Tag Archives: GLBT

Roundup: Declaring war on the budget for no reason

Posted on by

The Conservatives have declared war on the budget, and have begun a campaign of procedural warfare over it. It began on Friday, with the abuse of remote voting, where they abandoned the Chamber for a vote and instead all voted remotely, after which they claimed there was a “technical problem” and each of them requested that their vote be verified, thus slowing down the process immensely. (Seriously, end remote voting. It’s anathema to our system).

Yesterday they announced that they had a campaign of hundreds of amendments and other tactics at their disposal unless their demands were met—balancing the budget, and ending increases to “all carbon taxes,” meaning the federal carbon price and the clean fuel standard (which is not a carbon price, and may never see an increase in the price at the pumps if the minister has his way). Their justification for this—that these deficits are inflationary and driving up interest rates—is illiterate nonsense, and the kinds of misinformation/disinformation that we have come to expect from them. And yet, we have a bunch of pundits who insist this is “good politics.” I’m not sure how, but here we are.

More than anything, one has to wonder why they are going nuclear over this. These kinds of tactics are generally reserved for when the government crosses a line, does something that attacks Parliament, or seriously undermines Parliament or democracy. Using them for bullshit theatre continues this pattern of all tactics, no strategy that the NDP became famous for during their stint as official opposition, and it’s just abusing Parliament more than anything the government is doing. I simply cannot fathom how they feel this is going to help them, rather than simply looking like they are wasting everyone’s time.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces appear to have blown up a dam on the Dnipro River near Kherson, which could lead to mass flooding. Ukrainian forces appear to be attempting to punch through Russian lines in the south-eastern part of the country, which could be a sign that the counter-offensive is underway. Russians also launched yet another early-morning attack on Kyiv, where air defences have shot down at least 20 missiles so far.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Proactively calling in Navigator

Posted on by

There was some late-in-the-day excitement in the political sphere last night as it was confirmed that David Johnston has hired crisis communications firm Navigator to help with his media relations, because of course he has. Now, there is some context here in that he hired them off the start and not only in the last week as the toxic bullshit that surrounds his report has been cranked up to eleven, but that would also mean that they were likely the ones who advised him on how to handle the allegations of the conflict of interest, which doesn’t actually exist, but the fact that he spent so much time on it during his press conference didn’t seem to help matters any.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1664764909974896640

Yes, Navigator has become something of a punchline in Canadian politics, particularly of late, and someone remarked over Twitter that it’s on par with people hiring former Supreme Court of Canada justices to burnish their reputations. (And lo, Johnston did just that as part of his ensuring he didn’t have an actual conflict of interest). And if I were to hazard a guess, I would say that this blind spot that people in politics seem to have around Navigator’s waning reputation is in part because of their clubbiness with the people who work there. It’s full of people who spent a lot of time in politics and who are still actively involved, and everyone knows them, so they feel they can trust these people they know, never mind that their reputation as a whole has taken a beating. And yeah, that blind spot is a problem.

Nevertheless, I’m not sure this news changes anything. Johnston pretty much has to keep on working because frankly, there is no one else who can take over at this point. The field has been flooded with bullshit, and the opposition attacks have made this poisonous for anyone to step into the role, either to take over from Johnston as a special rapporteur or to head a public inquiry. (I have a column on this that should be out later today).

Ukraine Dispatch:

The total air barrage countered overnight on Thursday was 15 cruise missiles and 21 drones, while President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is ordering an audit of air raid shelters after three people died after being locked out on the street during a raid. Zelenskyy has also acknowledged that NATO membership is impossible until after they win the war against Russia (for reasons that should be immediately obvious). Meanwhile, top US military officials say that Abrams tanks and F-16 jets are long-term plans for Ukraine, and training is being organised, but they won’t happen for the upcoming spring/summer counteroffensive.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1664615530215485443

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1664600643305193472

https://twitter.com/anitaanandmp/status/1664582278897434627

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith stays, Alberta still a one-party state

Posted on by

Well, Alberta has decided that it remains a one-party state, no matter how corrupted that party is, or how completely awful the leader is, and just how utterly unsuited Danielle Smith is for office, and that she has embraced all manner of conspiracy theories, or behaved in ways that imperilled democracy. While I have a full column on this coming out later today, there are a couple of things not mentioned therein that I did still want to mention.

One is that I cannot fathom how the whole “Take Back Alberta” narrative persisted. Take it back from whom? From what? You’ve been a one-party state for nearly fifty years, minus the four-year NDP interregnum that came about as a result of a perfect storm that in no way could be replicated this time around.

