Tag Archives: Environment

Roundup: Climate policy gains

Posted on by

How many times have we been told in Question Period that the Liberal haven’t met any of their climate targets, or that their carbon price hasn’t reduced any emissions, or the “it’s not an environment plan, it’s a tax plan!” bullshit? Setting aside the fact that the Liberals’ targets aren’t until 2030, and it’s Harper’s targets (that he had zero intention of actually meeting) that haven’t been met, it turns out that actually, the Liberals’ climate plans are having an effect, and it’s not just the economic slowdown and stay-at-home orders from the pandemic that are causing it. Imagine that!

Ukraine Dispatch:

During his visit to Krakow, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Ukraine is prepared to take “corresponding action” if their positions around Bakhmut are about to be encircled, but they are not at that point. He also said that Poland would help form a “warplane coalition” to help get planes to Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1643702530541486081

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1643639486205575169

Programming Note: I plan to take a full four-day weekend, so regular posts should resume on Wednesday morning.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An abuse of parliamentary privilege

Posted on by

I’m going to start off with the caveat that I don’t know a lot of what is happening in Nova Scotia politics, but I came across this story yesterday that is pretty concerning for the practice of parliamentary democracy across Canada. During debate on a bill around use of non-disclosure agreements in sexual assault cases, an independent MLA (formerly a Progressive Conservative but was ejected from caucus in 2021) tabled a document that she claimed was a non-disclosure agreement that a former female staffer had been coerced into signing with the PC Party. (To make things more interesting, said staffer died last year, and was working for this MLA at the time, and she says the document was found in the staffer’s effects—and, the party’s former leader was forced out over inappropriate behaviour toward a female staffer, so I’m not sure how many of these factors actually connect).

A government minister has since moved a motion to force her to retract her comments about the incident, and if she doesn’t, that she should be ejected from the Chamber until she does. And that’s a capital-P Problem. Said independent MLA has since complained to the province’s justice department that the move is unconstitutional…but the justice department can’t do anything about it, because this is clearly a matter that is within parliamentary privilege. But it absolutely violates all of our constitutional norms, and should be a warning sign about the lengths to which parties will abuse their majorities in legislatures to silence or bully opposition members. It sounds like the provincial Liberals and NDP will be opposing this motion, but the PCs do have a majority, so they may not be able to do much in the long run. I would not be surprised if the Speaker finds that the motion is out of order, but this is genuinely frightening about how much they are willing to abuse process and parliamentary privilege like this.

Don’t get me wrong—parliament or the legislatures do have the power to eject members, but it needs to be for very serious wrongdoing, such as being convicted of a serious crime, and if the member refuses to resign gracefully, then they can order the seat vacated. But those are extreme circumstances that have yet to be actually tested (because in virtually every case, sanity prevails and they resign with a shred of dignity still intact). But this is an unconscionable abuse of that power, an abuse of a parliamentary majority, and sets a very dangerous precedent for the future, and the PC members who thought this was at all appropriate should not only be ashamed, but should probably consider tendering their resignations for this debacle.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they repelled 45 Russian attacks around Bakhmut over a twenty-four-hour period, continuing to grind down the Russian forces while they await more arms from allies like the US in order to begin the spring counter-offensive.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1643326962226585604

Continue reading →

Roundup: It wasn’t just social housing

Posted on by

A speech by NDP MP Daniel Blaikie is making the rounds in which he blames the rising housing unaffordability on the federal government vacating the social housing space in 1993, and that this is all the consequence of that. As economist Mike Moffatt explains, this isn’t actually true. But that’s one of the issues with the NDP—they have singular narratives that they must fit things into, whether it’s true or not, and singular policy prescriptions to go along with them. (Yes, other parties do this to, to greater or lesser extents).

Anyway, here’s Moffatt on the more complicated picture. (Full thread here, select portions below).

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642488918435155970

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642489599900495872

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642490391969636355

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642491809065574401

Ukraine Dispatch:

Wagner Group mercenaries are again claiming victory in Bakhmut, not for the first time, while Ukrainian forces again insist they remain in control of the territory. Russians shelled the eastern city of Kostiantynivka, killing six civilians and wounding eight others. Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials are outlining plans for what to do with Crimea once they have recaptured it, and those plans include dismantling the bridge to Russia. Here is a look at the Canadian training programme for Ukrainian soldiers in teaching them how to check for booby-traps and mines in captured territory.

https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1642087035715420160

Continue reading →

Roundup: No political interference, and an incompetent commissioner

Posted on by

The final report of the Mass Casualty Commission, arising from the Nova Scotia mass shooting, was released yesterday, and it is wholly damning on the RMCP, as well as on the state of gun control measures. While I have a column about RCMP reform coming out later today, there were a couple of other threads that I wanted to pick up on here. One is that Trudeau says that they’ll make changes to the RCMP, but I’m dubious. Like the column will point out, there’s almost nothing left to save, and I fear that inertia will carry the day—especially when Saskatchewan starts bellyaching about recommendations to phase out training at Depot in Regina, and provincialism will win the day.

