Tag Archives: First Nations

Roundup: We all got played on the Telford gambit

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

Ukraine Dispatch:

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

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

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

Continue reading →

QP: Fighting to take credit for the Telford decision

Posted on by

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Roundup: Derailing the committee with sexism

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukraine Dispatch:

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

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

Continue reading →

QP: Poilievre tries to play prosecutor

Posted on by

The stage was set for the showdown we have been anticipating for weeks, as the prime minister was finally in the House for QP after missing it in the last sitting week, and it portended to be nasty given the tenor of the previous episodes in the week. Pierre Poilievre led off, and he stated that the prime minister had previously stated he was unaware of certain allegations, which this morning’s Global story seemed to counter. Justin Trudeau first gave some bafflegab about taking interference seriously, but on this allegation he and his National Security and Intelligence Advisor have stated they had no information about financial transfers. Poilievre insisted this couldn’t be the case, and Trudeau reiterated that he had no knowledge of transfers, and then corrected the swipe at NSICOP in stating that its reports to Parliament. Poilievre tried to be clever about the redactions in NSICOP reports before again insisting that Trudeau must have known of these transfers. Trudeau pointed to where NSICOP reports can be found. Poilievre accused the prime minister of playing word games and insisted that he knew Beijing directed funds to candidates. Trudeau stammered about the redactions before repeating again they had no information on transfers of funds. Poilievre recited from the Global story, and one more time, Trudeau stammered about national security bodies. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and demanded an independent public inquiry. Trudeau stated that he wasn’t refusing, but he wanted recommendations from the special rapporteur. Normandin insisted that this wasn’t a partisan issue, and that they needed an inquiry, and Trudeau repeated that they needed the rapporteur to ensure they make the best moves, as some experts said an inquiry was not the right move. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he also quoted the Global story, and demanded a public inquiry, and Trudeau reiterate that they wanted the rapporteur to ensure they got the right process. Singh took a swipe at Trudeau before repeating the question in French. Trudeau repeated that there are experts who dispute that they need a public inquiry, which is why they want the rapporteur to weigh in.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The tone of the interference debate gets worse

Posted on by

Because we are in an era of bad faith and lowest-common-denominator shitposting, Pierre Poilievre called a press conference yesterday to assert that Justin Trudeau was working in China’s interests against Canada—no doubt catnip to the conspiracy theorists whom he has been trying to attract to his banner, who carry signs about “treason” and who carry nooses to rallies. Even one-time sensible moderate Michael Chong has gone on television to be “just asking questions” about Trudeau’s loyalty to Canada, which is frankly beyond the pale. (Poilievre also said some absolute nonsense about LNG in Canada and his steadfast belief that there would have been a market for it if not for red tape—never mind that proponents could find buyers and couldn’t make a business case to proceed with projects that were fully permitted).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1633197743131750400

Trudeau later responded that Poilievre’s was eroding faith in democracy with this kind of rhetoric, but that’s kind of the point with this brand of populists. They are trying to erode faith in institutions so that they can insert themselves as the solution to the problems of democracy, without needing to worry about things like minority rights. Not that Trudeau has helped, with his back-patting and platitudes, which doesn’t push back against this kind of threat. (Some good analysis here).

In the meantime, we wait for the announcement of the special rapporteur, but if the goal is to have opposition sign-off, that could be difficult. The NDP say they are cautiously optimistic, but the Bloc want someone who has pre-determined that there needs to be an inquiry, while the Conservatives are likely to engage in bad faith regardless of what happens, so the ability for there to be consensus on a name is not a hope I am holding out for. But seriously—everybody howling for a public inquiry doesn’t seem to realise that NSICOP is likely more independent, because a public inquiry would be appointed by Cabinet, with terms of reference set by Cabinet, and would report to Cabinet. The government is trying to create some distance from themselves with this rapporteur, but nobody wants to hear the actual process or procedure around the demands they’re making.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633129536358346755

Ukraine Dispatch:

Kyiv is disavowing a group that has been making raids over the border in Russia, while other small groups within Russia are also conducting sabotage operations in opposition to Putin. Ukrainian officials have identified the soldier in a video that was executed by Russians, in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1633042812605280256

