Tag Archives: First Nations

QP: Rota’s return to the big chair

Posted on by

Not only was the prime minister president for QP, as were most other leaders, but Anthony Rota was also back in the Speaker’s chair, for the first time in months. Before things got underway, he took a moment to thank MPs for their support during his absence, and for the care team for his surgery.

After several rounds of applause, things launched with Candice Bergen at her mini-lectern, and she accused the prime minister of trying to end the energy sector by way of the carbon price, insisting that he wants high gas prices. (Erm, Candice, Europe would like a word about gas prices). Justin Trudeau somewhat haltingly listed programmes that are indexed to inflation, and reminded her of what families in Manitoba get in the carbon rebate. Bergen then pivoted to trying to find fault with both the gun control bill and the bill that will remove mandatory minimums on some gun crimes. Trudeau took up a script to praise his own gun control bill, and to recite that removing mandatory minimums is about keeping Black and Indigenous people for; being disproportionately affected by the justice system. Bergen read some scripted outrage about criminals getting house arrest, to which Trudeau read a script about systemic discrimination or people going to jail because they struggle with addiction. Raquel Dancho took over, accusing the government of being responsible for the rise in violent crime, denouncing the removal of mandatory minimums along the way. Trudeau, extemporaneously, listed the new measures in the gun control bill tabled yesterday. Dancho insisted the government wasn’t doing enough to stop gun violence, inadvertently listing things the government was already doing as her counter to “useless” gun bans. Trudeau dismissed this as parroting talking points from the gun lobby, and noted they did invest in the same tools Dancho mentioned.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he complained that the federal government was ready to go to the Supreme Court of Canada over Quebec’s Law 21 and 96, and he wondered if English was really threatened in Quebec. Trudeau took up a script to raise the woman denied a teaching job because she wears a hijab, and it was his job to defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Blanchet insisted this was a lie, and that secularism was being attacked, before repeating his question a to whether English was threatened in Quebec. Trudeau, extemporaneously, stated the incorrect truism that French is under threat, and insisted that this was about defending minorities throughout the country.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and in French, he noted that the government agreed to decriminalise small amounts of hard drugs in BC, and wanted support for the private member’s bill on doing this nationally. Trudeau recited a script about the opioid crisis and today’s announcement out of BC. Gord Johns repeated the question in English, and Trudeau read the English version of the same script.

Continue reading →

QP: Torquing the Supreme Court’s rulings

Posted on by

While the PM was in town and had a press conference scheduled for shortly after QP, he was absent from the Chamber, as were all other leaders, though the deputy PM was present, for what it’s worth. Luc Berthold led off, and he gave a misleading statement about what the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday, and demanded that the government do something about this. David Lametti said that the fact they are eligible for parole does not mean they will get it, and the parole board will determine if the Quebec City mosque shooter will get it…in 25 years. Berthold then pivoted to affordability, and mischaracterised the effect of the carbon price, ignoring the rebates, to which Chrystia Freeland recited that inflation is global, but that they were taking action such as dental care, a one-time housing benefit and tax credits. Berthold accused the government of lacking compassion, to which Freeland listed measures to help the vulnerable. Dan Albas took over in English to demand price controls on gas, and Freeland listed benefits that are indexed to inflation. Albas railed about prices rising, and Freeland repeated her list of indexed benefits.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed that the federal government would challenge Law 21 at the Supreme Court, insisting this was a matter of democracy (ignoring that liberal democracies protect the rights of minorities). David Lametti lamented the pre-emptive use of the Notwithstanding Clause, and said the government has concerns about provisions in the law. Therrien accused the government of trying to pick a fight with Quebec, roping Law 96 into the conversion, and Lametti reminded him that he too is a Quebecker and that plenty of people have concerns about this law.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, lamented that the Deschamps report gathered dust and wanted the Arbour report to be implemented. Anita Anand read a script about accepting the Arbour Report, and having a conversation with the prime minster about it, and that they agree with the significant issues identified in it. Lindsay Mathyssen repeated the question in English, and Anand read the English version of the same script.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pandering to a false narrative, Quebec edition

Posted on by

It is now on or about day ninety of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and we have the first war crimes conviction, as the tank commander who pleaded guilty last week to killing civilians has been handed a life sentence. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that Russia is waging “total war” intended to inflict as many casualties as possible, and destroy as much infrastructure as they can. Zelenskyy also addressed a gathering of the World Economic Forum in Davos, and he told assembled global and economic leaders there to apply “maximum sanctions” to Russia.

Meanwhile, Belarusians are joining the fight on Ukraine’s side, hoping that it will eventually help topple the regime in their own country. As well, the dreaded Russian hackers have not proven effective in the Ukraine invasion, and have themselves been the successful target of government cyber-operations and hactivists, so perhaps their reputation is not as deserved as it has been.