The other is that the whole drama around allegations of political interference in the investigation have been resolved, and unsurprisingly, there wasn’t any. “[Commissioner Brenda] Lucki’s audio recorded remarks about the benefits to police of proposed firearms legislation were ill-timed and poorly expressed, but they were not partisan and they do not show that there had been attempted political interference,” the report concluded. Because the claims never made any sense. The gun control changes were not drawn up on the back of a napkin in the wake of the shooting—they had been worked on for months at this point, and were being finalised, and Lucki would have known that because she would have been consulted the whole way through. And there was no reason for the local detachment not to release that information because they knew where the guns came from, and there was no investigation to jeopardise. The report had a lot of things to day about the RCMP needing to be more transparent, and to learn how to admit mistakes, and yes, it did call out that they were actively lying to the public throughout the incident and its aftermath.

One of the other aspects yesterday that deserves to be called out even more is that the interim RCMP Commissioner was given the report the day before, and he couldn’t be bothered to read it, or to have an adequate briefing on its contents, before he went before the media. It’s rank incompetence, and all the more reason why the Force needs to be disbanded.

Ukraine Dispatch:

At least six Russian missiles hit the city of Kharkiv yesterday. Here is a look at Bucha, one year since its liberation.

Continue reading →

QP: Ignoring the Mass Casualty report

Posted on by

The prime minister was away in Truro, Nova Scotia, for the release of the Mass Casualty Commission report, while his deputy was on the west coast getting a head start on selling her budget to the public. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he accused the government censoring debate on a bill that would censor what people can watch online—which is a complete fabrication, because closure is not censorship, and Bill C-11 is about making web giants pay into CanCon funds and has nothing to do with censorship—saying that the bill would give “woke” Ottawa control over Quebeckers’ media, called out the Bloc for supporting the bill, and instead that only the Conservatives stand against censorship. Greg Fergus got up and insisted there is a consensus in Quebec that artists deserve to be paid, and only the Conservatives are offside. Poilievre insisted there was no culture without freedom of expansion, accused the government disinformation, said that Margaret Atwood opposes the bill (note: she did not understand what was in it, but was taken in by misinformation), he called the CRTC a “woke agency” (which is risible), said they could use algorithms to censor debate (false), and insisted that Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was not an instruction manual. Fergus insisted that these were just the same talking points of Big Tech, and that the Conservatives won’t stand against them. Poilievre insisted that the bill would shut down any voices they don’t like, and demanded to know why the prime minister was shutting down debate. Fergus insisted that web giants are not paying their fair share, and wondered why the opposition was against that. Poilievre tried to insist this was about free speech, and tried to use a prop before he got warned about it by the Speaker. Mark Holland got up this time, and used his sanctimonious tone to admonish the Conservatives for pretending that anyone in the Chamber doesn’t believe in free speech, and that they have the free speech enough to go around the country spreading misinformation. Poilievre insisted that he would keep beating the government in debate, before switching to the topic of carbon prices, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on carbon prices and insisting it “proved” the Liberals were wrong (never mind they cherry pick figures and butcher the statistics and distributional effects). Terry Duguid recited the good news talking points about rebate in return. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he raised the money for countering foreign interference in the budget, and demanded a public inquiry. Maninder Sidhu read talking points about those line items. Therrien insisted that this was proof that they already had concluded what David Johnston would find and demanded a public inquiry, and this time, Mark Holland got up to sing Johnston’s praise.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and he raised the conclusion of Mass Casualty Commission report and demanded immediate funds for victims of domestic violence. Pam Damoff recited that they will examine the report and come back with actions in due course. Alexandre Boulerice took over in French, and demanded the government copy Joe Biden’s green industrial policy. Seamus O’Regan insisted that the projects will be built either by union jobs or paid prevailing union wages, which was proof they were on the right track.

