Tag Archives: First Nations

QP: More outrage clips about the carbon price

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in the Magdalen Islands to survey Hurricane Fiona damage there, his deputy was once again in the House of Commons for yet another round of the same talking points, back and forth. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and worried that the federal government was somehow hindering Quebec’s ability to build new hydroelectric dams to produce green electricity to power electric cars. Chrystia Freeland dismissed this as the Conservatives not having a plan for the environment. Poilievre shot back that the government doesn’t have an environment plan, but only a tax plan and that they have not met any reduction target (as though his government didn’t sabotage those efforts at every turn), and then complained about the carbon price in places like BC. Freeland reiterated that the Conservatives don’t have an environmental plan, but only a plan to plunder pensions and hurt Canadians. Poilievre tried his “JustInflation” line again and accused the government of raising taxes on paycheques, which are not taxes. Freeland said the Conservatives are only good for strutting but only want to drain pensions and keep kids from going to the dentist. Poilievre cited a poll that says that 51 percent of people are struggling to eat, and accused the government of being out of tough. Freeland said that the Conservatives were out of touch for a plan to raid pensions and slash EI, or to not have a plan for the climate as our customers—the US and the EU—will only buy our products if we have a climate plan. Poilievre tried again, trying to feign a tone of unctuous concern for people who can’t eat or find a home, but Freeland listed the actions they have taken which have reduced poverty, and finished off with a Bitcoin dig.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he worried about Roxham Road, saying the quiet part out loud in worrying about “cultural integration,” and wanted an Ethics Committee investigation on the CBSA contracts at the crossing. Freeland responded with a paean about the importance of immigration to our economy and in the strength of the refugee system. Blanchet chided her that Roxham Road is not about labour but humanitarian efforts—which is true—and demanded the contracts all be tabled publicly. Freeland said that as a border issue, they are working with the Americans, including on the Safe Third Country Agreement.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and said that he would be meeting with Autumn Pelletier about her petition about clean water for Indigenous communities. Freeland very slowly noted that as wonderful as Canada is, it has an original sin of our treatment of Indigenous people, and the government was working to rectify that. Singh repeated the question in French, and Freeland reminded him that they have invested heavily and there is still more work to do.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A tale of two rage-farmers

Posted on by

Yesterday during Question Period, I made an unoriginal joke about Garnett Genuis’ terrible performance. But we live in Extremely Online times, and so Andrew Scheer decided that he was going to do something about my lame joke. He claimed that I called for Genuis to be shot—which I most certainly did not—and began the process of online intimidation through rage-farming. Of note, Scheer tried this previously against Gerald Butts for using the term “defenestrated,” and that whipped up a huge frenzy, because of course it did. While a handful of randos started the process of harassing me, a short time later, the Canada Proud account decided to pick up on it, putting out a wholly unoriginal shitpost declaring me to be a “Liberal journalist” who owes Genuis an apology for advocating he be shot—which again, I did no such thing, and I owe him no apology. If anything, he owes everyone an apology for subjecting us to his attempt to be clever with the lyrics of “Bohemian Rhapsody.” And lo, more of Jeff Ballingall’s winged monkeys tried to harass me online, with one or two Conservative MPs chiming in, insisting that I “crossed a line,” which again, I did no such thing. I fully expect Pierre Poilievre to put out another wounded-sounded fundraising email about me by tomorrow.

The point here is that this is how the intimidation game is played, and why they think that journalists are uniquely vulnerable. If you are critical about anyone on their team, they declare that you are biased, even though you are critical about every team. They howl and moan, in the hopes that you either apologise and retract, and then they know that you’re weak, and that they can silence you through these kinds of tactics. It’s partially why so many journalists have resorted to scrupulously both-sidesing all of their lies—because they screamed and moaned about being treated unfairly, and insisting that they were “insulted” when they were called out for their blatant falsehoods, and yes, this has absolutely happened—until those reporters and their editors stop calling them out, and instead, just both-sides what is said. Both-sidesing in turn allows them to lie with impunity, because they know they won’t be called out for it, lest they begin this cycle again. And now, our political discourse is completely fucked as a result. So no, I’m not going to let Scheer or Ballingall intimidate me, and their winged monkeys don’t scare me.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 210:

