Tag Archives: First Nations

QP: Was there a briefing two years ago?

Posted on by

While the prime minister was present today, his deputy was off to Washington DC, but the other party leaders were all present today, so a show was to be had. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, railed that it had been two years since the allegation about threats to Michael Chong’s family, demanded to know when he knew, and why the diplomat in the story was not yet expelled. Justin Trudeau took exception to the characterisation, said that the information he received after yesterday’s story was that measures were taken to protect measures when they are in the spotlight of foreign actors, and that he reached out to Michael Chong directly. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the same allegations, and Trudeau reiterated his same response. Poilievre repeated the key elements of the story more slowly, and demanded that the diplomat in question be expelled. Trudeau again took exception to the characterisation of what happened, said that those kinds of accusations were unworthy of members of this House. Poilievre insisted that the government knew about the threats to years ago—with no proof that this made its way up the chain—and Trudeau repeated that this wasn’t true, and that where is action to take, it is taken. Poilievre insisted that Trudeau was only interested in his political reputation, and demanded the diplomatic immunity of that “agent” be taken away. Trudeau once again said this wasn’t true, and that nobody would simply sit on a threat to a colleague.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, said he didn’t see anything false in the Conservatives’ questions, and tried to turn this into a question on the Trudeau Foundation, and Trudeau insisted that political interference is not allowed and legal processes will go forward as necessary. Blanchet tried again to wedge on the Foundation, and Trudeau recited that he hasn’t had any involvement for a decade.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he too accused the prime minister of doing nothing on the alleged Chong briefing for two years, and demanded to know why Chong wasn’t informed at the time. Trudeau said it would be outrageous if someone sat on a threat for two years, and that is not what happened. Singh switched to French, and railed that the prime minister should have known at the time, and demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau insisted that they did act starting in 2015 with a G7 mechanism with allies to fight interference, plus the election monitoring panel, and the creation of NSICOP and NSIRA.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Allegations and reactions to reports of targeting an MP’s family

Posted on by

The big news that dominated much of the discourse yesterday was that Globe and Mail story that a secret intelligence document from two years ago says that the Chinese regime sees Canada as a priority target for foreign interference because we don’t have a foreign agent registry, and said that they were targeting Conservative MP Michael Chong’s family in Hong Kong, and that a Chinese diplomat in Canada was working on the matter. This of course turned into the daily outrage—Chong decried that he wasn’t warned about this, and then we saw the dog and pony show in Question Period. Justin Trudeau said that after reading the Globe story he has asked his officials to look into this document, and called the matter unacceptable. Oh, and two of those so-called Chinese “police stations” appear to still be in operation in the Montreal area, in spite of the RCMP saying they’d shut them down. So, there’s that.

https://twitter.com/MichaelChongMP/status/1653044204438732803

But here’s the thing—Chong isn’t an idiot, even if he sometimes plays one in Question Period, and should have known that his family there did face risks. Activists from these diaspora communities here have been saying it for years, and many have pointed to the fact that they deliberately don’t have contact with their family members back home in order to try to protect them. Chong shouldn’t have needed a CSIS briefing to know if his family in Hong Kong was under threat—he should have put two-and-two together on his own, given how outspoken he is about the regime. (Update: Behold, two years ago he stated he was doing just that). Trying to blame the government sounds particularly disingenuous because I know that Chong knows better, even if he wants to playact shock and outrage for the cameras in order to score points. There is a better way to deal with these allegations of foreign interference without these kinds of drama camp antics.

Meanwhile, Canada’s self-appointed media critic is in full braying doofus mode, and has some thoughts about journalistic ethics around media outlets reporting (or not) on leaked documents that they haven’t seen or been able to verify. Aside from the fact that CBC’s politics page did run the Canadian Press wire story about Chong’s reaction, Scheer should know how this works, right? Does he think that CBC can just call up the leaker and say “Hey, can we have a look at those documents too?” Well, it wouldn’t surprise me if he did believe that, but seriously—if he bothered to think it through for half a second, he would understand why CBC isn’t reporting on it, but that’s inconvenient for his narrative and his rage-farming, so here we are.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians fired another early-morning salvo of missiles at Ukraine, and of the 18 fired, 15 were brought down by air defences, leaving three to strike targets primarily in the eastern city of Pavlohrad, killing two and rounding 40; Kyiv did not suffer any strikes this time. Over in Bakhmut, Ukrainian forces have pushed Russians back from several parts of the city, and US estimates are that 100,000 Russian troops have been killed or wounded in the past five months (up to 20,000 of those killed), most of them in and around Bakhmut. Two Canadian volunteer soldiers fighting for Ukraine were killed in Bakhmut last week.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1653047560020414465

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1652911854501388290

Continue reading →

Roundup: The scope of the transition

Posted on by

As Alberta heads into an election, one can be certain that Danielle Smith is going to wield the threat of the supposed “just transition” as a cudgel to attack Justin Trudeau and Rachel Notley. Nevertheless, there are issues around the future of work in the province as the oil and gas extraction industry changes—a process that began years ago, and is currently far more automated than it used to be.