Closer to home, Quebec is close to passing Bill 96, which expands its language laws to almost absurd levels, including forbidding the use of English in nearly all circumstances, and there are concerns that the bill allows for warrantless searches in order to enforce it. (There CBC had an explainer here,  but beware the both-sidesing).This is all predicated on the notion that French is “declining” in Quebec—erm, except it’s not. Census data shows that, and the only decline was where French was the “mother tongue,” meaning that its decline may be because of immigration, most of whom learn French is fairly short order (though this is one area where Bill 96 is again overreaching—and they wonder why they have a labour shortage). Unfortunately, every federal party including the Liberals have bought into this narrative, and are not challenging it very hard. Some Liberal MPs have been to protests in opposition to the bill, which the Bloc freaked out about in Question Period last week, to some minor pushback from the Liberal Quebec lieutenant, but it’s not a good sign when any party refuses to call out a blatantly false narrative because they are afraid it will lose them needed votes. Such courage!

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1528807121692803072

Continue reading →

Roundup: Theorizing about Kenney’s slow-motion demise

Posted on by

It is now on or about day eighty-six of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia claims that some 1700 Ukrainian troops have surrendered from the steel plant in Mariupol, which Kyiv won’t confirm. Kyiv is also hoping to negotiate prisoner exchanges, but Russia sounds like they want to prosecute this troops as part of their “de-nazification,” which is complicated by the fact that this particular battalion does contain some of the far-right troops fighters that have blackened the reputation of Ukrainian forces. It also remains to be seen if Russia will respect their obligations around prisoners of war, and given how much they have broken international law so far in this invasion, that is a very fraught question indeed. Speaking of trials, the Russian soldier who pleaded guilty to killing a civilian is asking the widow for forgiveness. (She said she wants a life sentence, unless he’s part of a prisoner swap for the Ukrainians captured from Mariupol).

Closer to home, it has been decided that Jason Kenney will stay on as premier and party leader on a caretaker-ish basis, until the party choses a new leader (which, apparently, he has not ruled out running in again, either out of arrogance or self-delusion). Either way, he’s not going away anytime soon, and despite his insistence that this is about “uniting” the party, I am left with the recollection of what a bitter Thomas Mulcair did to the NDP once he was pushed out, but stayed on as a caretaker leader while their leadership process took an interminable length of time.

This has nevertheless had some conservatives, federally and provincially, doing a bit of soul-searching as to what it means that Kenney got things wrong. While my own thoughts about this will be in my weekend column, Ontario conservatives are insisting that it’s because Kenney embraced his right flank while Doug Ford kicked his out and is still surviving. (Ford also didn’t need his to the same extent Kenney does). Some federal Conservatives are warning against panicking, while others are warning against polarised politics, and still others see a movement afoot in the party that caters to siege mentality, fuelled by American right-wing media, that causes them to see everything in oppositional terms.

Continue reading →

QP: Pretending the pandemic is over

Posted on by

Despite the prime minister being in town and having chaired a Cabinet meeting hours before, he was absent from QP, as were every other leader. Luc Berthold led off, and in the spirit of his party’s Supply Day motion, insisted that it was time to lift mask and vaccine mandates because “enough is enough.” (Erm, when did the pandemic end? Asking for a me.) Adam van Koeverden read that we know more about the pandemic than we used to, and that vaccines work. Berthold was not mollified, and demanded the measures end to speed lines at airports. van Koeverden read that they have tools to detect variants of concern and to prevent transmission. Berthold listed all of the files that he accused the government of being in “chaos” over, to which Karina Gould recited her lines about working to speed processing of passports. Melissa Lantsman took over in English, and demanded an apology to travellers who missed flights because of “incompetence.” Annie Koutrakis read that CATSA has hired 400 new screening officers in various stages of training, and that they are working with airports to relieve bottlenecks. Lantsman insisted that there was some kind of secret advice the government was following that no other government was, to which Gould repeated her lines about passport processing delays.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he was worried that the government plans to appeal the court decision in New Brunswick around the appointment of the lieutenant governor (which is a bad ruling because of what it does for executive appointment powers and constitutional incoherence) while three Liberals spoke out against it. Ginette Petitpas Taylor state that they would ensure future bilingual appointments for the province. Therrien was incensed that the Bloc were being considered radicals, to which Pablo Rodriguez launched into his particular rant that the Bloc are not the only real Quebeckers in the Chamber.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and in French, he railed about inflation, and demanded an excess profit tax on oil companies and to give more GST refunds. Randy Boissonnault reminded him that they indexed benefits to inflation and raised taxes on the top one percent. Daniel Blaikie took over in English by video and made the same demand, and Boissonnault repeated his same answer in English.