The NDP ran a weak campaign, and they are now comforting themselves with the fact that they have the largest official opposition in the province’s history, for what little it matters because Smith still has a majority, and they have no actual leverage to make any particular difference in the legislature. I am feeling some flashbacks to 2011 when the federal NDP formed official opposition and felt like they won the election, when they also handed the Conservatives a majority and they had no actual ability to make change or have leverage.

There is also still a particular ugliness in this election, as exemplified by the fact that the UCP candidate who compared trans children to faeces in cookie batter won by a landslide. Smith claims that she’s out of caucus “for good,” but I don’t actually believe her, and I have no doubt that after a few months in that penalty box, she’ll be welcomed back into the party because Smith believes in forgiveness, or some bullshit like that. And not nearly enough people will do any soul-searching over this, and this ugliness will fester.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Another night, another massive air raid against Kyiv and other cities in Ukraine, with more than 20 drones shot down as of this writing, and at least one high rise is being evacuated as falling debris has caused a fire. The constant nightly air attacks against Kyiv are taking a toll on its citizens (which is of course why the Russians are doing it). Russians did also allegedly hit a Ukrainian air base, plus port infrastructure in Odessa. There was also a Russian attack on the city of Toretsk in the Donetsk region, which killed two and injured at least eight.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1663350609385254912

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1663176973793861633

Continue reading →

Roundup: Claims O’Toole also was a target

Posted on by

It is being alleged that Erin O’Toole has been briefed by CSIS that Chinese agents had been targeting him during his time as party leader because of his bellicose language about the regime. While there is no indication his family was also being targeted, his sister did live in Hong Kong for a number of years. Of course, I am taking the language in the article with a few grains of salt because the Johnston report pointed out that threats weren’t actually made to Michael Chong’s family, but that there was an indication that the agent in Canada was trying to gather information, so what exactly this “targeting” of O’Toole consists of I am keeping my powder dry on.

This has, of course, given rise to another round of cries for a public inquiry. Not one of them has articulated just how such an inquiry would make any iota of difference from the current process being undertaken by Johnston (aside from taking three years and costing a few hundred million dollars). How exactly does this situation require additional subpoena powers when the government has willingly turned over all of their documentation? If most of it will need to be behind closed doors because of the nature of the information, how exactly does this build trust? Nobody has yet articulated this, and “it just will” is not an answer—especially when the media and the opposition have been undermining trust in how these matters are being reported and discussed, and I fail to see how a public inquiry will change any of this.

Meanwhile, David Johnston took to the op-ed pages of the Globe and Mail to defend his decision to carry on with the review in light of the criticisms of his involvement, which has been pointed out seems to misunderstand the nature of how the political game is played these days. Of course, Johnston is hoping that he can get MPs and party leaders to be grown-ups and work together on this problem, but that’s unlikely to happen in the current climate and especially with the current players, and in that same token, writing an op-ed in the Globe seems a bit like that same kind of naïve hope that people will treat this as they did a couple of decades ago.

On a related note, the CBC has one of the worst examples of both-sidesing the supposed controversy around Johnston’s alleged conflict of interest—two professors who say it’s probably not a conflict, all things considered, but Democracy Watch (which has no actual credibility other than they are a reliable quote generator for lazy journalists) says it is, so it’s up to Canadians to decide. Seriously? This is exactly the kind of thing that has allowed misinformation and disinformation to flourish, because they refuse to call out bullshit when they see it. This is killing democracy, and they absolutely refuse to engage in any self-reflection about it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile struck a clinic in the city of Dnipro, killing two and wounding 30, after Ukrainian forces shot down ten missiles and twenty drones targeting Dnipro and Kyiv overnight. Meanwhile, the disaffected Russian group has allegedly shelled more targets in Belgorod region in Russia. Ukraine’s defence ministry is warning that Russia plans to simulate a major accident at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in order to thwart the coming counter-offensive.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1662024887731474432?s=61&t=P3QULyv63iAc0o1A98RiWQ

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1661975921455161344?s=61&t=P3QULyv63iAc0o1A98RiWQ

Continue reading →

Roundup: Johnston says no public inquiry

Posted on by

It was David Johnston Day, as his first report was delivered, and he did not recommend a public inquiry for very good reasons—particularly that it could not be necessarily public given the nature of the information, and that it would be window dressing at this stage of the game, considering he had already done a lot of the heavy lifting, and planned to do public hearings as part of his final report. You can read the full report here, but here are the five key takeaways. There was plenty of scathing material in there, particularly to the system of information dissemination within government, but also to the way media stories torqued partial information into falsehoods (the Han Dong allegations were discredited in the report). There is a problem with information culture within government, and while this government has done a lot to fix some things, they are not adapting fast enough to the changing environment, and that is on them. (Check out some of the threads linked below as well).