Continue reading →

QP: Facile questions about the deficit

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town and in his office, he was not available for QP on Wednesday as is his usual practice, as he was instead speaking virtually at the Summit for Democracy, before he and his deputy whisked off to a photo op. That’s right—the day after Budget Day, and the finance minister was also absent from the Chamber. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and both gave several falsehoods about deficits and inflation before complaining there was no path to balance in the budget. Randy Boissonnault pointed out the measures to help, and that this was a budget about hope. Poilievre listed four things that Chrystia Freeland said last year that he deemed false (to varying degrees of veracity), and wondered how anyone could trust anything this government says. Boissonnault listed the declining deficit and low debt-servicing charges. Poilievre returned to French to complain the government has “lost control” of finances, and this time François-Philippe Champagne said that it was the Conservatives who were disconnected because the government did the three things that Canadians were asking of them. Poilievre switched back to English to worry about people living in their parents’ basement while the country “goes broke.” (It’s not going broke). This time Karina Gould got up to decry that the Conservatives had already declared they were going to vote against things like the grocery rebate and supports for families. Poilievre denounced the budget as “tax and squander,” and once again, Gould reiterated the things the Conservatives were voting against.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he listed measures that were not green, and wanted an admission that money was going to oil companies. Steven Guilbeault said that this was not the case, and quoted the David Suzuki Foundation’s praise. Blanchet complained the budget was anti-Quebec because it meddles in provincial jurisdiction on things like dental care, but Guilbeault just kept reading praise for the budget.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, patted himself on the back for the things in the budget he liked, and said that if the government needs more ideas, they can tackle the housing crisis. Ahmed Hussen recited the elements of the National Housing Strategy that he trots out. Singh repeated his backpatting in French, and this time, Irek Kusmierczyk read their plans about reforming EI, and that it is on the way.

Continue reading →

QP: Launching a new, unconstitutional talking point

Posted on by

It was a surprise that the prime minister was present when he wasn’t initially planning to be, though most of the other leaders weren’t. Pierre Poilievre led in French, demanding to know if the debt-to-GDP ratio would fall in the coming budget. Justin Trudeau responded that he knew everyone was on tenterhooks waiting to hear what is in the budget, but reiterated what their priorities are. Poilievre changed to English, listed the number of violent deaths in the past few days and demanded the prime ministers reverse the policies that made this happen. Trudeau said that while they are concerned, they have invested in public safety while the Conservatives cut funding to them. Poilievre insisted that in Vancouver, 40 repeat offenders were arrested 6000 times in a year, and demanded the prime minster “replace bail with jail.” (That is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Trudeau said that if the Conservatives were concerned, they would support their gun control bill. Poilievre insisted that the government was letting violent criminals go free, and Trudeau accused the Conservatives of distracting away from their opposition to gun control bill. Poilievre made a number of specious correlations, pretended there was causation, called it “evidence,” and Trudeau said that the Conservatives loosened gun control which caused the spike in violent crime. (Erm, not sure that’s true either).

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, raised the allegations against Han Dong, and accused the government of being asleep at the switch. Trudeau cautioned Therrien of being sure of his facts so that he doesn’t mislead the House, and stated that the government took actions where necessary. Therrien wondered if Trudeau was naïve or incompetent and demanded an immediate public inquiry. Trudeau said this was just the Bloc trying to score points rather than getting to the bottom of things, which is why we should count on David Johnston.

Heather McPherson rose for the NDP, and noted that Ukrainians in Canada on visitor visas can access training programmes, to which Trudeau noted that he did sit down with union leaders, gave some bland statements about supporting Ukrainians while growing the economy. Lisa Marie Barron worried about seniors who can’t make ends meet, and that single seniors pay more in taxes than their coupled counterparts, and Trudeau insisted that they did increased the GIS for single seniors, which the NDP voted against.

Continue reading →

QP: Harvesting clips demanding no new taxes

Posted on by

In between Biden’s visit and tomorrow’s budget, the prime minister was present for a somewhat rare Monday appearance, not not every other leader was. Pierre Poilievre led of in French, and he decried a supposed “war on work” that punishes people with taxes, which is a risible talking point. Justin Trudeau had a script in front of him as he noted how many hundreds of thousand of children they lifted out of poverty thanks to the Child Benefit, plus their child care and dental care programmes that the Conservatives voted against. Poilievre repeated it in English, and got largely the same response from Trudeau, this time without script, and with added mentions of clean energy jobs and the Canada Worker Benefit. Poilievre insisted that the  government was constantly raising taxes—factually wrong—and demanded no new taxes in the new budget. Trudeau pointed out they lowered small business taxes and created more supports for workers and families that delivered growth, taking a shot at trickle down economics. Poilievre insisted that Trudeau was the only one believing in trickle down as he scoops up all the money, insisted that he was right about deficits causing inflation (he’s not), and again demanded no new taxes. Trudeau insisted that they were “laser-focused” on growing the economy for Canadians. Poilievre segued this to doubling housing prices and demanded “serious penalties” in the budget for “gatekeepers,” to which Trudeau recited housing measures the government was taking.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded a public inquiry for allegations of foreign interference. Trudeau, with a script, read that they have tasked the “unimpeachable” David Johnston with determining next steps while NSICOP and NSIRA conducted their own investigations. Therrien then took swipes at Jean Chrétien’s comments that he wasn’t concerned about the problem, and Trudeau insisted that this was the Bloc trying to make partisan attacks over a serious issue.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he cited a CBC article that says that millennials are at higher rates of insolvency and demanded measures to help youth in the budget. Trudeau, again with a script, listed measures they are taking for housing. Singh switched to French to ask if the government was putting a “grocery rebate” in the budget as reported, and Trudeau told him to wait for tomorrow like everyone else.

Continue reading →

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 →