Continue reading →

QP: A nasty tone on interference allegations

Posted on by

The PM and his deputy were both in Kingston to greet European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, blissfully unaware of what was about to go down in the Chamber. After a lengthy statement from the Speaker about MPs using proper headsets for remote participation because of the need to protect the interpreters (three years too late), Pierre Poilievre led off in French, saying that Beijing has been secretly helping Trudeau for ten years and that Trudeau’s response was to strike a secret committee to look at it secretly, which…is not at all what happened, but why expect Poilievre to deal in facts? Dominic LeBlanc said that thirteen years ago CSIS sounded the alarm and the previous government did nothing about it, including Poilievre who was the minister of democratic reform. Poilievre repeated his same false accusations in English, and LeBlanc said that the announcement last night was about additional measures on top of the ones they already took, which the previous government did nothing about. Poilievre then mocked the notion of a rapporteur, calling it a fake position doing fake work and said this was a cover-up. LeBlanc said that this was proof the opposing doesn’t take it seriously, pointed out that yesterday, Poilievre admitted in QP that they did nothing about interference because it wasn’t in their partisan interest to do so. Poilievre accused the prime minster of hiding—knowing he is with von der Leyen—and this time, Mark Holland got up to give some sanctimonious denunciation that the opposition is playing games with national security. Poilievre repeated the accusation of Trudeau apparent hiding—got warned by the Speaker twice—and insisted that he must be covering up something really bad. Holland tried to point out that Poilievre knows full well where Trudeau is, and he too got warned by the Speaker, before he insisted that they don’t use issues of national security as partisan fodder.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he too complained that NSICOP is secret and that they want an independent public inquiry—apparently ignoring that Cabinet also appoints and sets the terms of an inquiry. LeBlanc said the rapporteur will operate transparently and will advise the government on next steps. Therrien said that this was not partisan but about public confidence, and worried we were straying into banana republic territory. LeBlanc said that the share the same concerns, and which is why they have taken steps since they got elected and are now taking further steps.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the Bloc, and in French, he demanded an independent public inquiry, and LeBlanc repeated that they share the concerns about the strength of our institutions, and to do so transparently and openly. Singh repeated the demand in English, and this time, Marco Mendicino listed the measures announced last night.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Still not finding the right tone

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau continues to struggle to find the right tone to respond to the allegations of Chinese interference in the previous couple of elections, and still hasn’t managed to find it. Yesterday he made the point that this is serious, and that’s why it shouldn’t be made a partisan issue of, and that doing so is doing the work of these autocratic countries for them because it weakens trust in democratic institutions…but he’s not exactly doing much to engender that trust either, because the response is once again some feel-good bromides that don’t worry, they didn’t actually affect the election outcome. Okay, but you’re asking people to take your word for it, and doing so with the same pabulum that they shovel in everyone’s direction for absolutely everything, so it’s hard to take these assurances seriously. It’s time to drop the feel-good talking points and be utterly frank, as much as can be allowed given the nature of the situation, and that’s what they’re not doing.

And because they’re not being frank, the Conservatives are shrieking “collusion,” and “you turned a blind eye because you benefitted” (as though a hung parliament is the real benefit here). But part of the problem is that the Liberals never think that they’re partisan, even when they are, and while Jennifer O’Connell may not have been wrong in saying that the Conservatives sure sound like they want to build this up as a “big lie”/illegitimate election campaign, it wasn’t the right tone to strike. At all. I did find it interesting that a former Conservative candidate did talk to the Star, and said that he didn’t think that this alleged interference did much with the Chinese-Canadian population because Conservatives themselves were doing their best to alienate that community.

I would also like to note that poll analyst Éric Grenier was on Power & Politics yesterday to provide a bit of a reality check to these ongoing allegations, and how the ridings that the Chinese diplomats allegedly targeted had no bearing on the election. For the Liberals, they didn’t get a majority because of Quebec, thanks to debate moderator Shachi Kurl playing into Yves-François Blanchet’s hands and phrasing her “tough question” to sound like Quebeckers are racists, and it gave Blanchet the ammunition he was looking for. For the Conservatives, the GTA remains elusive to them, and that’s why they couldn’t win. None of the alleged Chinese interference did anything to change that, and the Globe and Mail should have included this kind of analysis in their original story, but they didn’t, because they wanted this to be as sensational as possible. This continued narrative that the Chinese government attempted to engineer a minority parliament remains frustratingly moronic because you can’t do that. It’s as dumb as when the Globe endorsed the Conservatives but not Stephen Harper in 2015. It doesn’t work like that, but hey, why should the so-called newspaper of record understand how our gods damned political system works?

