Tag Archives: Housing

Roundup: Being too clever about the MOU’s language

Posted on by
Reply

Today is the Conservatives’ big Supply Day, where they are bringing forward their motion that cherry-picks two phrases from the MOU with Alberta, and hopes to jam the Liberals with it. Pierre Poilievre may claim that the language is “lifted directly from the MOU,” so the Liberals should put up or shut up, but of course, he’s being too cute by half. It’s not language directly lifted from the MOU. The MOU states a “private sector constructed and financed pipelines, with Indigenous Peoples co-ownership and economic benefit, with at least one million barrels a day of low emission Alberta bitumen with a route that increases export access to Asian markets as a priority” whereas the motion simply says “pipelines enabling the export of at least one million barrels a day of low-emission Alberta bitumen from a strategic deepwater port on the British Columbia coast to reach Asian markets,” and adds “respecting the duty to consult Indigenous people.” One of these things is not like the other.

— Kady O'Malley (@kadyo.bsky.social) 2025-12-08T22:44:00.568Z

"low emissions Albertan bitumen"Charlatans always always think other people are stupid.

— Emmett Macfarlane 🇨🇦 (@emmettmacfarlane.com) 2025-12-09T00:21:28.775Z

Liberal MP Corey Hogan, the party’s sole Calgary MP, called out these shenanigans, both in a media scrum and on his Twitter, where he points out entirely why the Conservatives haver phrased it this way—to either make the Liberals look like they’re ignoring Indigenous consultation and consent, or to make it look like they’re not serious about building it, and in either case, it sends a signal to someone that will cause doubt and will inevitably delay any decisions. And the government indicated last night that they’re going to vote against it, citing that the Conservatives are not using the full language from the MOU. This in turn will set up weeks of Conservatives screaming that they knew the Liberals were lying the whole time and never had any intention of building a pipeline.

The thing we need to remember in all of this is not the shenanigans, or the Conservatives thinking they’re too clever, or any of that—rather, it’s that they think they can ram through these projects without Indigenous consent. Sure, they’ll talk about “meaningful consultation,” but consultation is not consent, and in their press releases, consent is never mentioned, nor is even consultations. That’s not realistic, nor even legal in the current framework. Of course, they also think a new pipeline will “unblock the trillions of dollars of privatesector energy investment to produce more oil and gas, build profitable pipelines and ship a million barrels of oil to Asia a day at world prices.” My dudes—this is a post-2014 world. It’s not going to be trillions of dollars, and world oil prices are tanking because of a supply glut. All of this is fantasyland.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-08T14:08:03.419Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians have attacked Sumy for the second night in a row, cutting off power in the region. Here is a look at those remaining in Kostiantynivka, as Russians approach.

Continue reading →

QP: False attribution to the food price report

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was apparently in town but had nothing on his schedule, and was not at QP. Pierre Poilievre was, however, and he led off in French, worrying about Canadians not able to afford nutritious food after the Food Price Report said that families can expect to spend an additional $995 a year on groceries this year, and demanded the government abolish the “taxes” and “inflationary spending” driving those prices. (That is not what is causing the prices to rise). Julie Dabrusin rose to say that the industrial carbon price doesn’t apply to farms, and that the Food Price Report said that climate change is the biggest driver of food prices, and if the Conservatives were ready to fight climate change. Poilievre cited the report to point out that the average weekly grocery bill for a family of four doubled over the past ten years, and again blamed government spending and “taxes.” Steve MacKinnon dismissed the talk of these imaginary taxes, and that Poilievre systematically votes against things that help people in need. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question, and took aim at “inflationary taxes on food.” Patty Hajdu got up and pointed out that he didn’t read the report, and that the report highlights that the highest drivers of costs are related to climate changes, such as drought in Western Canada, and that is why the governments were helping Canadians with things like child care. Poilievre declared that Carney declared that the was to be judged on the prices of food, and that he is now making excuses for food prices doubling over the past year thanks to “Liberal taxes.” Hajdu again dismissed the menace of “hidden taxes” and that’s why they ensure that there is more money in people’s pockets, and then jabbed that the Conservatives apparently don’t understand market forces, before praising the renewed child care agreements with provinces. Poilievre insisted that those programmes have only made child poverty worse, and this time Dabrusin praised the Canada Child Benefit before taking her own turn chiding the imaginary taxes. Poilievre enumerated those supposed “hidden taxes” and demanded the government scrap them. Hajdu pointed out that Poilievre didn’t obviously read the report, and cited its passages on inflation.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and accused the government of bowing to religious lobbies as they have slowed down progress on the hate crime bill. Patricia Lattanzio said that the work on the bill was progressing. Normandin again accused the government of being cowardly, and Marc Miller got up to ask if the Bloc, like their provincial counterparts, think that artists need to swear loyalty to the Quebec nation. Rhéal Fortin got up to take his own turn to make the same accusation of government, and this time Joël Lightbound said that the Bloc are trying to distract, and said that the government is investing in culture not to demand the fealty of artists.

