Tag Archives: Environment

QP: Careful hewing to prepared lines about national security

Posted on by

The prime minister was in the Chamber for his usual Wednesday spot of proto-Prime Minister’s Questions, as were all of the other leaders, which hasn’t happened for a few weeks. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he once again returned to the Global News report that China had funnelled money to federal candidates in 2019, and wanted to know if the prime minister had gone back to CSIS to ask if there was any evidence to support such an allegation. Justin Trudeau said that he has to be very careful in answering questions about national security, and with a script in front of him, recited that Canada and its allies are regularly targeted by foreign states like China, including during election campaigns, and that his government had more steps than any other including creating an independent panel tasked with assessing the risk coming from foreign countries, and those panels confirmed that the electoral integrity was not compromised, and concluded with yes, he receives regular briefings. Poilievre switched to English, said it was interesting that he said he did get briefings, and repeated to know if he got one post Global News report on the allegations. Trudeau repeated his same response in English, word-for-word, but added at the end that all parties are briefed about elections. Poilievre said that wasn’t the question, and wanted a yes-or-no answer on a post-Global News briefing. Trudeau very slowly enunciated that in all of the briefings he received, there has never been any mention of candidates receiving money from China in either 2019 or 2021, and praised the panels once again. Poilievre wanted a yes-or-no answer on whether Trudeau asked for briefings after the Global News story, but Trudeau went on about how Poilievre, a former minister, knows the importance of respecting national security guidelines and that because Poilievre was the former minister for elevations integrity, he knows this, but also added that when Poilievre was minister, he did nothing about adding security against interference while the current government did. Poilievre was incredulous by the notion that Trudeau didn’t demand a briefing on the story, but moved on to ask if there was any electoral interference at all. Trudeau reminded him that Canada is regularly subject to some level of foreign interference, including from China, including during elections, which Poilievre would know when he was minister of elections, and noted that the two previous leaders did get briefings before, during and after the elections on foreign interference.

Yves-François Blanchet wondered at what point the interference goes from a little to a lot, and wondered about Chinese money flowing into Trudeau’s riding was interference or influence. Trudeau stated that rather than allowing partisan accusations to muddy the waters, they created a panel to precisely look at those issues in an objective and non-partisan manner. Blanchet was more specific about Chinese money flowing into Trudeau’s riding at a time a bank was trying to get approval, and Trudeau said that while the Bloc was trying to cast doubt on the integrity of our institutions, he could assure them they were not affected.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, worried about an overloaded hospital in Quebec, and accused the prime minister of sitting on his hands, and demanded the government do more like they did in the pandemic. Trudeau reminded him that they have been working with the provinces. Singh switched to English to worry about Danielle Smith’s “Sovereignty Act” and that she would use it to undermine the Canada Health Act, which proves he doesn’t know what he was talking about because the whole gods damned point of the Act is to put conditions on federal dollars. Trudeau noted that he could understand why people were concerned, but he was going to focus on getting good results for Albertans.

Continue reading →

QP: We created two independent panels!

Posted on by

Both the prime minister and his deputy were in the House together for the first QP in weeks, which is always nice to see. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, he asked if any public servants, security officials, or police inform the prime minister of Beijing’s alleged interference in elections. Justin Trudeau said that while security and police take foreign interference very seriously, he could assure Canadians that in the 2019 and 2021 elections, there was no foreign interference that could have changed any of the results in any significant way. Poilievre found the answer to be tricksy, and in English, wanted to know if there was any interference period. Trudeau pointed out that there is always some level of interference, be it cyber or disinformation, but they had assurances this was not an issue and that the elections were free and fair. Poilievre still was not satisfied, and asked again. Trudeau reiterated that they had the panel of top civil servants and national security who monitored both 2019 and 2021 and found no interference. Poilievre tried again, more slowly, if there were any briefings about alleged interference, period. Trudeau stated that he had no briefings, period, around foreign-funded candidates. Poilievre insisted this was a denial of an absurdity, and repeated yet again if he had any intelligence of any interference of any kind from Beijing during either election. Trudeau reiterated that the report from the non-partisan panel that there was no interference that impacted those elections.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the NDP, and raised that the RCMP was now investigating, and if democracy was at stake, the prime minister needed to know which alleged eleven candidates were in question. Trudeau repeated that all of the reports stated anything about any interference or funding directly or indirectly from China. Blanchet was not mollified and worried that Trudeau was somehow isolating China for the sake of grandstanding. Trudeau once again cited that China does try to interfere, which is why we work with allies to protect ourselves. 