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 365:

Russian shelling of Kherson in the southern part of the country has killed two civilians, with two civilians injured by missile strikes in Kharkiv. Meanwhile, the CBC talks to front-line Ukrainian soldiers about the training they got from Canadians, and the praise is coming particularly for battlefield medicine, as well as leadership for junior officers learning to take the initiative (unlike the old Soviet system).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1628470688725053440

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1628484262994362370

Continue reading →

Roundup: Showboating at PROC over allegations of Chinese interference

Posted on by

The Procedure and House Affairs committee met yesterday to vote on a motion around expanding their study on election interference to include the recent revelations from the Globe and Mail about alleged Chinese interference in the past two elections. Despite some arguing, particularly with Conservatives demanding both the appearance of Katie Telford (once again, for those of you at the back, you do not summon staff to committee because ministers are responsible!), and they were going to demand classified documents, which is becoming just part of the show these days, but they were eventually talked out of both of those demands and have instead summoned a few ministers, plus CSIS, the RCMP, and Elections Canada to discuss these particular allegations.

But of course, there was showboating. And the Liberals, who usually try to pretend that they’re the grown-ups in the room, were all-in on it as Jennifer O’Connell responded to the allegation that the Liberals were covering up what happened because it benefitted them (allegedly), saying “This is the same Trump-type tactics to question election results moving forward,” and that created a giant stir. She’s not entirely wrong, and the Conservatives have dealt in enough bad faith that they could start going down that particular road (and still might), but she wasn’t helping.

Amidst all of this, the Star obtained documents from the Conservatives showing that they were considering going public about the alleged interference over Chinese-language social media they were seeing during the last campaign but decided not to for fear of political backlash. Instead, they sent it to the committee overseeing the integrity of the election, but didn’t get much response from them at the time, who are now complaining that their concerns weren’t taken seriously.

Throughout this, I keep going back to my misgivings about the way in which the original Globe and Mail story was framed, particularly in giving the impression that the Chinese were trying to engineer a minority parliament, which is impossible to do. The piece should have simply stated that the Chinese preferred it because of chaos, but there is no interference they could do, short of stuffing ballot boxes in certain regions, to hope to achieve it, and that’s not going to happen in our system. Likewise, with the allegations around campaign financing, which don’t make any sense as written. Of course, the Globe has a well-known tendency of producing a lot of smoke for very little fire, but all of that smoke is just fuelling the MPs’ showboating, and it’s making it difficult to demonstrate that we have a serious parliament as a result.

https://twitter.com/mrmubinshaikh/status/1628216781901905922

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 364:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that Ukrainian forces are holding positions on the front lines in the east, while Russia claims that they are advancing in the Donbas region toward Bakhmut. Here is a look at five significant battles over the past year. Meanwhile, Ukraine is asking Canada to lend rail expertise and parts to help keep its crucial system running (but seriously? We’ve not been good to rail in this country).

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1628044033321848833

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1628137356556439585

Continue reading →

Roundup: Empathy for the deeply selfish?

Posted on by

Update: Sorry for the delay. I had issues with the website but everything should be running smoothly now.

In spite of the Emergencies Act public inquiry report being released on Friday, there seem to be some awfully short memories as to what was happening at the time—or a bunch of people are acting disingenuously or in bad faith. Take, for example, Pierre Poilievre, who took to claiming that the assembled mass of far-right extremists, conspiracy theorists, grifters and grievance tourists were concerned about their costs of living and not being able to live. Which is funny, because inflation hadn’t spiked then, and interest rates were still at rock bottom. He is taking his current talking points and casting them back in time to a situation that didn’t exist, and has consigned the talking points of the era (“Freedom!”) to the memory hole. Funny that.

https://twitter.com/maxfawcett/status/1627033913188290560

And then there’s the Globe and Mail, whose editorial board decided that what the occupiers need is empathy. After all, they had hurt feelings, and this narrative of the prime minister’s “divisive” comments keep circulating, even though he was telling the truth. The fact that certain people kept telling on themselves by openly identify as racists and misogynists to somehow “own Trudeau” was quite something.