Continue reading →

QP: Debating whether the minister read the contract

Posted on by
Reply

The prime minister was indeed present for the penultimate Wednesday QP of the year, as were the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he once again led off with swipes at Marc Miller before taking his “fed up” line and applying it to the cost of food, and wondered how many people the prime minister would send to food banks. Mark Carney said that inflation is lower—at 2.2%—and salaries are on the rise, while joblessness is down and the economy is good. Poilievre took this and said that Carney is “happy” with grocery prices, and noted how much grocery prices rose up, blaming government spending. Carney said that Poilevre was ignoring that this was a “new” government that created the strongest economy the G7. (Erm… Really?) Poilievre switched to English to return to the Food Price report and the doubling of it over the past decade, blaming “inflationary deficits” and hidden taxes, and demanded to know how much groceries would increase next year. Carney wanted to the the “numbers straight” and praised economic growth, wages growing faster than inflation. Poilievre gave the usual mocking about a Canadians not having so good, and asked about the food price report. Carney praised the tax cuts that the conservatives voted against, and patted himself on the back for the budget. Poilievre then raised the Algoma steel layoffs and the fact that the loans didn’t come out with job guarantees. Carney intoned that these are difficult times, and quoted the CEO saying that things would have been worse without government support, and that they were able to save two-thirds of their jobs. Poilievre mocked about keeping the CEO happy, and said that he got paid to ship jobs south. Carney quoted Doug Ford about how much worse it would have been without supports.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he worried about Steven Guilbeault’s departure, and wondered who would speak for Quebec’s language and culture. Carney pointed to their 44 Liberal MPs from the province, and promised to protect Quebec’s language and culture. Blanchet took swipes at Carney not living up to his promises on the environment, and Carney insisted he was living up to their climate goals, and that they were getting investment in clean energy, nuclear, and carbon capture. Blanchet mocked the notion that nuclear is clean energy, and demanded the government give up his oil agenda and return to the climate agenda to care about Quebec. Carney intoned that they were living up to the climate agenda that included $4 billion in the budget for Hydro Quebec.

Carney then took his leave, to more Conservative jeers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unclear goals means poor accountability

Posted on by
2

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released his report on the plans for Build Canada Homes yesterday, and the headline conclusion is that the $13 billion fund will only produce some 26,000 new housing units, which is not a lot. He also tracks the declining funding in other existing housing programmes, that BCH doesn’t really make up for, though the government’s response that has been that his report merely assumes that funding agreements coming to an end won’t be renewed, and that they could be three or four years down the road when they do expire, so fair enough.