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and worried about conservative premiers trying to privatise healthcare, and demanded the prime minister do something about that. Trudeau noted that on some days the NDP demand he send more money to premiers and today he was telling them not to, but any future transfers would be subject to the Canada Health Act. Singh switched to French and sounded concern about Quebec hospitals in particular, and Trudeau reiterated that they were working with provinces to deliver “real results.”

Continue reading →

QP: Being happy-clappy about dental care

Posted on by

While the PM was off at James Smith Cree Nation today, his deputy was present for the first time in a week. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he misquoted Tiff Macklem’s testimony at committee about the relationship between government deficits and inflation, and tried to wedge this into his facile narrative about blaming the government for it, and demanded the government reverse their deficits. Chrystia Freeland responded with the good news that this week, Canadians can start applying for the new dental claim benefit for children under twelve. Poilivre repeated his mendacious Macklem misquote and added in a quote from an insurance company that says they won’t accept heat pumps as primary sources of heat because they can’t be counted on to not freeze pipes, and demanded the government cancel their plan to “triple” the carbon price (which is not tripling). Freeland responded with her happy-clappy good news talking point about dental care, which was not the question, and then added in the country’s Aaa credit rating. Poilievre then worried about Canadians not being able to heat their homes in the winter and again demanded the government cancel the carbon price (which won’t do anything for affordability because the increases largely have to do with the world price of oil). Jonathan Wilkinson got up this time to note their affordability measures like doubling the GST credit, and pointed out that in spite of what the Conservatives say, the carbon price rebates benefit eight out of ten families and the Conservatives campaigned on a carbon price themselves. Poilievre then misquoted the PBO’s report on carbon prices, dropped his “triple, triple, triple” ear worm, and demanded the government cancel their planned carbon price increases. This time, Sean Fraser got up to declare that Poilievre’s questions were irrational, with his newfound opposition to heat pumps, when they are important to people who live in his part of the country, and pointed out that the cost of inaction is too great to ignore. Poilievre then pivoted to the recently announced Indo-Pacific Strategy, and a statement about challenging China for their abusive behaviours, and raised the wave of protests around that country, and he demanded that the government tell Beijing to let the protests go ahead. Maninder Sidhu got up to read a script about following the events closely, and that protesters should be able to do so peacefully.

Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc, and she worried about the allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 election, and in the absences of something more concrete from the government, wondered if the Global a news story was “fake news.” Marco Mendincino stood up to reminder her that they had an independent panel in both elections that declared that there was no interference. DeBellefeuille used this as an opportunity to make the case for a return to the per-vote subsidy as “protection” against this kind of interference, and this time Dominic LeBlanc got up to reiterate the same points.

Rachel Blaney for the NDP, and blamed Loblaws for rising food prices and demanded they pay their “fair share.” Freeland recited her well-worn talking points about corporations paying more in taxes, their Recovery Dividend, and their luxury taxes. Daniel Blaikie took over in French to repeat the same question, and Freeland recited the French version of her same talking points.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Botching the Asia-Pacific Strategy Rollout

Posted on by

The federal government launched their long-awaited Indo-Pacific Strategy yesterday, which was, well, a choice. They launched it on a Sunday morning at the same time as Canada was playing in a World Cup match, and didn’t provide journalists with a technical briefing beforehand as the usually do (the technical briefing will be today, which is after the ministers have all made themselves available to the media), so they were basically flying blind about trying to figure out what’s in it as the media availability was happening. This should not have happened, and I suspect this was the old trick of trying to make announcements on a Sunday in order to try and set the agenda and tone for the week (the Conservatives used to be big fans of this, but the Liberals rarely did).

