Tag Archives: Ethics

QP: The “refusing to rule out” ploy

Posted on by
1

On a bright and sunny Tuesday in the nation’s capital, both the prime minister and his deputy were present for QP, as were most of the other leaders (some of whom stated they would be here but were not). Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he worried that the city of Montreal has requested the “legalization of hard drugs” in their communities, and wanted an admission that what happened in BC was a “deadly mistake,” lest the prime minister repeat the same problem. Trudeau reminded him that they are working with BC on modifying their project, and that they are working only with provinces, and no other requests have been made. Poilievre switched to a English to ask if the prime minster supports decriminalisation for using drugs in parks, hospitals or public transit, and Trudeau repeated his answer. Poilievre pointed out that Trudeau refused to answer his question, and suspected it means he wants to impose the same “radical” policy elsewhere. Trudeau said that nobody supports that, but that Poilievre was trying to use tragedies to score political points, and took a jab at Poilievre for willing to suspend Charter rights if he feels it suits him. Poilievre accused the prime minister of secretly planning to impose “legalisation” on Toronto, and Trudeau reminded him that they will only with with provinces, not the municipalities directly. Poilievre said that Trudeau was not ruling out future extensions, which was obviously ridiculous, before he accused the prime minister of killing more people in the meantime. Trudeau said that they only took three days to approve BC’s completed request, and that the opposition was only scoring cheap points.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and accused the government of threatening French, to which Trudeau gave a paean about defending the French language and language minorities around the country, while the Bloc was just picking fights. Blanchet raised comments by an MP about “extremists,” and Trudeau said that they stand for protecting French across the country. 

Peter Julian rose for the NDP in French, and took swipes at Conservatives for not supporting pharmacare legislation, and exhorted the government to support them in passing it (which is dumb, because it’s the government who needs their support as it’s government legislation). Trudeau thanked the NDP for their support, and said that the Conservatives were against it because their anti-choice members opposed contraception. Leah Gazan took the question in English, with more of an emphasis on birth control instead of diabetes, and Trudeau repeated his same response. 

Continue reading →

QP: Scoring more points on opioid victims

Posted on by
Reply

The prime minister was in town today but not in QP, though his deputy was. Most of the other leaders were also away, leaving Andrew Scheer to lead off, where he asked for the date at which the prime minister would like make it illegal to smoke crack in a hospital room. Chrystia Freeland said that BC approached the federal government with a pilot project, the government shares their concerns, and they are working then to adapt the programme, but MPs shouldn’t score political points off of this tragedy. Scheer tried a second time, and Freeland gave a paean to working together to solve these problems, and that relayed that she spoke to premier Eby about their cooperation in working on this, while opioid addiction is a tragedy. Scheer then cherry-picked data on BC’s opioid fatalities, and ignored the increasing rates in Alberta and BC. Freeland again said that she has been in touch with the premier on the issue and they are working collaboratively, and not fundraising off of the pain and death of desperate people. Luc Berthold took over in French, and worried about crack use “exploding” in Montreal, and demanded a preemptive no to any similar projects in Montreal. Freeland slowly annunciated that abC has a pilot project and now has concerns that they will be working together to address, and that these tragedies require putting partisanship aside. Bethold tried to implicate the Bloc in any decriminalisation in Quebec, and Freeland repeated this is a tragedy, and said that what is really extremist and radical are white supremacist policies, and wanted Conservatives to denounce them.

Luc Therrien led for the Bloc, and raised a newspaper story about a “rapprochement” between CBC and Radio-Canada and demanded they never be merged. Freeland insisted that they will always support the French broadcaster. Therrien demanded that each half be made fully independent—which would never work because Radio-Canada requires CBC’s infrastructure. Freeland repeated that they will always support French in Canada.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and started shouting about the government’s environmental record, to which Freeland insisted that this government has done more for the environment than any previous government in Canadian history, but they are doing more. Don Davies took credit for the capital gains changes, and wondered why the Liberals are maintaining Conservatives’ “corporate giveaways.” Freeland noted it was great that the NDP supports tax fairness, and that nurses and carpenters should pay the same taxes as CEOs, and noted Conservative silence on this fairness.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Blaming Trudeau for rent hikes

Posted on by

The Conservatives put out a press release yesterday decrying just how much rent has increased across the country. The problem? Landlord-tenant legislation is a provincial issue, and most of the premiers have resisted rent controls or price caps, mostly for ideological reasons. If indeed rent controls stifle new construction, well, removing them hasn’t spurred it either.

