Johnston. Trudeau said for an important issue it should need more partisanship but less, which is why they brought in Johnston.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he railed about food price inflation and blamed grocery chain CEOs. Trudeau listed measures they have put forward to help those who need it. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: We all got played on the Telford gambit

Posted on by

Yesterday morning, we saw an exhausting series of manoeuvres that made the Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives all pretend like they were playing 3D chess against one another, but it was none of that. First thing was that the Liberals released the final mandate of David Johnston in his role as special rapporteur on the allegations, and he has until May 23rdto make a recommendation around a public inquiry, and until October 31st for his final report (but I see the possibility for shenanigans if the recommendation for a public inquiry won’t actually be acted upon until the final report so that it can be fully informed, etc.) And if there is a recommendation for a public inquiry, Sikh organisations in this country want India to be included in any examination of foreign interference

In the meantime, Justin Trudeau said that no, the vote on the motion to send Katie Telford to committee wasn’t going to be a confidence measure (because frankly that would be stupid), and that they had decided to send Telford to the Procedure and House Affairs committee after weeks of filibustering to prevent it, just as Singh was announcing he would support the Conservative motion to bypass the filibuster by instructing the Ethics committee hear her testimony instead (which the Conservatives chair). This just blew up three weeks of trying to trying to prevent her from appearing under the principle of ministerial responsibility and not calling staffers to committee, because they didn’t have an end game for the filibuster, and we’re just going to throw centuries of Westminster parliamentary principles on the fire for the sake of scoring points—and that’s what this all is about. Scoring points, as the Liberals also used this as a test of their agreement with the NDP, which shook it.

And while all of this was taking place, Mark Holland got up in the House of Commons to apologise for misspeaking yesterday in saying that Pierre Poilievre was offered a briefing and declined it, but his confusion was that Poilievre had publicly stated he would refuse such a briefing on classified information. (Are you following?)

So while Jagmeet Singh spent the day insisting that he was the one who ended the filibuster (he wasn’t), the NDP their own procedural game they were trying to play, which was to force a concurrence debate and vote on the PROC report recommending a public inquiry into these interference allegations, but the Conservatives beat him to the punch and called for a concurrence debate on a different committee report, which just points out how nobody is actually taking this issue seriously. It’s a pissing contest and point-scoring. And at the end of this, the NDP voted against the Conservative Supply Day motion to send Telford to the Ethics committee, because it was now a moot point.

And in the end? We’ve torched more parliamentary principles and weakened our parliamentary system further, and Trudeau has spilled more blood in the water, which is only going to make things even worse because there is now a frenzy around him. The Conservatives and their bad faith politics have played all of us in this whole affair because this was never about Telford and her testimony, but merely trying to set a trap so they could claim a cover-up, and the Liberals walked right into it and flailed for weeks. We’ve set more bad precedents, and democracy is worse off than it was before, because everyone needed to score points instead of being adults over this whole situation. Everyone keeps making it worse, because they can’t help themselves. What a way to run a country.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Japan’s prime minister made an unannounced visit to Ukraine yesterday to meet with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and to tour the massacre site at Bucha. Meanwhile, police in Avdiivka are trying to evacuate holdouts in the town, as Russian forces continue their attempts to encircle it.

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1638100893856944128

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1638272233054392327

Continue reading →

QP: Fighting to take credit for the Telford decision

Posted on by

After a morning full of rapid-fire decisions around what was happening with Katie Telford heading to committee and David Johnston’s mandate being released, the prime minister was present, as were all other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, took credit for pressuring Trudeau to change his mind in letting Telford testify, and took a swipe at Johnston before demanding a public inquiry starting today. Justin Trudeau responded that this should’t be a partisan issue, which is why the appointed Johnston and were waiting for his recommendations. Poilievre switched to English to again take credit, and took several more swipes at Johnston before demanding a public inquiry right now. Trudeau repeated that this shouldn’t be a partisan issue which was why they appointed Johnston, and that they would abide by his recommendations while they moved forward on other measures. Poilievre then switched topics to inflation, blamed rising food prices on carbon prices (it’s not the cause) and demanded the planned increase be cancelled. Trudeau said that when he sat down with farmers, they underlined their real problems and leadership on climate change, before he listed climate rebates levels. Poilievre went on his usual talking points about carbon prices, and Trudeau listed how much the climate rebates were going up in Poilievre’s riding. Poilievre spouted some disingenuous bullshit about the ongoing heating costs at 24 Sussex and Trudeau’s flights, while Trudeau shrugged off the personal attack while patting himself on the back for dental care and rental benefits.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he demanded a public inquiry be called right here and now. Trudeau insisted that appointing Johnston was the first step and that they would follow his recommendations. Blanchet was talked around the appointment of Johnston, before again demanding the inquiry. Trudeau read some praise for Johnston and insisted he rejected the attacks against Johnston.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he too took credit for forcing the government to make Katie Telford appear at committee, and then tried calling out Poilievre for blocking their attempt to move a motion on calling a public inquiry. Poilievre theatrically got up to answer, before the Speaker stood up to remind everyone what Question Period was for, which is holding the government to account, and Trudeau took the opportunity to denounce personal attacks and praise Johnston. Singh said that his proves neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals wanted a public inquiry before he switched to French to demand said inquiry right here and now. Trudeau insisted that they appointed Johnston to who could make recommendations about next steps, while NSICOP was doing their work.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Forcing a confrontation for point-scoring alone