Russian president Putin announced a partial mobilisation of Russian reserves to fill positions in the army, if that’s any indication of how well this is going for him. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a video address to the UN General Assembly, assuring victory for Ukraine, but also calling for punishment for Russia, including stripping them of their permanent seat on the Security Council.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On the debate on societal decline narratives

Posted on by

I’ve been thinking a lot about Colin Horgan’s essay about Pierre Poilievre tapping into the meta-language of a society in decline, and how playing into those narratives has the potential to make things worse, particularly as the bad actors who respond to this kind of thing start becoming increasingly drastic in their actions. In response, Matt Gurney wonders that if people do believe we’re in a state of decline, and whether it’s worse that Poilievre is speaking to them on those terms, or that the governing Liberals can’t admit to the problems under their watch. I’m have a lot reservations about the notion that Poilievre is trying to somehow channel these anxieties—there is absolutely no indication that Poilievre can try and do anything positive with them when the discourse is about burning things to the ground (metaphorically at least). But what exactly are we considering to be the decline?

https://twitter.com/Lazin_Ryder/status/1570536744080252928

This tweet from Matthew Lazin-Ryder makes a very good point—that the “rise and fall” narratives are not how societies work, and that the level of pessimism in 1974 was staggering when we read about it in hindsight. I also have to wonder about what is being considered in the decline. Much of what Gurney lists in his piece are areas that are complex—most of it are things that the federal government has little control over, so a figure like Poilievre addressing it has no substance to it, and in the areas that they do, such as the armed forces, it’s hard to consider things in decline when the institution was so horribly broken beforehand, and we are at a place were we are trying to do something about it rather than pretend those problems didn’t exist. Does that make it a symptom of decline, or that we’re actually dealing with the problems? As for the problems at the provincial level, yes they are problems, but they are not new—just reaching a boiling point—and they require political action to deal with, which is caught in a cycle of federal-provincial blame-shifting, enabled by media outlets who simply both-sides the issue rather than call out the responsible parties (meaning the premiers).

My other particular sense of caution around declinist narratives is the fact that a lot of them come from a place of people who have problems with women, queer and trans people, people of colour, all being more prominent, and who are being given a voice and agency for the first time in modern history. They see this as some kind of decline because as white men, they view equality as a diminution of their own privilege, which feeds this false narrative of decline. When you see people declaring themselves “anti-woke,” you have to ask yourself whether it’s the fact that they have a problem with women and minorities being visible or having agency. Hell, in the Quebec leadership debate, there was a segment where the host was demanding that leaders say the n-word to “prove” they weren’t woke, which is appalling, but an indication that those who try to resist so-called wokeism are really trying to make racism okay again. The fact that declinists espouse these kinds of narratives makes me question their entire world view, and brings me back to the problem of those who pander to that viewpoint for the sake of scoring political points, when it can feed it and takes us to a darker place.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 204:

President Volodymr Zelenskyy says that a mass grave with more than 440 bodies has been found in the recently liberated city of Izium in the Kharkiv region, which probably shouldn’t be surprising at this point. In fact, I fear that there will be all kinds of mass graves being uncovered for years to come thanks to Russia’s genocidal campaign. Evidence has also been found of Russian “torture chambers” in cities that have been liberated, so war crimes prosecutors have a big job ahead of them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre plays victim around the media

Posted on by

We’re in the first week of Pierre Poilievre’s leadership, and he’s already sticking to his antagonistic playbook. He announced his leadership team first thing in the morning, with two deputies—Melissa Lantsman (a Jewish lesbian) and Tim Uppal (a Sikh) in order to inoculate himself against the usual cries that the party is racist and bigoted. A short while later, Quebec MP Alain Rayes announced he was leaving caucus and going to sit as an independent, because he didn’t like the direction Poilievre was going. (Cue everyone insisting that the party has “never been more united,” which is what they all say just before and after such an exit).