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1661045080705187842

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1661080153122848781

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/1661211717924188161

Johnston’s decision was necessarily a no-win scenario, and everyone is unhappy, but nobody has exactly explained how a public inquiry was going to restore trust in the democratic system—particularly as it comes under attack by bad faith actors who spent the day trying to discredit Johnston and his report (never mind that he did address the alleged conflicts and consulted with a former Supreme Court of Canada justice before accepting the job), and that no matter who would lead either the Special Rapporteur process or a theoretical public inquiry, there would be the same bad faith attacks because they don’t actually want to restore faith in the process. They want people to distrust because they cynically hope to leverage that in the next election. Pierre Poilievre in particular has refused to strike any kind of statesmanlike tone and refuses to be briefed because he knows that the moment he actually knows the intelligence and can’t talk about it, he can’t outright lie and make accusations with wild abandon, and that’s his entire shtick. But this is a fairly classic Canadian problem, where MPs don’t want to know the actual secret information, because then they’d have to stop talking, which they don’t want to do. Remember, ours is no longer a serious Parliament.

There is a conversation to be had about the role media is playing in undermining the faith in democracy, but you can rest assured there will be no self-reflection around it. Rather, there will be self-justification and rationalization, and sniping that Johnston expects us to take the intelligence he’s seen at face value, which is ironic considering that the media outlets reporting on these leaks are expecting us to do the very same thing, even though there are agendas at play within that reporting.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1661050997936996356

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1661051520018706432

In pundit reaction, Justin Ling gives a fairly balanced summation of the report with some insightful commentary. Susan Delacourt is sceptical of Johnston’s assertion that politicians and media can play their parts in restoring faith in democracy. Andrew Coyne is unhappy with the notion that we are expected to just trust Johnston (ignoring the contradiction made above), and while he credits Johnston with inviting NSICOP and NSIRA to review his findings, the same secrecy problem remains. Matt Gurney despairs at the picture of incompetence the report paints.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Following his return to Ukraine after meetings at the G7 in Hiroshima, Japan, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visted marines on the front lines in the country’s east. Over the weekend, the Russians claimed they overran Bakhmut over the weekend, which Ukraine denies, particularly as they have been reclaiming territory surrounding it. Russians are also claiming Ukrainian “sabotage groups” are crossing the border into the Belgorod region, but it sounds like these may be disaffected Russians, as Ukrainans deny involvement. Russians later claim to have “crushed” these groups.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1660291196030271490

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1660884230174560256

Continue reading →

Roundup: A bad report and a bad debate

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released another one of his highly dubious reports yesterday, this time on the incoming clean fuel regulations. Why is it dubious? Because it’s entirely one-sided and assumes no costs to climate change, and no adaptation on the part of industry in order to bring costs down to meet their obligations under the regulations, which is the whole gods damned point of these kinds of mechanisms. Oh, and this isn’t fiscal policy, so it’s not clear why he’s even doing this kind of report in the first place.

As you may have noticed during Question Period, the Conservatives jumped all over this report and its findings, and when they were questioned, their media staff were over social media accusing people of calling the PBO a liar. Well, it’s not that he’s a liar—it’s bad data, a bad report, and the numbers taken from it were used dishonestly and entirely in bad faith. And the PBO gets the attention he’s looking for, and around and around we go.

Rachel Notley vs Danielle Smith

For the purposes of researching my column last night, I subjected myself to the leaders’ debate in the Alberta election and it was…not great. Yes, lots of people gushed at how nice it was just to have two leaders going head-to-head and not four or five, but we don’t have a two-party system federally (and it’s a bad sign that Alberta has a de facto one provincially).

My not-too-original observations were that Notley was weirdly on the defensive most of the night, while Smith was pretending to be the upstart challenger rather than the incumbent, attacking Notley on her record at every turn when Notley wasn’t effectively throwing many punches herself. Yes, she did well on the healthcare and education portions, but was not effectively countering Smith’s confident bullshit throughout, and that’s a real problem in a lower voter-information environment, where that confidence plays well regardless of the fact that Smith lied constantly with a straight face. On the very day that Smith was found to have broken the province’s Conflict of Interest Act, Notley had a hard time effectively making this point, while Smith claimed vindication because it showed she didn’t directly call Crown prosecutors, while it full-out warned that Smith’s behaviour was a threat to democracy, and Notley could barely say the words.