Continue reading →

QP: Tough on Black and Indigenous people

Posted on by

In between events with the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, the prime minister was present in QP, as were all other leaders. Candice Bergen led off, script in front of her, and she declared that the stated reason for invoking the Emergencies Act was “falling apart” as the interim Ottawa police chief said he did not request it, and she insisted there was a cover-up. Justin Trudeau quoted another witness at the committee who praised the efficacy of the measures. Bergen blamed Trudeau for the blockade with a litany of dubious accusations, and Trudeau retorted that the opposition doesn’t want light shed into their role in prolonging the occupation. Bergen insisted this was “misinformation” before she pivoted the complaining about airport delays and demanded a return to “pre-COVID normal.” Trudeau reminded her that COVID is not over, and that they are identifying ways to help bottlenecks. Bergen started ranting that Trudeau got to go maskless in other countries while Canadians are tired of doing everything being asked of them (erm, which they haven’t been). Trudeau again reiterated that they are following the science. Bergen then launched into a tirade about COVID measures affecting youth, and Trudeau somehow hating youth, and Trudeau listed all of the help they gave young Canadians over the course of the pandemic.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he gave a bizarre rant about the “British monarchy” and the Anglican Church, and demanded to know how much this would cost. Trudeau, bemused, said that Ottawa must really be delivering for Quebec if the Bloc had to dig to reach this. Blanchet continued to complained that royal tours cost money, and Trudeau took the opportunity to praise our system and its stability at a time when democracy is under threat around the world.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, noted the inflation headline number, and repeated yesterday’s demand to cut oil and gas subsidies and to give that money to people in a GST rebate. Trudeau listed that they have been cutting subsidies, that they are going “line by line” on emissions cuts, and that they have affordability measures. Singh repeated the question in French, and got the same reply.

Continue reading →

QP: The “soft on crime” square dance

Posted on by

The prime minister was away in Newfoundland to meet Prince Charles and Camilla for the start of their royal tour, and most other leaders stayed away as well. Somewhat unusually, Blaine Calkins led off, and he accused the government of being soft on crime, and that crime was getting worse in Liberal-held ridings, to which Gary Anandasangaree read a script about the bill getting rid of sentences that disproportionately target Black and Indigenous people and don’t make anyone safer. Calkins complained that the government was just trying to bring back a gun registry that only targets law-abiding gun owners. Marco Mendicino reminded him that they were banning military-style rifles like AR-15s, but the Conservatives were trying to make then legal again. Calkins insisted it was just a new gun registry, but Mendicino listed new measures that they announced this week to tighten restrictions. Luc Berthold took over in French, and accused the Liberals of wanting armed criminals on the streets, to which Anandasangaree read the French intro to his script, before switching back to English to read the rest of it. Berthold insisted that Bill C-5 would leave criminals on the streets, and Mendicino listed the measures that the Conservatives opposed.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed that the federal government was subsidising oil companies while refinery margins keep increasing, and Randy Boissonnault recited a list of affordability measures that were somewhat of a non sequitur. Therrien repeated this accusations both oil companies, to which Steven Guilbeault recited that they have been cutting subsidies and are moving faster than other G7 partners.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, repeated the same accusations, and wanted the government to support their plan to double the GST credit to help people who need it. Boissonnault listed economic engines for the country and railed that the real problem was Putin and his war on Ukraine. Singh repeated the question in French, and Guilbeault repeated his previous response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Extremism on our own doorstep

Posted on by

It is on or about day eighty-three of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and though the Ukrainian forces have pushed some Russian troops back to the Russian border near Kharkiv, it appears that they have given up the fight for Mariupol, and that Russian troops in the steel plant are being evacuated. We’ll see how much of this is confirmed in the next few days. Meanwhile, here is a look at the aftermath of the fighting in villages surrounding Kharkiv as people start to see what is left.

Elsewhere, Putin gave a calm response to Finland and Sweden’s decision to apply for NATO membership, saying that there is no threat to Russia if these states join. So that’s…interesting. Finnish and Swedish troops will be taking part in a NATO military training exercise in Estonia (which has apparently been in the works for years).

Closer to home, there has been a lot of handwringing about the mass shooting in Buffalo, and the role that white supremacy and violent extremism play here in Canada, and the conspiracy theory of “white replacement theory” playing its own role in our politics (Hello, Andrew Scheer!). This also led to more sniping between Conservative leadership candidates, with particular focus on Pierre Poilievre, who has aligned himself with some of these characters in his support for the occupation in Ottawa. With that in mind, here is a thread full of receipts from Stephanie Carvin, selectively quoted below so click through to read the whole thing (and bonus threads here from Jessica Davis, and here from Amarnath Amarasingam that are also worth considering).