Posted on by

The whole sorry affair over summoning Katie Telford to testify at committee is coming to a head today with the vote on the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to bypass PROC and have her testify at the Ethics Committee (where they hold the chair). And in the meantime, the Liberals are deciding if they want to make this a confidence vote, while the NDP are deciding if they are going to go along with the Conservatives on this, or back the Liberals—particularly if this does become a confidence measure.

It’s all really stupid. While I have a longer piece on the underlying parliamentary implications around forcing staffers to testify at committee coming out later today, we can’t lose sight of why this is happening. The Conservatives knew the government would balk at forcing a staffer to testify, so they would use the reluctance to push the line that they are hiding something, and if they’re fighting this hard “it must be really bad.” Which is bad faith bullshit, but that’s the name of their game, and true to form, the Liberals walked right into it, because they flailed over the leaks in the media, and can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag. And the Conservatives get to jam the NDP in the process, and try to force a wedge between them and the government. None of this is about foreign interference or taking the issue seriously. This is entirely about the Conservatives smelling blood in the water and going on the attack so they can score as many points as possible, because nobody in this parliament is serious or a grown-up. This is all a gods damned game to them, and it’s destroying our Parliament in the process.

Do I think the Liberals will force a confidence vote? No, because as much as the principle of ministerial responsibility is of importance, they’re not going to risk bringing down the government over it—particularly to have an election over allegations of interference in elections without any chance to ensure there are proper safeguards before that election happens. Then again, miscalculations have happened in minority parliaments before, and sometimes games of chicken go wrong. But really, this is yet another instance of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. And this really is the stupidest game.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces are warning that the town of Avdiivka could become a “second Bakhmut,” as they have held out against assault for eight months while avoiding being encircled, but Russians are trying to cut off their supply lines. Meanwhile, Ukraine sort of claimed responsibility for destroying a shipment of cruise missiles travelling by train through occupied Crimea. Elsewhere, here is a look at the de-mining work that needs to take place in places freed from occupation before they can complete critical infrastructure repairs.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1637881139355328523

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1637750630566486016

Continue reading →

QP: Attempts to call out the NDP

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town, neither he nor his deputy was present, and neither were most of the other leaders, save Pierre Poilievre. After a moment of silence for the two police officers who were killed in Edmonton over the weekend, Poilievre led off in French, and said that he was prepared to let any Conservative staff to testify at committee and wanted the Liberals to do the same, particularly Katie Telford. Dominic LeBlanc said that they have taken steps to combat foreign interference, which Poilievre didn’t do when he was minister for democratic reform. Poilievre switched to English to accuse the Liberals of getting help from the communist regime in Beijing, and demanded Telford appear at committee, and called out the NDP for possibly helping the Liberals. LeBlanc said that repeated that they were always transparent, and that they had appeared before committee, and that they looked forward to Johnston’s recommendations. Poilievre said that the question was for the leader of the NDP saying he’s “part of the government”—which is more of his bad faith bullshit—made an un-clever quip about coalitions, and called the NDP out again. This time Pam Damoff recited the lines about taking interference seriously. Poilievre switched back to French to demand that there be national licensing for foreign-trained doctors and nurses—which is not federal jurisdiction. Jean-Yves Duclos said that as part of their new transfer agreement included language about credentials recognition. Poilievre returned to English to ask the same question again, and Duclos repeated that they were already working on this with provinces.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded a public inquiry into foreign interference. LeBlanc praised David Johnston’s credentials. Therrien took several swipes at Johnston before repeating his demand, and LeBlanc insisted that Johnston will work independently to determine next steps.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he too demanded that Johnston be directed to recommend a public inquiry—which undermines his role. LeBlanc returned to the recitation of talking points about what they have done to combat interference to date, and praise around Johnston. Leah Gazan railed about wages for child care and personal support workers—which is provincial jurisdiction—and Karina Gould said that recruitment and wages are part of their agreements with provinces.

