Tag Archives: Housing

Roundup: A political problem means classified briefings

Posted on by

The naming-names debate continued apace yesterday, starting at the public safety committee, where Dominic LeBlanc pushed back against Conservative theatrics demanding the release of the names (to atrocious behaviour from all sides), while at that that same meeting, the director of CSIS and the RCMP deputy commissioner also warned that releasing those names will cause both reputational damage to individuals who can’t defend themselves on the basis of allegations that aren’t backed up, and it can also damage ongoing investigations. There is no due process that comes with naming names for the sake of it.

Ultimately, however, this remains a political problem for the parties, because they need to know who among their ranks was compromised, and that requires all leaders to have the appropriate security classifications (and apparently for privy council members who are no longer ministers, there is a Treasury Board-esque process now that requires renewal, which is an extremely odd and concerning process because MPs are not government employees and they use intelligence in a different manner, so they shouldn’t need to use the same process). And as Philippe Lagassé points out, this isn’t necessarily a problem for law enforcement so much as it is for the parties. If the leaders get the classified briefings, they know which of their MPs may be compromised (and it’s is a “may,” not an “is” because we’re dealing with unverified intelligence that may not be true), and give them the space to either sideline them, prevent them from contesting the next election under the party banner, or to give those MPs the ability to try and exonerate themselves outside of the public eye where their reputations could be irreparably damaged. But again, this relies on the leaders doing the right thing and getting briefed, not hiding behind the bullshit excuse that they would be “muzzled” if they did.

There are a couple of other problems here. One is that in talking with people familiar with NSICOP, that they have had a tendency to exaggerate things in their reports because they also have an agenda of trying to make themselves look better and to take more of the spotlight, so we should take some of these allegations with a grain of salt. As well, some of those allegations are back to the problem that we heard about in other places where some of the intelligence was rejected by the National Security Advisor because they believed it was normal course of diplomatic engagement and not interference, which is something the Hogue Commission is struggling with. We don’t have a complete picture for a lot of reasons, and everyone is jumping to conclusions and needs to dial it down.

Programming Note: I’m away for the weekend, so there won’t be a Saturday post.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine shot down 17 of 18 Russian drones overnight, with the damage of the final drone in the Khmelnytsky region.

Continue reading →

QP: The overwrought demands for a gas tax holiday

Posted on by

The prime minister was in town but otherwise engaged, while his deputy was present for QP today. Most of the other leaders were present, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and recited a bunch of abject nonsense about the Bloc supporting the government, and wondered why the government didn’t formalise their supposed “coalition.” Chrystia Freeland noted that Quebeckers believe in a lot of things the government does, such as child care, and the that the Conservatives only want to cut, cut, cut. Poilievre said that he would cut taxes, and went on another rant about the Bloc. Freeland responded talking about social solidarity, and raising the rate of capital gains. Poielivre switched to English to take a swipe at the out-of-context comments by Mark Holland on Friday, and wondered if he would also call out his leader for taking his so-called “private jet” (which is not a private jet, it’s the Canadian military’s plane). Holland says that he was mistaken on the math, that it wasn’t 37,000 kilometres, but 44,000 kilometres to meet the supposed savings the Conservatives promised, and that they were meeting the existential challenge of climate change unlike the Conservatives. Poilievre dismissed this as “whacko math,” and decried the government’s climate plans before demanding the gas tax holiday. Steven Guilbeault repeated the point about the Conservatives’ math, which meant that a person could drive from the North Pole to the South Pole and back, and have kilometres remaining. Poilievre again dismissed this and demanded people get their gas tax holiday from the “miserable economy.” Guilbeault replied with another example of how far someone would have to drive to achieve the supposed savings the Conservatives claim.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and decried another Liberal MP’s comments on bilingualism, to which Pablo Rodriguez pointing out that the Bloc keeps voting against language funding. Therrien continued on his tear about the Liberals disrespecting French, and Rodriguez dismissed it as a ridicule question.

Leah Gazan rose for the NDP, and decried the lack of progress on the MMIW report, and Gary Anandasangaree read some anodyne talking points about systemic racism, and that they tabled their progress report today. Heather MacPherson went on a rant about the Liberals not doing enough to stop the war in Gaza. Mélanie Joly agreed the situation was catastrophic, which is why Canada supports the Biden plan.