If this is about the market, the federal government hasn’t been in the business of building rental housing since the eighties, and I have seen zero indication that Poilievre would want to get back into that particular line of work. Worse, his release falsely calls the CMHC “Trudeau’s own,” which is a gross mischaracterisation of an arm’s-length Crown corporation that the federal government doesn’t dictate operations to. (This is a rhetorical device Poilievre has been employing a lot, which nobody ever calls him out on either, and that’s a problem). In fact, the government’s decision to remove the GST on purpose-built rentals has given more indications that this will spur development more than any other action so far, but of course, those will take time, which Poilievre is also dismissing with his shtick about people not being able to live in photo-ops.

There has also been the line that this goes back to government spending allegedly raising inflation (false), and that that has raised interest rates, which is what is driving up rental prices, but again, that’s not actually Trudeau’s doing given the global issues with inflation and raising rates to tame it. But Poilievre and his minions would prefer to lie about everything in order to make people angry, because that’s the goal. Facts don’t matter, and that’s a problem for everyone.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Recent Russian air strikes have been focused on Ukraine’s military-industrial complex, however the threat to attacks on energy infrastructure remains high. Ukraine is taking credit for destroying a Russian surveillance plane and an airborne command post. Ukraine’s ground forces commander confirms they are now engaged in “active defence,” but doesn’t rule out further counter-offensive operations. Switzerland has agreed to host a global peace summit at the request of president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, you can’t challenge a censure motion in court

Posted on by

Ontario MPP Sarah Jama has written to Doug Ford to ask him to retract his motion in the legislature to censure her and prevent her from speaking until she offers an apology for the comments she made at the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict. In it, Jama says that if Ford doesn’t, she’ll take the matter to the courts. The problem? The courts won’t touch any kind of legislative censure motion because it falls under the issue of parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers.

We have to remember that Parliament and the legislatures are self-governing, as they should be. That’s what keeps them independent of the powers of the King—and yes, the courts to count as the powers of the King, as the King is the fount of justice, and justice is carried out in his name. (That’s also why we have a doctrine by which the King can do no wrong, but rather, can merely act on bad advice, and the minister who offered that is responsible for it). Part of that self-governing power is the legislature’s ability to discipline its members, which is important because you don’t want an external authority able to do that, because it can create a great deal of interference in the workings of your legislature.

This being said, the fact that she was censured at all is a problem, and as I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago, is part of a broader pattern that his happening that is extremely concerning (and is almost always hypocritically done by parties who claim to be all about free speech, but reveal themselves to only be pro-speech they like). And it should be up to voters to discipline parties that are abusing these powers to punish those they disagree with, but that also means keeping up the pressure on them so that they know that they are going to be punished for it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine says that in spite of that Liberian-flagged ship getting hit by a Russian missile, their alternative Black Sea corridor is working. Really! President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is also hoping for a conference next month on a joint weapon production agreement with the US and defence contractors.

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.

Continue reading →

QP: Uproar over calling out misinformation

Posted on by

The prime minister was in the Bahamas for CARICOM meetings, and his deputy elsewhere, most of the other leaders were again away from the Chamber. Andrew Scheer led off, with a script in front of him, and he demanded the prime minister “take responsibility” for “waste and corruption” that caused inflation, which is utter bunkum. Ahmed Hussen chided the Conservatives for delaying and voting against rental supplements for two million Canadians. Scheer insisted that this was all about the Liberals giving contracts to friends—which is a bit rich considering how much he helped himself to party funds when he was leader. Mark Holland got up and praised their work in lowering poverty and reducing unemployment. Scheer railed about wage subsidies to profitable corporations, and then went on a tirade about Liberal ethics lapses. François-Philippe Champagne accused the Conservatives of talking down the country and gave a non sequitur of praise for an electric vehicle project. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French and called out the Bloc for voting in favour of Bill C-5 on reducing some mandatory minimum sentences, which is very strange. David Lametti praised their supports for victims. Paul-Hus raised a particular sexual assault case, and repeated his accusations, and this time Lametti said he couldn’t comment on a particular case which could still be appealed, but reiterated that Bill C-5 was about tackling systemic racism in the justice system.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he once again raised concerns about Liberals raising objections to the amendments to the official languages bill. Ginette Petitpas Taylor praised that the bill will given new powers to the Languages Commissioner. Therrien tried calling out individual Liberals, and this time Pablo Rodriguez said the Bloc were going to vote against it anyway, so what did it matter.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he railed about rising rental prices, which is provincial jurisdiction. Hussen praised their housing measures. Singh repeated the question in French, and this time Randy Boissonnault acknowledged the NDP’s support in the measures they passed.