As Andrew Leach points out, the scale of the issue is something that the province will need to grapple with.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The death toll from the overnight strike in Uman has risen to 23, with another two deaths from a separate strike in Dnipro. Ukrainian leadership say that they are “to a high percentage ready” to launch their spring counter-offensive, and that modern weapons will serve as an “iron first.” Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy hosted the presidents of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, while seven foreign ministers met with Ukraine’s foreign minister in Odessa, all of whom were expressing support for Ukraine as Ukraine pushes for more modern aircraft.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1651966751268278272

Continue reading →

Roundup: Angst over a poor metric

Posted on by

A lot of ink (or, well, pixels, I supposed) has been spilled over the past week about those leaked documents where Justin Trudeau allegedly told NATO leadership privately that Canada will never reach the two percent of GDP defence spending target, which shouldn’t be a shock to anyone who has paid a modicum of attention. And while we get these kinds of analysis pieces that try to dig more into the two percent target and its significance, we have to remember that it’s a lousy metric. Greece has been above it for years because of a stagnant economy and including military pensions in their calculations—and you can easily get to 2 percent of GDP by tanking your economy, while growing your economy makes that spending target increase impossibly. The other thing that the two percent metric doesn’t capture is engagement—Canada routinely steps up to meet its NATO commitments even without reaching the spending target, while certain European countries may meet the spending target but don’t participate in these missions (again, looking at you, Greece, but not just Greece).

Part of the problem is that while this is a conversation that requires some nuance, the two percent target is too easy for journalists to focus on, and that becomes the sole focus. It’s a problem because We The Media keep reducing this to a single binary “are we meeting/not meeting that two percent” rate, which doesn’t help advance the conversation in any way, but most of us refuse to learn because a simple binary is easier to understand/convey.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Fighting continues in the western part of Bakhmut, as Wagner Group mercenaries are worried about the coming Ukrainian counter-offensive. Ukraine’s minister of digital transformation says that new technologies are going to help them win the war, particularly as they enhance the accuracy of modern artillery.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1649397099300093954

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions on regulatory efficacy

Posted on by

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

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

Ukraine Dispatch:

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

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

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

Continue reading →

QP: Useless responses to bad faith questions on carbon prices

Posted on by

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking Poilievre’s troll bait

Posted on by

I suspect we’re going to get a bunch of wailing and gnashing of teeth today because Twitter slapped the “government-funded media” label on the CBC account, at the behest of Pierre Poilievre. And frankly, we shouldn’t give Poilievre the satisfaction. This is clearly just him being a troll. He wants to spend his time being a shitposting edgelord on Twitter, as do Andrew Scheer and a bunch of other members of their caucus, because that’s who they are.

Of course, if things were really being fair and scrupulous, then the entire Postmedia chain, along with the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail would get the “government-funded” label as well, because they absolutely get it. (Television broadcasters CTV and Global technically don’t get government subsidies, but that’s only a technical point, because the simultaneous substitution rules that they live by are absolutely a kind of subsidy programme that they pretend isn’t one as they complain about the CBC’s stipend). But nobody actually wants to have a meaningful discussion here. Instead, it’s about beating up on the CBC under the rubric of their supposedly being either controlled by the Liberal government or by Liberal partisans, which isn’t true (CBC News is some of the most scrupulously egregious both-sidesers in the business). This is just culture war bullshit, where facts and logic don’t actually matter. This will be used as another fundraising appeal by Poilievre, and on and on it will go. Nobody should take this bait.

Ukraine Dispatch:

In spite of it being Orthodox Easter, Russians continued to shell areas of Ukraine including Zaporizhzhia, though a prisoner exchange was had over the weekend because of the holiday.

https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1647166252669079552

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, David Lametti isn’t threatening to tear up the constitution

Posted on by

You may have noticed that the Conservatives engaged in a lot of rage-farming over the long weekend, sometimes to the point of flailing and reaching. There was one particular bad-faith episode (well, they’re all bad faith episodes) that was particularly egregious, and roped in several premiers, who were also engaged in their own bad faith. Late last week, justice minister David Lametti attended a special chiefs’ assembly of the Assembly of First Nations, and was asked about the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930, and how these treaty nations were not benefitting from them, and Lametti said he’d look at it, but acknowledged this would be controversial.

And how! Immediately, Danielle Smith, followed by Scott Moe and later Heather Stefanson insisted this was a plan to “tear up the constitution” and nationalise the control over natural resources, and before long, Pierre Poilievre got in on it, along with a chunk of his caucus who insisted this was some sinister federal plan. It’s not, and this is more bad faith bullshit (which, of course, the gods damned CBC just both-sidesed, because they still think you can both-sides bad faith).

It’s actually in the legislation that the federal government can give back land to the First Nations to honour treaty obligations, and that’s at the heart of this. It’s their land. The treaties are to share the wealth, and, well, we haven’t been. They have a legitimate point here and the government has an obligation to at least hear them out on this. Is that going to cause a fuss? Yeah, probably, because settler governments, particularly in provinces, particularly those who are dependent on resource revenues, are not going to want to share that wealth. But the time is coming, sooner or later, when these conversations need to be had, because economic reconciliation means more than just dangling bribes to affected First Nations when resource extraction projects happen on their lands. Not that bad faith actors like Danielle Smith, Scott Moe or Pierre Poilievre will acknowledge this reality.

Ukraine Dispatch:

In what seems to be a repeating story, Russian Wagner group mercenaries claim—again—that they control most of Bakhmut, while Ukrainian forces claim, again, that they are holding firm. Not far away in Avdiivka, it is estimated that some 1800 people are still living in the city as Russian forces pound it. There was a prisoner swap of about 200 Russians and Ukrainian soldiers on Monday. Ukraine also resumed electricity exports to Europe now that they are able to meet their domestic demand after Russia targeted their energy infrastructure late last year.

https://twitter.com/denys_shmyhal/status/1645857297955192848

Continue reading →

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 →