Fast-forward a couple of hours, and the federal government has announced their assistance package for low-income people dealing the effects of high inflation, and Poilievre calls a press conference to react. And the spectacle begins. David Akin, one of the reporters present, takes offence that Poilievre insists he won’t take questions (and he hasn’t since he was made leader), and starts shouting questions at him. And what does Poilievre do? Call Akin a “Liberal heckler” (because the pool camera can’t see Akin as he’s behind it), and a few hours later, sends out a fundraising appeal to his base that plays victim, that the media is out to get him, and that they’re all protecting Trudeau, and that you need to send him money to take on both Trudeau and the media. It’s gross, it undermines institutions, it undermines democracy, but he doesn’t care. It’s his game. And most of the media in this country have no idea how to react to it, and it’s going to be a real problem going forward.

https://twitter.com/glen_mcgregor/status/1569903207555497985

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1569872613228400642

As for the government’s assistance package (dental care for low-income children under 12, enhanced rent support for low-income people, doubling the existing GST tax credit, which again, targets low-income households—and yes, the NDP are loudly taking credit for all of it), there are some good analysis threads from Lindsay Tedds and Jennifer Robson, and because these are targeted at the low end, they’re really unlikely to drive inflation, unlike say the cheques certain provinces are sending out to everyone, whether they need them or not. And Poilievre’s insistence that this will make things worse because they increase the deficit (the deficit, if there will even be one this year, isn’t driving inflation—global factors are), and then demands that the government not raise taxes. The only taxes going up is the luxury tax on boats, private planes, and luxury cars. The carbon price is not a tax, and rebates more to lower-income households than they spend. CPP and EI premiums are not taxes. Higher taxes actually fight inflation, lowering them makes it worse. The absolute economic illiteracy should be mind-numbing, until you realises that he gets his information from crypto-bros on YouTube, which tells you pretty much everything you need to know.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1569770945895895042

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 202:

Russian troops are not only retreating from positions in the northeast of the country, they are also retreating in the south, and heading toward positions in Crimea. As these towns and cities are liberated, authorities are moving in to document war crimes against civilians. Of course, shelling does continue around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, and Russians are still hitting Kharkiv, even though they have been repelled from the area, which is being taken as a sign of desperation. Analysts believe this rapid retreat is the sign of a spent Russian military, their approach unsustainable,

https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1569704142167506944

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stop saying “woke”

Posted on by

The first Monday after the Conservative leadership contest, and already shots are being fired between Poilievre and Trudeau. Poilievre kicked off the day, first by meeting with his Quebec caucus alone to reassure them and ask them to rally around him in unity, and then addressed the caucus at large with a public speech in which he decried Trudeau’s “radical woke coalition,” and then spouted a bunch of nonsense about inflation.

From his caucus retreat, Trudeau responded with a quick congratulation to Poilievre for his victory, before calling out his reliance on “buzzwords, dog whistles and careless attacks,” as well as his “highly questionable, reckless economic ideas.” While this is happening, it sounds like a few Quebec MPs told Radio-Canada that they want the party to move more toward the “Centre” (which is odd, because they never really left it, and no, they have not actually taken a sharp leftward turn), and wants them to be “less woke,” which again, is a strange turn of phrase because I’m not sure what it’s supposed to mean. Should they be openly racists or homophobic? Is that what they think will win them votes? Is attempting to be inclusive so terrible? Really?

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 201:

The Ukrainian counter-offensive carried on in the country’s northeast, clearing out much of the Russian occupiers that have been in place since February, and it was done with such speed in part because Russians were simply surrendering in large numbers. Many of these prisoners are intended to be swapped with Russia for captured Ukrainian troops, so we’ll see how that progresses in the near term.

https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1569393669484036096

https://twitter.com/cmhwee/status/1569324523891363840

Continue reading →

Roundup: A minor Cabinet swap

Posted on by

As expected, there was a very minor Cabinet shuffle yesterday, and it was less of a shuffle than a two-person swap. Filomena Tassi takes over as minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency of Southern Ontario, while the incumbent, Helena Jaczek, takes over as minister of public services and procurement. The reason? Tassi’s husband suffered two strokes, and has had a difficult recovery, so she requested a lighter workload, and Trudeau obliged. Jaczek, meanwhile, is a former Ontario health minister, so she’s not unaccustomed to big files. What is perhaps most significant is that Trudeau accommodated her in order to ensure that she didn’t have to choose between family and her job, which is a very rare thing, even in this day and age where there remains an expectation that women give up their jobs and careers in order to play caretaker roles. That kind of a signal should count for something.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 189:

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency arrived at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant yesterday, in an attempt to stabilise the situation there. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that his forces are attacking Russian positions along the entire front line, trying to retake the south as well as going on the offensive in the east. We’ll see in the coming days how effective this has been, but British intelligence suggests that there have been successes in three parts of the southern region, but didn’t give any details.