https://twitter.com/ChrisGNardi/status/1596943087930335233

What we know about it so far is that it’s two years after it was initially promised to be delivered, there’s a lot of back-patting about how this is a major foreign policy shift, and that they are going to re-engage through the region with some added spending, slightly more military engagement in the region (eventually), and maybe some intelligence operations in the area as well. I’m sure we’ll learn more later today, but yeah, the government made a lot of choices today in their communications strategy, and what do we say about this government’s communications strategies? That they can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, and well, they proved that once again yesterday. Slow clap, guys.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1596925774044405760

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1596927851130851329

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 278:

There is a renewed evacuation of Kherson now that it has been liberated (though they are fleeing to Ukrainian-held regions and not Russian-held areas) as Russia has stepped up its attacks on the liberated city, while they deal with a loss of critical infrastructure. Power and water have been restored in Kyiv, but the mood is sombre as blackouts still continue because of the damage to infrastructure as winter is setting in.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More Macklem misquotes

Posted on by

I’m going to revisit more of Tiff Macklem’s appearance at the Commons finance committee, because things he said were being taken wildly out of context in Question Period yesterday, and we all have an obligation to call out egregious bullshit when we hear it. For example, when Macklem admits that stimulus may have been applied for too long, nobody knew if it was safe to withdraw it yet and they were operating on best guesses and advice from observers, and more to the point, the Bank was also engaged in forward guidance, and they needed  a cycle to wind that back before raising rates, otherwise they risked damaging their reputation as doing what they way they’re going to. This is a very important consideration for a central bank. As well, the questions about the level of spending during the height of the pandemic and whether that led to more inflationary stimulus ignores that it was impossible to better target supports like CERB because the government and its IT structure had no real ability to do that. That’s why the used the CRA’s system to kludge together CERB as quickly as they did—there wasn’t an ability to be more targeted (even though it was temporary). Trying to elicit quotes to blame the government for inflation is both cheap and intellectually dishonest, but that’s pretty much par for the course these days.

Meanwhile, former governor Stephen Poloz told an audience at Western that the economy is much more sensitive to interest rate hikes than it was ten years ago, so we should start seeing inflation start to fall shortly, but he also stated that it will only get part of the job done, so other policy action will be needed to get inflation back to its target zone. This said, Poloz also says that it’s impossible to say if rates were hiked too much over a short period, because as we should know by now, inflation can move about 18 months later than the rate changes happens, so stay tuned.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 275:

As Russian bombing of critical infrastructure continue, people in Kyiv are collecting rainwater to survive, while Kherson is facing renewed attacks. Russia is openly admitting to these attacks now, claiming it’s about disrupting military command and control and stopping the flow of ammunition, never mind that they’re openly admitting to war crimes as they do.