Programming Note: I am taking the full long weekend off, so expect the next post to be on Wednesday.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There are reports of more air raids in Ukraine early Friday morning. Russians fired 30 cruise missiles against Ukrainian targets in the early morning hours on Thursday, and Ukraine shot down 29 of them, with the one that got through striking an industrial building in Odessa, killing one and wounding two. There were also further gains made around Bakhmut, and even the Wagner Group’s leader says that they have bene in retreat. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy set up a reintegration council in order to provide advice for the restoration of Ukrainian rule when they liberate Crimean.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1659213321927794693

Continue reading →

QP: The “sneaky” fuel standard the Conservatives also promised

Posted on by

The prime minister was still in South Korea, but his deputy was once again present for the debate. (It’s been a while since we’ve had three in a row), and all of the other leaders were present as well. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and spouts some nonsense about deficits before insisting that Chrystia Freeland was incompetent for not answering at committee the size of debt payments. Freeland insisted that the person who won’t answer questions is Poilievre and what he plans to cut (which is not her job to ask questions). Following an incident of a shouter in the Gallery bellowing out a manifesto as he was removed, Poilievre tried again in English, and Freeland this time straight up asserted that Poilievre plans to cut. Poilievre said he would cut the carbon price, and worried about a “sneaky” second carbon price known as the fuel standard. Freeland said that she was glad to hear the Conservatives talking about climate, because building a clean economy was where jobs are. Poilievre repeated the question, and Freeland said that he doesn’t understand that the need to plan for the green future, and regaled a meeting with an electrician who was excited about electrification. Poilievre tried to riff that this electrician would have to pay more because of the “taxes” of the government, and demanded again how much this second tax (which is not a tax) would cost. Freeland noted this electrician’s wife is an emergency room nurse who is benefitting from this government’s investments, because of course she is.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and raised an issue around contamination on Indigenous land in Quebec, and Freeland noted that Patty Hajdu responded yesterday that she is working with the local Indigenous leaders. Blanchet said that these people were living in fear, and Freeland agreed it was a serious situation that the government was engaged on.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and worried about skyrocketing rental prices, and Freeland praised the child care investments benefitting the single mother raised in the question. Singh switched to French to worry about rising grocery prices, and demanded the government fight it by taxing excessive profits. Freeland agreed that the wealthiest pay their fair share, which is why they raised their taxes and set up the grocery rebate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chong didn’t explain how his privileges were breached

Posted on by

Conservative MP Michael Chong appeared at the Procedure and House Affairs committee yesterday to discuss the sense that his privileges as an MP—being able to do his job—were breached by Beijing’s threats to him and his family. And so, Chong gave a speech at the committee where he touched briefly on the privilege issue, saying that he wants a formal parliamentary censure of the Chinese diplomat named (and since expelled) in the situation, before going on to whole thing about the prime minister, national security, and what we should be doing in Canada. And he’s not wrong! But that’s not the point of this committee meeting. The point was to discuss his privileges being breached, and what MPs should do about said breach.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1658610455739346944

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1658615915540279297

As expected, the Conservatives on the committee mostly spent the time trying to get Chong to denounce the prime minister, and did they talk about his privileges being breached? Nope. The other thing that bothered me was that Chong kept bringing up the Winnipeg Lab issue, which is where I have lost a lot of respect for him because he has been building a bullshit conspiracy theory around it. What happened at that Lab has been extensively reported on by Dylan Robertson and others. There was no indication that there was a national security issue involving China at all, but rather a policy breach around intellectual property with the two fired scientists. Chong would know this if the Conservatives had allowed NSICOP to view the redacted documents that had been provided to them, but they have steadfastly refused to do so because it serves their narratives not to. Is NSICOP perfect? No, but it’s a very good start, and if we want to transition it to a parliamentary model, there need to be a whole lot more steps than just Parliament making a declaration (one of the most important considerations being the lack of secure meeting spaces and servers on the Hill).