Good reads:

  • Following the shuffle, Trudeau said that Canadians have lost faith in the leadership of Hockey Canada, as they insist on retaining their CEO for some unknown reason.
  • Trudeau also said the government would look into allegations that a CSIS informant smuggled teenaged girls from the UK into Syria.
  • Chrystia Freeland insists that Albertans are “kind and welcoming” in spite of being accosted last week. (They’re kind and welcoming if you conform, you mean).
  • Pablo Rodriguez has belatedly condemned the antisemitic tweets from the “anti-racism” contractor his department hired.
  • Health Canada is expected to announce the approval of the omicron-specific boosters today (though this was for BA.1, even though BA.4 and .5 are dominant).
  • Fourteen months later, the military won’t say what their investigation into alleged atrocities caught on video involving Iraqi police yielded.
  • The CRTC announced that they will adopt 988 as a national suicide prevention hotline number, but it won’t be in operation until November of next year.
  • 325 First Nations are launching a class action lawsuit to demand reparations from the government for the cultural devastation wrought by residential schools.
  • The so-called “Centre Ice Conservatives” changed their name to “Centre Ice Canadians” to appeal to a broader audience (not that it’ll help).
  • Using their majority to circumvent the process, the Ford government bullied through a bill that can force people in hospitals into long-term care facilities.
  • The UCP leadership candidates had their final debate on Tuesday night, and it was as bankrupt of real ideas as you might expect.
  • Althia Raj talks to Elizabeth May about her decision to run for co-leader of the Green Party, and why that’s different from her time as full-on leader.
  • Paul Wells contemplates the “temperamental centre” of Canadian politics, and what that could mean for the two main federal parties going forward.
  • My column takes note of the fact that the government is experimenting in frank discussion when it comes to the wait times issues, which is a good first step.

Odds and ends:

For Xtra, I delved into the new Federal 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan and got some reaction from stakeholders in the community.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

Roundup: Inviting the politician’s syllogism

Posted on by

As the questions about what to do around the accosting of Chrystia Freeland continued yesterday, several reporters started asking about why the government hasn’t moved ahead with their promised online harms legislation, which is kind of funny because most of these very same reporters know exactly what happened to it—the draft legislation introduced before the election was so roundly criticised from all sides that the government decided to take a more serious effort at consultation and drafting a bill that won’t be deemed too censorious, and it’s a tough task because it’s a very tiny needle to thread. Exceedingly tiny. And these same journalists know this because they’ve either covered the story, or followed the coverage. I’m not even sure if online harms would be applicable in this particular situation because it wasn’t online, and when it comes to criminal threats being directed at journalists and politicians, again, most of that is already criminal and it simply requires police to do their jobs, which Parliament can’t exactly legislate them to do beyond the Criminal Code provisions that are already in statute. Either way, this whole line of questioning is suspect, and I’m not sure why they’re going down this road other than the politician’s syllogism, which is poor form for media in general, but in this case most especially.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 187:

The Ukrainian counter-attack around the strategic city of Kherson has begun, and claim to have broken through the Russian defences in several areas of the front-line around the city. Russians, meanwhile, have been shelling the southern city of Mykolaiv, as well as military and civilian infrastructure near the towns of Bakhmut, Shumy, Yakovlivka, Zaytsevo, and Kodema in the Donetsk region. Meanwhile, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency are now on their way to the Zaporizhizhia nuclear plant, which Ukrainians say the Russians have been using as a military base.

https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1564190989966778368

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving Dean French undeserved credibility

Posted on by

In an attempt to keep litigating the “revelation” from court documents that there was a “potential breakthrough” with the occupation in Ottawa in advance of the invocation of the Emergencies Act, the CBC credulously brought the “negotiator, Dean French, onto Power & Politics to give his side of the story. It was a complete gong show. French was self-aggrandizing while trying to appear faux-humble, and insisted he wasn’t taking sides when he clearly was, particularly in repeating the patent horseshit from former Newfoundland and Labrador premier Brian Peckford, who spent the occupation claiming he’s the last living signatory of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (he’s not), and that the public health measures violated the Charter and that the government was operating illegally (they’re not, and the courts have pointed out that those measures are saved under Section 1 of the Charter, which is reasonable limits in a free and democratic society). Yet there was French, unchallenged by the host of the show, repeating these claims from Peckford in justifying his assertion that the government was in the wrong. It’s also patently absurd on its face that French’s negotiations would have done anything about the occupation—shifting a few trucks from residential streets and packing them even tighter onto Wellington was not any kind of solution, not that there was agreement among the occupiers on even doing this much. That was not a solution, because the occupation would still have been in place, and the occupiers would have continued to terrorize the residents and businesses in the area. There was no “breakthrough” to be had, and I cannot believe that CBC would go along with the fiction that there was. No, wait—I do believe it, because they uncritically both-sides everything, just like they did with this French interview, and even more to the point, gave French credibility in this. (French, for those of you who may not be aware, was Doug Ford’s initial chief of staff who was forced to resign because he was handing out government appointments to unqualified people with whom he had a lacrosse connection. And yes, I’m being completely serious). The complete lack of critical thinking on the part of P&P’s producers and host when it came to this interview, or the choice they made in pursuing this losing line of inquiry is particularly troubling. Credulously both-sidesing is not journalism—it’s stenography, and that is costing us our democracy.