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 →

QP: Concern about Atlantic Canada’s incoming federal carbon price

Posted on by

Though the prime minister was in town, while his deputy was not, neither were present in QP, either in person or virtually. Pierre Poileivre led off in French, and he led off with a complete misquote about what the prime minister said about interest rates, blamed the government for the Bank of Canada’s rate hikes, and demand the government stop its so-called “inflationary policies” that he said were pushing people to bankruptcy. Randy Boissonnault noted that there is an affordability crisis world-wide, which was why the government has a plan, and exhorted the Conservatives to support the budget bill when it was up for a vote after QP. Poilievre switched to English to decry that three Atlantic Canadian provinces will be subject to the federal carbon price backstop on July 1st, insisted that 40 percent of them are already living in energy poverty, and deployed his “triple, triple, triple” ear worm to demand that the government scrap its carbon price. Steven Guilbeault noted that there is no increase in carbon prices before July 1st, not during the winter, and that those three provinces will start receiving their climate rebates before that happened. Poilievre declared that the carbon price hasn’t worked because no province that has imposed it has met their targets (not entirely true), lamented the low ranking of our climate action, falsely claimed that 60 percent of people pay more in carbon prices than they get back, and again demanded the price be scrapped. Guilbeault recited that it was a fact that eight of ten households will get more back than they pay, and demanded the Conservatives release their own climate plan. Andrew Scheer got up to take over, and repeated same list of the falsehoods about the carbon price, demanded the government accept the science, and dropped the “not an environmental plan but a tax plan” point (take a drink!) Guilbeault got up to poke back, citing that the Conservatives don’t believe in science, and offered up the proof that when they were in government, their minister of science didn’t even believe in evolution, and it was a fact that emissions did decline in 2019 and 2020. Scheer stood back up and got breathier as he listed a number of false talking points about the carbon price and the environmental record of the government, and decried that three more provinces would be subjected to the federal price. Guilbeault recited that they have a great climate plan, unlike the Conservatives, because they had to play catch-up after ten years of Conservative inaction.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he accused the government of being reckless with their response to the news reports about alleged foreign interference in the 2019 election from China. Pam Damoff got up and read that the talking points about this being a serious issue and they ensured the election was free and fair. Therrien insisted that the issue was not the integrity of that election, it was the lack of transparency from the government on this. Damoff read that they established the independent panel and insisted that they have their eyes wide open, which is why they passed laws to close loopholes on foreign funding.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he recited the party’s angry talking points about grocery chain CEOs. Randy Boissonnault recited that the issue of food price inflation is global but they have tasked the Competition Bureau with ensuring there was no price gouging. Blake Desjarlais took over in English to cite the reports that Loblaws was firing the unionised workers in their Edmonton warehouse—which is not a federal issue—and Andy Fillmore repeated Boissonnault’s talking points in English. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The false binary in MAiD coverage

Posted on by

The stories about the hearings on expanding the Medical Assistance in Dying regime continue apace, complete with lurid tales of people threatening to access MAiD for reasons of poverty rather than because they want to die at this particular moment of whatever condition they suffer that makes them eligible, and almost all of them frame it as the federal government forcing people to die. Althia Raj’s latest column was literally titled “Why does the Trudeau government leave people no option but to take their own lives?” before it was changed several hours later, which may or may not have been because I pointed out the fact that disability supports and housing are provincial responsibilities and not the responsibility of the federal government, who are concerned only with the Criminal Code prohibitions against providing MAiD.

Once again, provinces are being let off the hook for their own responsibilities to care for these vulnerable people. In all of the cases going to the media, it’s over areas that the province should have been responsive to, but we also know that they have been in the business of legislating poverty for those who require disability supports, so it’s not a surprise, but it’s not something the federal government can just swoop down and fix. Yes, they have committed to their disability benefit, which is still in still at committee and will take time to implement because of the complexity of dealing with provincial programmes and most especially ensuring that any federal benefits don’t mean that provincial ones are clawed back (like several provinces did with CERB payments, because again, they are legislating poverty), but even this federal support does not make it a federal responsibility, nor should it impact the considerations for the Criminal Code provisions around providing MAiD to those who request it. That road leads to “perfect world” thinking, where people will be made to suffer needlessly because premiers can’t do their jobs. (Full disclosure: My mother accessed MAiD when she had terminal cancer, and was afforded a good and dignified death).

I also think that there is a growing media ethics problem where we are seeing an increasing number of these stories with either unverified accounts of people who accessed MAiD for seemingly illegitimate purposes (though they obviously had a qualifying condition), or those who are taking to the media to threaten to access MAiD if they can’t get supports they need, as is the case cited in Raj’s column. The framing of these stories is often badly flawed, the facts usually unclear, and frankly, it is emboldening people to use the lurid threats of suicide (albeit medically assisted) in order to draw attention to their plight. Media outlets need to start reconsidering how this is being covered, because the number of these stories appears to be on the rise, and it doesn’t help anyone when things are covered in such a way.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 272:

The damage to the electrical system in the country has president Volodymyr Zelenskyy urging Ukrainians to conserve electricity where possible and to think about options that will help them wait out long outages. He also said that people from liberated Kherson can apply to relocate to places where security and heating issues are less acute, considering how much of Kherson’s civilian infrastructure was destroyed. Here is more about how Kyiv is dealing with the blackouts.

Continue reading →