Oh, and the Globe and Mail’s editorial board, comfortable in their downtown Toronto offices, should take a look at their own life choices as they demand empathy for a group of deeply selfish people who refused to take public health measures for the good of everyone around them, and who traded in conspiracy theories instead of behaving like grown-ups, and who held a city hostage in an extended three-week temper tantrum, instead of empathy for the citizens of Ottawa as their city police and provincial government abandoned them.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 363:

US president Joe Biden made a “surprise” visit to Kyiv yesterday, and stayed for some five hours, meeting with president Volodymyr Zelenzkyy and pledging more support for the country. (Here’s a look at how that trip came together). Ukrainian troops training on Leopard 2 tanks compare them to a Mercedes. Ukrainian forces say they are inflicting “extraordinarily significant” losses on Russian forces in the Donbas as Russia continues to move toward Bakhmut. Meanwhile, midwives in Ukraine are looking to Canada for training on how to better deliver babies outside of hospitals (as they are not licensed for home deliveries).

https://twitter.com/re_dailymail/status/1627639235665702913

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inquiry report and influence reports

Posted on by

Justice Paul Rouleau delivered his final report from the Emergencies Act public inquiry yesterday, and in it, he concluded that the government was justified in invoking the Act, albeit somewhat reluctantly because of failures at every level, particularly with policing, but also most especially from Doug Ford and the Ontario government, whom he reserves some particularly even-toned scorn for. There was also some blame apportioned to Justin Trudeau for his “fringe minority” comments as having hardened the resolve of occupiers (erm, except it was true what he said). There was plenty of blame apportioned to the Ottawa police, as well there should be, and he did reject the occupiers’ claims that they were peaceful.

Rouleau made 56 recommendations, including better intelligence coordination and coordination among police, as well as to make changes to the Act, which Trudeau has promised to study and come up with a response to, and that he regrets the phrasing of his “fringe minority” comments (which, I repeat, were true). Pierre Poilievre, predictably, went before a microphone and insisted that Trudeau created the whole mess by “attacking his own population,” and went on a tear about inflation (which was not a pressing concern when the occupation happened), and then went on a rant about the CBC for daring to ask him a question, and around and around we go.

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/1626702909017554945

In pundit reaction, Susan Delacourt filters the report through the weaponization of the term “freedom,” and what it represents and misrepresents. Paul Wells offers some of his initial thoughts on the report. Justin Ling has his own perspective of the report based on his own reporting of the occupations’ membership and the role of disinformation that fuelled it. And of course, the Beaverton gets the last word.

Chinese Interference

The Globe and Mail published a story where their two journalists had been shown CSIS documents (illegally!) to show how Chinese officials were trying to interfere in the last two elections, and how their Vancouver consul was claiming to have defeated two Conservative incumbents in the last election. And it sounds concerning…but details don’t add up for me. The Chinese say they wanted a Liberal minority, but targeting eleven ridings cannot give you that kind of outcome. And the section on political donations doesn’t make sense given the rules around them, so I have a lot of questions that this story doesn’t answer.

In response, Justin Trudeau says that whatever Chinese officials claim, the election result was unaffected (and given how the alleged Chinese scheme doesn’t make much sense, I am giving this a bit more weight). Pierre Poilievre says that Trudeau turned a blind eye because the interference was to his advantage (again, how?) One of the defeated Conservatives says he fears the country has become an “open market” for foreign governments trying to sway elections (again, how?)

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 360:

Ukrainian soldiers fighting near Bakhmut make the direct plea to western countries to send more weapons, while president Volodymyr Zelenskyy made similar requests of assembled allied leaders in Munich. American intelligence is estimating that Wagner Group mercenaries (most of them convicts) have suffered more than 30,000 casualties in Ukraine, with about 9,000 of them killed in action.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1626559600110469125

Continue reading →