New PBO report out today, that finds that in the first 5 years of the Build Canada Homes program, it's will have $7.3 billion of spending on an accrual basis ($13 billion on a cash basis) and lead to fewer than 26,000 homes being built.Read here: www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/pu…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T15:11:25.000Z

The fed reaction to PBO's housing report makes clear what I said at a conference last week: The gov't has no long-term plan, no targets, no KPIs, no accountability metrics. 5 years from now we won't know if BCH worked, because there's no benchmarks.www.cbc.ca/news/poli…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T20:12:57.000Z

That said, Mike Moffatt makes the point that the report highlights the lack of long-term planning, and metrics by which BCH can be held to account. Sure, it’s supposed to “catalyse” investment from the private sector, and do things like make federal lands available for development, but it’s fair to point out that the lack of planning makes it hard to tell just what they’re planning to do, and how that funding will be applied. Gregor Robertson insists that this is just the initial investment, that more will come in future years, and so on, but again, you would think they would have a better grasp on the plan and what it’s supposed to entail. I know it’s been a few months, but clear goals would really help set the direction they are supposed to be headed in. This government has thus-far relied on a lot of hand-waving regarding their plans, and this is very much an example of what that looks like and why it’s not very helpful for evaluating what they’re supposed to be doing.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-02T22:22:02.159Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine continues to deny Russia’s claim that they control Pokrovsk. Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines don’t believe in the current “peace deal,” saying Russia will simply invade again in the future.

Russian propaganda in full force for the Witkoff visit: Putin is claiming to have captured Ukrainian cities that he doesn't control, and having himself photographed in military uniformkyivindependent.com/putin-claims…

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T12:18:09.879Z

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1995802755034734819

Continue reading →

QP: Swipes at Marc Miller

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was present today, as were the other leaders, and it remained to be seen what Carney would be grilled on. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, where he immediately took aim at Marc Miller being appointed to cabinet, blamed him for “ruining” the immigration system and increasing the cost of living (huh?) and then took aim at comments he’d made about being tired of the decline of the French language, while Poilievre claimed he wanted to defend it. (That would be news to much of Poilievre’s base). Mark Carney stood up to declare that the government has immigration “under control,” and that the number of asylum seekers have dropped by one third, and that they will defend the French language with the greatest investments in the cultural sector. Poilievre needled on Miller’s statement about being tired of the debate over the decline of French, and he wondered why Miller got appointed. Carney said that he was for his new minister and against Poilievre being against their investments in language and culture. Poilievre then switched to English to raise the lack of consultations with First Nations about the “promised” pipeline to the Pacific, and that the Assembly of First Nations condemned his plan, and demanded that Carney make it clear to them that they will build the pipeline and do the “consultations to make it happen” (without actually apparently getting their consent). Carney said that Hansard showed Poilievre wanted to ram a pipeline through while the government would consult to get free, prior and informed consent with First Nations, and work with the province of BC, because they know how to consult and respect. Poilievre took another swipe at Miller, and quoted Miller taking a few shots about the lack of consultations, and wondered why Carney didn’t start consultations eight months ago. Carney said that there needs to be a project and a proponent, and in order to do that, they needed to create the conditions to do so, which they have now done. Poilievre switched to the PBO’s report on housing, declaring it a “broken promise” go get housing built, and that it showed they would only get one percent of their promised houses built. Carney responded with a swipe that as a life-long MP, he’d never built anything, and then pointed out that Poilievre didn’t actually read the report, and listed the housing numbers contained therein. Poilievre hit back that Carney created the housing crisis in the UK after being governor of Bank of England (huh?), and insisted that he wouldn’t fulfil the promised housing, and pointed to the modular partial house that was used for a photo op and then dismantled. Carney pointed out that house was sent to Nunavut, and that it’s a place where people live and not just fly there for a photo op without meeting with the premier.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and worried about BC’s rights around the possible pipeline. Carney insisted that they will work with the province and that everything will be done in cooperation. Blanchet argued that provinces need to be respected, and decried this particular “contract.” Carney insisted that this wasn’t a contract, but a memorandum of understanding that lays out a pathway in conjunction with the province and First Nations. Blanchet insisted that it was a contract, and worried about the tanker ban, and that all parties should sign it with free, prior and informed consent. Carney again insisted that it was an MOU that obligates Alberta to make environmental investments.