Continue reading →

Roundup: David Johnston, special rapporteur

Posted on by

The “unimpeachable” eminent Canadian chosen to be the special rapporteur on allegations of foreign interference is former Governor General David Johnston, and it took mere minutes for the Conservatives to start denouncing him, citing that he was affiliated with the Trudeau Foundation, and that his role on the election debate commission saw Rosemary Barton ask questions during the last debate when she “sued” the Conservatives (note: she did not sue them, but the CBC sued the party in her name for unauthorised use of footage; also, I don’t believe Johnston chose the moderators or questioners, considering that it was a demand of the broadcast consortium that their talent each be allowed to have time during the debate), and on and on it went. The pundit class largely insisted that Johnston should have recused himself right away because he is too closely associated with Trudeau, and others insisted that if it was truly a non-partisan appointment then Pierre Poilievre and Jagmeet Singh should have been part of the process and naming him, and anyway, the whole special rapporteur thing was stupid and so on.

https://twitter.com/SusanDelacourt/status/1636102797623009281

I mean, I understand why Trudeau decided to go this route—not everyone agrees that a public inquiry is the best route to go, because it could go for years and that could mean delaying action that should be taken now. Even if it is the route we want to go (and several Liberals are now saying that it’s the only option at this point), it would still be Trudeau and Cabinet setting the terms of reference, which is also part of the rationale—Trudeau says that he would leave that determination up to Johnston, and he’d follow his recommendations, thereby trying to put some measure of distance between himself and any such task. I do say that it mystifies me that everyone demanding an inquiry right now if not yesterday never seems to care about this very point, even though we all damned well know that they would immediately cite these points as to why the inquiry is illegitimate.

But honestly? Canada is a small pond. There are not too many “eminent Canadians” who have the track record to take on this kind of task, and who don’t have some kind of perceived conflict, no matter how unrealistic it is. But that’s the whole thing with perceived conflicts, and this notion of “smell tests” that don’t actually mean anything but which get the chattering classes frothing. Is Johnston the best choice? Maybe, maybe not. The likely other option was a former Supreme Court Justice, which has become a running joke in Canadian politics these days. Regardless, the fact that this is just more partisan fodder is all the more proof that parties are not actually taking this seriously, and would rather be out to score points instead.

Ukraine Dispatch:

American intelligence suggests that the Russians are making small advances toward Bakhmut, but at great cost. Further north near Kreminna, similar battles are playing out, with the Russians making unsuccessful attacks, but they worry that the attempts to surround Bakhmut could have repercussions for their section of the front, while fatigue is starting to set in.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Commonwealth Day reminders

Posted on by

Yesterday was Commonwealth Day, and also the ten-year anniversary of the Commonwealth Charter, which was supposed to be a project to spearhead the adoption of more common human rights legislation that would include better inclusion of LGBTQ+ rights in those Commonwealth countries where they are still an issue. In those ten years, that seems to have fallen off the radar, and I have barely heard any mention of that Charter at all, until when the anniversary was mentioned yesterday.

With anything related to the Commonwealth, we were guaranteed a bunch of bad media takes, and lo, for their inaugural episode, CTV News Channel’s new debate show had one of their topics as to whether Canada should stay in the Commonwealth or abandon the monarchy, which is a dumb false dichotomy because the vast majority of Commonwealth countries are not monarchies. Only fifteen member countries are Realms, meaning that we share Charles III as our monarch in a natural capacity (we each have separate Crowns), and newer members of the Commonwealth are not former British colonies, but have requested membership because they see value in the institution. Even if we did abandon the monarchy (which isn’t going to happen because it would mean rewriting our entire constitution and good luck trying to make that happen), we would still probably retain membership in the Commonwealth because of the relationships forged there, and it can be good forum for getting things done with countries.