 

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 176:

Ukrainian forces say they beat back a Russian attack in the southern region of Kherson, while Russian forces shelled the city of Kharkiv in the north, killing more civilians. This as the UN Secretary General is set to meet with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the western city of Lviv. Meanwhile, it sounds like Russia sacked the head of their Black Sea fleet after the recent explosions in Russian-occupied Crimea, and that they have relocated more of their planes and helicopters either deeper in the peninsula or into Russian territory.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inflation starts to cool

Posted on by

The CPI figures were released yesterday morning, and the headline number has cooled from its peak, and in July was running at an annualized rate of 7.6 percent, the decrease largely being driven by lower gasoline prices. Of course, there are still plenty of other drivers that are keeping it high, some of which are things like food (largely being driven by factors like climate change), hotel stays, and airline charges. But rather than exploring what these drivers are, most of the coverage of the day was focused on the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth that prices are high and demands for the government to do something about it, which, short of wage and price controls—which don’t really work—they can’t do much about. And no, “just give everyone money” is not a solution because that drives demand further. Same as tax cuts or breaks, and in fact, increasing taxes is generally a good way to dampen inflation. Regardless, there is a real incurious narrative to this in the media, which is not surprising, unfortunately.

Meanwhile, here is Kevin Carmichael’s hot take on the figures, while Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem took to the pages of the National Post to offer some reassurance that the Bank is on the case. Economist Stephen Gordon explains the data here on video. Heather Scoffield warns that even if inflation peaked there are too many factors keeping it high for some time to come. And here is a look at the StatsCan analysts who compile the inflation data.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 175:

There was another explosion at an ammunition depot at a military base in Russian-occupied Crimea, and the Ukrainian government will neither confirm nor deny involvement, though they are mockingly calling it “demilitarization,” as a play on Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: UCP contest finds new lows

Posted on by

As the UCP leadership race in Alberta meanders through clown town, outgoing leader Jason Kenney took a slightly bold step, and called Danielle Smith’s “Sovereignty Act” proposal “nuts,” which is an interesting enough intrusion in the race. But, because this is Kenney, he then took it a step too far and spouted a bunch of nonsense about the lieutenant governor not signing it, and no, that’s not how this works. There is pretty much no ability for an LG to refuse to sign legislation post-Statute of Westminster, because they aren’t reporting to the foreign desk of the Imperial government in Britain. Federal powers of disallowance may still be on the books, but have for all intents and purposes gone extinct because we have courts that have the power to strike down laws, and yes, that does matter. So you can bet that if Smith were to win said contest, and did manage to somehow pass said bill without a full-on caucus revolt (because it’s sheer, unconstitutional lunacy), you can rest assured that said bill would be immediately challenged in the courts, if not outright referred to the Supreme Court of Canada by the federal government, where it would summarily be struck down, likely in a ruling from the bench because it is so blatantly unconstitutional on its very face. So we have both Smith and Kenney in the wrong here, and this contest just keeps finding new lows.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 173:

Russian troops spent the weekend shelling the cities of Nikopol and Kramatorsk, as well as claimed the village of Pisky on the outskirts of Donetsk province. This as Ukrainian forces were continuing their counter-offensive in the south, striking the last working bridge over the Dnieper River, cutting off Russian supply lines. Ukrainians also say that they are targeting Russians that are firing near or from the Zaporizhzhia nuclear facility, and are accusing Russians of using it as a shield. As well, here is a look at Ukrainian drone pilot training, where video game skills are a welcome addition.

Continue reading →