Carney then got up and left, to much Conservative consternation and chanting, and the Speaker had to deliver another warning.

Continue reading →

QP: Promises to steel workers

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was in town, but not in QP as he prepared for his Cabinet shuffle to replace Steven Guilbeault. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, where he raised a report on the increase in food insecurity in Quebec, and he blamed the government for forcing them to pay more in taxes and inflation (which is contradictory because most taxes are disinflationary). Anna Gainey praised the government’s investments in things like the school food programme, their income tax cut, and investments in affordable housing. Poilievre claimed they voted against measures that feed bureaucracy instead of families and children, and claimed tried to draw a connection between the increase in children at food banks since with the creation of the school food programme, and make the false connection between government spending and food price inflation. Steve MacKinnon raised the child care benefit and automatic tax filing to ensure more people get benefits as more help for those facing food insecurity, which the Conservatives voted against. Poilievre switched to English to raise that Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie was laying off a thousand workers, and said that the prime minister failed to live up to his promises to protect their jobs, and said it was made worse by the fact that the government was raising the industrial carbon price. Mélanie Joly said that their thoughts were with the workers, and that they were in contact with Algoma, and that they have every confidence in those workers and they would support them while they developed new products for new markets. Poilievre said that Liberal thoughts wouldn’t put food on their tables, then turned to the another report on food insecurity, this time in Ontario, but again tied food bank use to industrial carbon prices (which, again, is bullshit). Patty Hajdu decried that the Conservatives have been fighting supports for people, and noted that they voted against the expansion of EI for workers like those from Algoma. Poilievre again blamed the industrial carbon price on food inflation, and François-Philippe Champagne touted their tax cuts, and proclaimed that the government was there for workers and families while Conservatives voted against them. Poilievre then pivoted to the latest Missing Middle Initiative report on housing starts being down, but blamed it again on the industrial carbon price, while somehow trying to tie this to Brookfield tax havens in Bermuda. Gregor Robertson retorted that if they cared about affordable housing, they would have supported the measures in the budget. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and raised Steven Guilbeault’s remarks in the media on the weekend, and wanted the government to admit they were abandoning the fight against climate change. MacKinnon praised the “clear commitments” in the MOU with Alberta, which was something to see with a straight face. Normandin wondered, rhetorically, why more Liberals didn’t follow Guilbeault’s lead. MacKinnon again praised the MOU and said that BC was the big winner with major projects. Mario Simard gave his own condemnation, and Mélanie Joly defended the agreement as energy sovereignty. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Political support for a new pipeline?

Posted on by

More details are emerging about the Memorandum of Understanding that prime minister Mark Carney looks set to sign with Alberta premier Danielle Smith on Thursday, which would set the stage for political support for a pipeline to the northwest coast of BC if certain conditions are met. Those conditions include a stricter industrial carbon price in the province, and a “multibillion-dollar investment in carbon capture from the Pathways Alliance,” and there is apparently some language about Indigenous ownership and equity. In return, it looks like Alberta also gets a bunch of exemptions from other environmental legislation, which it would seem to me is just setting up fights with every other province who will want their own special deals and carve-outs.

BC premier David Eby is rightfully upset about being left out of the process (as Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe initially claimed he was part of the talks, which turned out to be mere self-aggrandisement). And while it’s true that the province can’t veto a project that falls under federal jurisdiction (and we have Supreme Court jurisprudence on this), it definitely feels impolitic to freeze him out, considering that making an agreement with Smith to overrule Eby’s stated wishes—and the wishes of the coastal First Nations—certainly has the feel of the US and Russia coming up with a “peace plan” for Ukraine. Eby also, correctly, points out that they would never do this with Quebec, which is a good point.

This being said, this remains about a hypothetical pipeline that may never come to fruition because they are unlikely to get a private sector proponent, because the oil market changed in 2014 and Alberta refuses to accept that fact. What I am more concerned about is just how many billions of public dollars are going to be consume by Pathways in order to try and make it viable, and it just won’t be, and we’ll have wasted years, billions of dollars, both of which could have been better spent coming up with a more reasonable transition to a greener future, because again, it’s not 2014 anymore.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-24T23:08:02.124Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones and missiles have hit residential buildings in Kyiv, starting fires and killing at least one person. Ukrainian officials are apparently working with the Americans on the so-called “28-point peace plan” to make it more palatable.