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1526302228868374528

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1526302232622288896

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1526302236074250242

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, the Supreme Court did not allow an extreme intoxication defence

Posted on by

We are now on or about day eighty of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like Russian forces took heavy losses to the tune of as many as 73 tanks in a two-day battle that saw them destroyed in a failed river crossing. So that’s something. Meanwhile, a twenty-one-year-old Russian soldier is now on trial for war crimes for killing civilians. It also looks like some six million Ukrainians are now displaced out of the country by this point, most of them in neighbouring countries, and that situation is starting to take its toll.

As for the potential expansion of NATO with Finland and Sweden about to make their applications, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan says he is not favourable to those countries joining—and applications must be approved unanimously by member countries. This may be a ploy to extract concessions by Sweden in particular, as it relates to Turkey’s domestic political interests.

Closer to home, you will have no doubt seen a bunch of headlines saying that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that “extreme intoxication is a valid defence in murders and sexual assaults.” That is not true, and is extremely misleading. The court in fact stated that extreme intoxication is not a defence that can be relied upon. What they did state was that the section in the Criminal Code that said that a state of automatism brought about by intoxication was not a defence was in fact unconstitutional, because it removed the principle around needing criminal intent. (There was a second, related decision that ruled on a few other related issues). There is a difference between extreme intoxication and a state of automatism, and it should behove news outlets to make a proper differentiation so that they’re not spreading misinformation—which they essentially are with these headlines designed to induce a moral panic. So please disregard them, because it is explicitly not what the court ruled. (I will have a piece delving deeper into its issues out in a day or two).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “debate” spectacle sans substance

Posted on by

It is now around day seventy-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like the Ukrainians have made some gains in the eastern part of the country, pushing Russian forces out of four villages near Kharkiv. Meanwhile, a team of Ukrainian soldiers has been tasked with revisiting recent battlefields around Kyiv to gather the dead, and have recovered the remains of around 200 Russian soldiers thus far. It sounds like they may try to return these bodies to Russia in exchange for prisoners, but we’ll see if those kinds of deals hold.

Closer to home, it was the first official English debate of the Conservative leadership race, and it was…an experience. While it was not the hostile snipe-fest that was the Conference Formerly Known As the Manning Conference debate, it was a strange format where they tried to have limited engagements between candidates, to control the temptation to talk over one another, and then insisted that the audience not clap or boo, which…defeats the whole point of a live audience, and it was a real choice to try and control their reactions. And it had a sad trombone sound. No, seriously. Not every segment was on policy—some of it were personal, asking candidates what they’re reading, or the kinds of music they like, which is fine and humanizes them a little. (But seriously, Roman Baber choosing Amy Winehouse? Has he ever listened to what she has to say in her lyrics?)

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1524548247456559104

Some observation on each candidate, in the drawn order of their opening statements:

  • Scott Aitchison: While he is aiming to be the reasonable, middle-of-the-road candidates, there are plenty of places where he displays the intellectual heft of the truck commercial he launched his campaign with. A lot of what he offered is not really credible, particularly on environmental or resource development files.
  • Roman Baber: I’m not going to mince words. Honestly, this guy is a moron. He says a lot of things that he’s picked up in the online discourse, but none of it makes any sense, most of it is contradictory, and he’s utterly vacuous—but nobody would call him on that.
  • Patrick Brown: While he kept insisting that he’s the only one who can deliver the suburbs like in the GTA, Brown also made some particular missteps, like insisting he would advance a no-fly zone over Ukraine (essentially committing Canada to a shooting war with a nuclear power), or that the point of reconciliation with Indigenous people is so that we can build more pipelines.
  • Pierre Poilievre: Aside from just using “freedom!” in as many answers as possible, he opened by outright attacking the Bank of Canada and saying he would replace the governor if he were to form government, which is a pretty big bomb to drop. He lied and prevaricated about his previous statements and positions, particularly during the Bitcoin portion of the evening. But the longer the evening went on, the more it became clear that he was just going down the right-wing populist checklist and name-checking every item on it, whether it was saying he’s reading Jordan Peterson’s book, or that he wants to fight “government censorship.” He displayed no principles, just virtue-signalling to the crowd he is courting.
  • Leslyn Lewis: Mostly said a lot of hyperbolic things about how “divided” the country is because of COVID, and that she is somehow going to heal the divides between people who believe in science and evidence, and anti-vaxxers who don’t care how many people they infect because they refuse to wear a mask or stay home. How does plan to heal those divides? Who knows?
  • Jean Charest: Charest was more pugnacious and was willing to break debate rules in order to how do you do, fellow kids?, and insist that he’s the only one who can unite east and west…but he too made a bunch of fairly questionable pronouncements. Like private healthcare delivery could have avoided lockdowns (erm, you saw the States, right?) or that he would cut income taxes to fight inflation (which is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline).

It was an event that begged for booze (which I did not imbibe in, because I had this post to write). But I will leave you with Paul Wells’ suitably acerbic take on the event, which sums the lunacy of it up nicely.

Continue reading →