Meanwhile, I’m going to re-up this interview I did with MP Alexandra Mendès, who is the chair of the Canadian Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, about the work these associations do and how Canada helps to train the legislatures and parliaments of smaller Commonwealth countries.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The battle near Bakhmut continues to rage, while the International Criminal Court is expected to seek the arrest of Russian officials responsible for the policy of forcibly deporting children from Ukraine, as well as their continued targeting of civilian infrastructure.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre’s facile budget demands

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre called a Sunday morning press conference, which is a particularly Conservative tactic that tries to set the agenda for the week, in which he made his demands around the upcoming budget. We all know that it’s pretty much set in stone by this point and is on its way to the printers, but that never stops parties from making performative demands right up until the end. To that end, Poilievre had three main demands:

  1. Bring home powerful paycheques with lower taxes, so hard work pays off again.
  2. Bring home lower prices, by ending inflationary carbon tax hikes & deficit spending that drive up inflation & interest rates.
  3. Bring homes people can afford by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits.

First of all, the thing he refuses to acknowledge or understand is that tax cuts fuel inflation. If he’s worried about the increasing cost of living, tax cuts won’t actually do anything meaningful, and are more likely to just add fuel to that fire. (Meanwhile, taxes aren’t going up for anyone except profitable corporations and on luxury goods). When it comes to housing prices, carbon prices are not inflationary (the Bank of Canada has cited that their effect on inflation is negligible), and deficit spending has absolutely nothing to do with either inflation or interest rates. This is a facile narrative that Poilievre keeps insisting, preferring an austerity budget that will only make the vulnerable even more precarious without government supports, but this economic message still resonates for a particular generation. Meanwhile, none of this will affect housing prices, because that is driven by a lack of supply, which is because municipalities refuse to zone for density, and because provincial governments won’t use their powers to force the issue. And that leads us to the third point, which is that the federal government has no ability to “remove gatekeepers” at the provincial or municipal level. They can’t do anything about building permits, and I am dubious that there is enough federal land that is suitable for housing developments in major cities around the country that is underutilized. I may be wrong, but this has been a perennial promise by governments for years and nothing has really moved, which leads me to believe there’s not a lot to be had.

It’s not at all surprising that Poilievre is sticking to facile and wrong budgetary narratives, but it would be great if he could actually be called out on it rather than both-sides at best, which is barely even happening. This is important stuff and we’re just shrugging it off, and focusing on more bullshit polls about people believing the Conservatives are still the better economic managers in spite of decades of proof to the contrary.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces have believed to have suffered more than 1100 dead in a week of battles near Bakhmut, with another 1500 wounded so badly as to be removed from the fighting. The Institute for the Study of War believes Russia’s planned advance has stalled in Bakhmut, and that the assault will be more difficult to sustain without more significant losses.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1634849209840173057

Continue reading →

Roundup: Derailing the committee with sexism

Posted on by

The big happenings of the day on the foreign interference file were at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee when ministers Dominic LeBlanc and Mélanie Joly testified. We found out that thus far, one diplomatic visa has been rejected by Canada because of interference allegations, and we also got the very reasonable explanation from Joly that we haven’t been expelling diplomats because that invites tit-for-tat from the Chinese government (and they are not afraid to take hostages), and we need our eyes and ears on the ground in that country. We also learned from Joly’s Great China director at Global Affairs that “diplomatic representations” were made about their alleged boats around helping to defeat Conservative candidates in the last election.

What made the news, however, was that Conservative MP Michael Cooper was hostile and belittling toward Joly in a clearly misogynistic manner, made worse by the fact that he later put out a statement that refused to apologise for it, but insisted he wanted action and not a “symbolic stare down.” Erm, you guys keep bringing up Harper’s symbolic stare down of allegedly telling Putin to get out of Ukraine in 2014 and calling that courageous, so I’m not sure why Joly’s confrontation with her Chinese counterpart is considered any lesser. Oh, wait—we know why.

In other news on the interference file, here’s an interview with former CSIS director Ward Elcock on recent developments, and there are a couple of takeaways—that this is old news, and that we’ve known about Chinese interference for years; that there is no reason to believe that the PM did get these briefing notes (and it has been noted by other experts that Canada does not have a system of pushing intelligence upward, and yet this is what so much of Global’s reporting in hinging on); and that it is highly unlikely these leaks are coming from CSIS, but someone who has access to their documents (and the good money is on someone within the RCMP).

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633863409211961346

As well, NSIRA did announce that they too are undertaking their own investigation of the allegations and what CSIS has been doing around it, while not looking to duplicate the work that NSICOP is doing.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633808644935409666

Ukraine Dispatch:

Yesterday’s widespread Russian attack saw more than 80 missiles, plus more drones, hitting cities across the country, killing six people and cutting the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant off of the power gird for eleven hours.

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1633720689541652483

Continue reading →