Continue reading →

QP: Food prices versus budget back-patting

Posted on by

In advance of the budget vote, the PM was present today, as were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, where he trotted out his new line likening the budget to credit card spending “with no limits,” and that this created surges in inflation and taxes, and raise the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s concerns that the size of the deficit has doubled. (And no, a federal budget has absolutely no relation to a credit card, and I wish to the gods our politicians would stop making these comparisons). Mark Carney praised the budget as a “generational investment” budget, and cited the PBO that the policy was sustainable in the long term. Poilievre cried that this was multigenerational debt that is driving up food prices (it is not), and read the food price inflation data from this morning, and blamed “Liberal taxes” (which is also nonsense). Carney reminded him that inflation has slowed down and has been within the Bank of Canada’s target for the past two years. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the line about the national credit card and inflation. Carney repeated in English that it’s a day because inflation is down, unemployment is down, and they have an opportunity to vote for their budget. Poilievre was not slowed, and uttered some complete bullshit about food price inflation, and repeated his nonsense about credit cards. Carney repeated the lines about inflation and unemployment while confidence in our economy is “sky high.” Poilievre repeated nonsense about “hidden taxes,” and Carney pointed out that wages have grown faster than inflation, and exhorted the Conservatives to vote for their budget. Poilievre switched to the rise in extortion, calling it a result of “soft-on-crime policies” and “open borders,” which is a foghorn and not a dog-whistle, and Carney called on them to support their future legislation.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, worried about tariffs, and wanted the PM to admit his strategy has failed. Carney reminded him that we have the best trade agreement currently and they are working to a better on. Blanchet mocked this, and demanded the same, and Carney said that Trump is calling his back, before praising investments for Quebec in the budget. Blanchet then demanded that the government capitulate to their requests for the budget, and Carney again repeated the investments for Quebec in the budget.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not being a trained seal

Posted on by

Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith put out a video on his YouTube channel where he gives an honest assessment of the budget, including places where it fails to live up to the hype. As a backbench MP, this is not only his right, but his obligation, but boy howdy, a bunch of partisans from all stripes are losing their gods damned minds over this. A backbencher who doesn’t just lobotomise himself to read the scripts handed to him by his leader’s office? The nerve!

It's possible that Erskine-Smith has normalized dissent sufficiently — at least from him — that he can do stuff like this without it becoming a huge deal.www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jtC…

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-11-10T23:00:21.434Z

I was particularly struck by the partisan talking heads on Power & Politics last night who kept going on and on about how politics is a “team sport,” and that as a “member of the government,” he needs to be on-side. Erm, except he’s not a member of the government. Government=Cabinet, and while he is on the government side of the aisle, he is not a member. This is not be just being pedantic—it’s the very nature of how our parliamentary system works. Every member of Parliament, no matter which side of the aisle you’re on, are supposed to hold the government to account, and to keep them in check. Yes, that means government-side backbenchers too. That’s the whole raison d’être of Parliament, but everyone has become so used to the us-versus-them aspect that they have lost sight of that, and it really doesn’t help that Canada has largely lost the culture of backbenchers holding their own side to account because they are so desperate to get into Cabinet, or at least become a parliamentary secretary, that they are generally one ministerial screw-up away from a promotion, so they keep their mouths shut and stand up and clap and read their scripts like a good boy or girl, and that’s something that is fundamentally wrong with how the Canadian parliament operates.