Continue reading →

QP: The kings of misinformation

Posted on by

The prime minister was absent, somewhat unusually for a Wednesday, jetting off to the Bahamas for a CARICOM meeting to discuss the situation in Haiti. His deputy was also absent though in town, and even Pierre Poilievre was away, spending the day in Calgary. Melissa Lantsman led off with a script in front of her, and she went on a disappointed tirade about the government constantly breaking the law, and raised the Ethics Commissioner’s report on Greg Fergus, and wondered why nobody gets fired. Mark Holland said that Fergus apologised and was trying to promote a Black business in his riding, but realised his error. Lantsman listed other past ethics violations and wondered why nobody got fired. Holland said it was important that everyone show up and do their best, and then praised their economic record and poverty reduction. Lantsman tried a third time, and Holland said that the government is trying to shepherd the country though some of the most difficult economic times since the Second World War. Luc Berthold took over in French and worried about people not meeting their financial needs and blamed the prime minister for it. Pascale St-Onge noted that while times are difficult, they are ensuring supports for people who need it. Berthold tried again, and this time Randy Boissonnault gave the usual talking points about the Conservatives voting against supports for people.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he blamed the government for underfunding healthcare, and Adam van  Koeverden read a script about the deal the government has imposed on the provinces and what it entails. Blanchet railed that the money was not enough, and this time Pablo Rodriguez enthused about how great the deal was, and how it only bad news for the Bloc.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the Bloc and railed about private clinics that are operating in the country, to which van Koeverden recited by rote the talking points about upholding the public system. Singh repeated the question in French, and van Koeverden read the French version of the same talking points.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith’s Nice History of Canada

Posted on by

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

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 353:

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

Continue reading →

QP: Like an interminable rerun

Posted on by

For caucus day, all of the leaders were present, which has been nice to see more consistently over the course of the week, for as long as this is going to last. Pierre Poilievre led off, and in French, asked how much the federal government had spent on contracts with McKinsey. Justin Trudeau said that he asked the deputy prime minister, the minister of public service as the president of the Treasury Board to follow up to ensure all rules had been followed, and that they are open and transparent with the committee. In English, Poilievre asked the same question again, and lamented that McKinsey is shrouded in scandal. Trudeau repeated his same response, noting that most of those contracts were signed by the public service. Poilievre quoted a previous Trudeau statement about his recruiting Dominic Barton, and demanded again to know how much they got paid. Trudeau noted that he has been touched by the number of Canadians of extraordinary backgrounds who have asked to contribute to the country, and Barton was someone who served the country; with regards to the contracts, he repeated his previous response. Poilievre accused Trudeau of never taking responsibility, and shed some crocodile tears about the civil servants feeling undervalued by those McKinsey contracts—never mind the history that the Conservatives and Poilievre personally had with using outside consultants because they didn’t trust the civil service—and again demanded a figure for those contracts. Trudeau mouthed some platitudes about supporting Canadians through a difficult time with direct supports. Poilievre listed mortgage prices, the cost of rent, the number of people going to food banks and blaming the carbon price for that (which is specious to say the least), and somehow tying this to the use of consultants, and his pathetic “just inflation” line. Trudeau said that while the Conservatives focus on schoolyard taunts, he’s helping Canadians.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, mentioned his meeting with the new special representative for combatting Islamophobia, Amira Elghawaby, and wanted Trudeau to admit that he did things indirectly. Trudeau noted that there are difficult conversations that needed to be had around the country, such as systemic racism, which is why they appointed Elghawaby in the first place. Blanchet wanted the prime minister to say that Quebec’s Law 21 is not Islamophobic, but Trudeau gave some platitudes about learning together. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he blamed the prime minister for the growing nursing deficit across the country, which is solely a provincial issue. Trudeau noted that they sent billions of dollars to the provinces in the pandemic, and they were sitting down with premiers next week to discuss next steps. Singh made the same accusation in French, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A failure to condemn Carlson

Posted on by

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

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

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 343:

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

Continue reading →