So while there were interesting things raised, the point of the meeting was about privileges, and once again, a committee is being abused to go on a tangent or a fishing expedition. Committees have functions, and this one was supposed to be determining how his ability to do his job was impacted. I didn’t see really any of that in the testimony, which is all the more frustrating.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Overnight attacks against Kyiv saw 18 missiles launched, all of which were shot down—but Ukrainian forces are saying that six of those missiles were hypersonic, and that their new air defences brought them down too, which is proving the new Western systems against the supposed best of what Russia has to offer. One of the Patriot missile systems used by Ukraine may have been damaged in a strike, however. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces appear to be making more gains around Bakhmut, which they say is not connected to the upcoming counter-offensive. Elsewhere, Ukraine’s chief of the Supreme Court has been dismissed after being detained in a bribery case.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658379904029736960

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1658351720232108034

Continue reading →

Roundup: You can’t replace committee travel with Zoom

Posted on by

Another day, another story where I roll my eyes and sigh because nobody can seem to grasp some pretty fundamental points. To wit: Scandal and pearl-clutching because the Senate’s audit committee is planning a trip to Westminster to consult with their counterparts there. Someone fetch a fainting couch for all of the zeros attached to the costs of the trip! And of course, we couldn’t have cheap outrage without getting a quote from the so-called Canadian Taxpayers Federation, whose continued existence depends on being the go-to source for media when they need a cheap outrage quote.

Some context to this story—the Senate’s audit committee has been a long and hard-fought battle to come into existence because the previous Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, was trying to steer the nascent committee in a direction that would see it be completely staffed by outsiders, which is a particular affront to Parliamentary privilege and the status of the Senate as a self-governing body in and of itself. Eventually the current composition—a mix of senators and outsider, with senators in the majority—was adopted, years after it should have been, and very much in the model that the House of Lords employs. (Note that this model had first been championed by the late Senator Elaine McCoy, and we could have saved years of fighting had people just listened to her). And because this has to do with a parliamentary body, you can’t just get advice from any audit firm in Canada, as the CTF seems to think—you need best practices from those who have dealt with the particular issues that a parliamentary body has. Of course, none of this context is in the story, because nobody pays attention to the Senate unless it’s for a cheap outrage story like this one. Of course.

Meanwhile, the most galling part of the piece is the suggestion that all of this should be done over Zoom, both out of a concern for cost and carbon emissions. And honestly, this type of suggestion needs to have a stake driven through it. This kind of work relies on human interaction, and relationship-building, and that doesn’t happen and cannot happen over Zoom. This is one of the biggest problems with hybrid sittings (which, mercifully, the Senate has ended), but which MPs refuse to believe, and apparently a few senators do too—parliament is a face-to-face institution. It cannot effectively operate remotely. The pandemic was a short-term (ish) problem that required a solution, and while this was not the best one, it was a solution that nevertheless has emboldened people to think that Parliament is a job you can do from home. It’s absolutely not, and this kind of committee travel is no exception. You cannot replace the kinds of interactions that make this travel essential over Zoom, and we need to stop thinking of Zoom as the solution to problems that aren’t actually problems.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia launched another overnight round of attacks on Kyiv, this time with drones, but all were shot down. The commander of Ukraine’s ground forces says it’s important that they maintain their hold on Bakhmut in advance of the counter-offensive (not the least of which because it’s degrading Russia’s forces significantly). The EU is hoping to increase production of ammunition in order to help Ukraine’s efforts. And here is one Ukrainian farmer’s novel way of de-mining his fields using parts from old Russian tanks.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1653390767329558530

https://twitter.com/war_mapper/status/1653169425749508100

Continue reading →

Roundup: It wasn’t just social housing

Posted on by

A speech by NDP MP Daniel Blaikie is making the rounds in which he blames the rising housing unaffordability on the federal government vacating the social housing space in 1993, and that this is all the consequence of that. As economist Mike Moffatt explains, this isn’t actually true. But that’s one of the issues with the NDP—they have singular narratives that they must fit things into, whether it’s true or not, and singular policy prescriptions to go along with them. (Yes, other parties do this to, to greater or lesser extents).

Anyway, here’s Moffatt on the more complicated picture. (Full thread here, select portions below).

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642488918435155970

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642489599900495872

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642490391969636355

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1642491809065574401

Ukraine Dispatch:

Wagner Group mercenaries are again claiming victory in Bakhmut, not for the first time, while Ukrainian forces again insist they remain in control of the territory. Russians shelled the eastern city of Kostiantynivka, killing six civilians and wounding eight others. Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials are outlining plans for what to do with Crimea once they have recaptured it, and those plans include dismantling the bridge to Russia. Here is a look at the Canadian training programme for Ukrainian soldiers in teaching them how to check for booby-traps and mines in captured territory.

https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1642087035715420160

Continue reading →