Brad Lavigne and Kate Harrison telling Nate Erskine-Smith that he needs to be a trained seal is some bullshit.Backbenchers have an obligation to hold government to account as much as opposition MPs do. Learn how a Westminster system works, FFS. #PnPCBC

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-10T23:05:20.204Z

The UK, where you have a Chamber of 650 MPs, and a smaller Cabinet (though generally a larger number of junior ministers), generally means you have a lot of backbenchers who know they’ll never get into Cabinet, so they feel empowered to stand up to their own side. Some of them are former ministers who are still serving their constituents, and will let the current government know where they are going wrong. (There are some fantastic videos of Theresa May doing just this, and some videos of her absolutely savaging her successor, Boris Johnson, in PMQs). This is a culture we need to develop here. Of course, adding another hundred or so MPs to our chamber would help (and would really help us have enough bodies for committees without having parliamentary secretaries on them).

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-10T23:08:02.225Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Fighting continues in Pokrovosk, Dobropillia, and towns surrounding. Here is a look at life in Kherson, where Russians hunt civilians with drones on a daily basis. The anti-corruption bureau says it has found a $100 million kickback scheme in the state nuclear power company.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Jeneroux heads for the exit

Posted on by

It’s been a strange couple of days in the House of Commons. First of all, Pierre Poilievre made his speech on the budget (technically on the Ways and Means motion for the budget), and traditionally, the official opposition moves an amendment, followed by the next-largest party, in this case the Bloc. And these amendments are usually things like “the budget not pass because x, y, z.” But for some reason, Poilievre didn’t move the amendment in his speech like he normally would, so the Bloc took up the opportunity do so, meaning they got the amendment, and the Conservatives had to suffice with a sub-amendment, which doesn’t matter other than it being kind of embarrassing because they obviously don’t have their shit together.

And this got compounded by the votes. Unless I’m mistaken, normally these amendments/sub-amendments happen at the same time as the main vote on the Ways and Means motion, so it’s done in one fell swoop. Not this time. The Government House Leader declared that the vote on the Conservative sub-amendment would happen yesterday evening, and the Bloc amendment tomorrow afternoon, and that these would be considered confidence votes (which they aren’t normally—only the main vote). And let me stress—it is very, very, very unusual for any vote to happen on a Friday, let alone a confidence vote, and that’s only because they can now vote on their phones (which is a parliamentary abomination). This is not how this normally goes, and it’s a bunch of really childish gamesmanship. But suffice to say, the government passed the first vote as neither the Bloc nor the NDP would support the Conservative sub-amendment, and the NDP have already indicated they won’t vote for the Bloc’s amendment either—but they’re still not decided if they’re voting on the actual motion, sometime in the week after next (because next week is a constituency week).

It’s very, very unusual that they would hold any vote on a Friday, let alone a vote they have deemed to be a confidence vote.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-06T20:21:34.500Z

And then, as this was all going on, Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux announced he was going to resign his seat, and the language in his letter sounded like it was going to be pretty soon, saying he hoped he could speak in the House one more time. But then Pierre Poilievre tweets that he’s not going to retire until spring, which is weird. Paul Wells likened this to negotiating in public, and having a silent “or else.” And this is while rumours have been swirling that the Liberals have been having conversations with Jeneroux about crossing the floor, and other rumours swirling that Conservative MPs are being threatened if they follow d’Entremont across the floor. And then to compound the weirdness, Jeneroux posts on Facebook that he totally wasn’t coerced and that he’s still determining his resignation date, but it will “probably” be in the spring. This is not normal. And if you needed reassurance that things totally aren’t falling apart inside caucus, Gérard Deltell told the media that d’Entremont’s defection was an isolated case. Guys. You’re in five-alarm clown show territory now.

Per Paul Wells: I take Pierre here to be bargaining in public. The “next spring” directly contradicts Jeneroux and, the way it's placed, all clever at the end, amounts to an “if you know what's good for you.”

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T02:00:51.437Z

I totally wasn't coerced, he says.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T02:52:25.993Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims they are advancing in the ruins of Pokrovsk, as fighting continues. Ukraine has hit the major Volgograd oil refinery in a drone strike, and shut down its operations. And here’s what Angelina Jolie was doing in Kherson.

Continue reading →