Continue reading →

QP: Fun with gas tax math

Posted on by

The PM was off in Toronto, where he had made a vaccine facility announcement, while his deputy was off to Halifax, and all of the other leaders were similarly absent (because why sit on a Thursday?). Andrew Scheer led off for the Conservatives, and after spelling out a doom scenario for families over the summer, pitched their Supply Day motion of cancelling all federal gas taxes until Labour Day, under the rubric that this will let these suffering families take a road trip. Steven Guilbeault called this a “prime cut of Conservative baloney,” and that the savings the Conservatives claim for a family from Alberta is based on them travelling 37,000 kilometres, saying you could to from the North Pole to the South Pole and have kilometres left. Scheer insisted this was just not true, and repeated his talking points, and this time Guilbeault walked Scheer through the math, where the Albertans would have to use 3293 litres in those three months, at an average of 8.9 kilometres per litre, getting to the 37,000 kilometre figure, meaning they would have to drive for ten consecutive days. Scheer deployed the monetary policy and budgets balancing themselves lines, and accused Trudeau of going to the private islands of “wealthy lobbyists” (which is false, and if you bring up the Aga Khan, he was not a lobbyist, and his foundation was lobbying for increased relief funds for Syrian refugees), so he doesn’t worry about family road trips. This time Mark Holland got up to say that Canadians’ summertime fun isn’t to be locked in a car for ten straight days, and turned this into an accusation about trying to cut dental care and child care. Luc Berthold took over in French, demanding the gas tax holiday with a Quebec spin, to which Guilbeault insisted that their calculations were off, and to achieve the savings they claim, a family would have to drive from Quebec City to Mexico City and back again, and then there again and back. Berthold insisted that the Liberals can’t do math, and demanded the tax holiday. Guilbeault again noted that to achieve the savings the Conservatives claimed, and repeated that it would require using 3293 litres over three months, along with his line about the North Pole to the South Pole.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, claimed that the Liberals have woken up to the healthcare crisis in the Outaouais region, and demanded higher transfers for Quebec. Steve MacKinnon said that the Quebec government needs to wake up to the problems in the region. Therrien insisted that they needed more federal funding, and again demanded it. MacKinnon repeated that the province needs to invest in the region.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and blamed the federal government for increased homelessness in Montreal, which is a real reach. Soraya Martinez Ferrada said that they are working with municipalities and not insulting them like the Conservatives do. Bonita Zarrillo raised a recent report on the inability for women with disabilities to get adequate care when pregnant, and Mark Holland insisted that they are providing care, and that the Conservatives want to vote against it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO immolates his credibility

Posted on by

In their need to constantly frame issues as both-sides, The Canadian Press inadvertently downplayed the severity of what happened with the notice that the Parliamentary Budget Officer quietly put on his website to say that they got some of their analysis on the federal carbon levy wrong. The CP story focused it on a Liberal MP writing the PBO to get him to broadcast the correction, rather than framing the story as the PBO made an error, and giving the briefest of mentions to the MP and his open letter, because that letter shouldn’t have been the story.

The story, as it turns out, is not only that the PBO made the mistake in his analysis, it’s that he is steadfastly refusing to take any responsibility for it, never mind that this particular report has been politically charged and is at the centre of much of the debate over the carbon levy. Putting aside that the report itself was not very well done (the distributional analysis was undermined by his insistence on including average figures and that the calculation on the impact of the price were done in the absence of any kind of counterfactual, and in a binary price/no price way that is in itself inherently misleading, the fact that the PBO didn’t advertise that there was a problem with the report, didn’t include any kind of correction (he’s planning a fully re-done report in the fall), and he’s saying thing that don’t logically follow, such as it’s too complex to recalculate like this…but the outcome from the error is unlikely to change the outcome of that portion of the report (this being the impact on the broader economy, which the Conservatives misleadingly cherry-pick to “prove” households are worse off). So, in addition to refusing to take responsibility, he won’t pick a lane.

But it gets worse. Yves Giroux went on Power & Politics to discuss this incident, and immolated his credibility as he not only continued to refuse to take any responsibility, but tried to prevaricate, and make excuses with a wall of bafflegab, but he also started arguing that his “small office” shouldn’t be responsible for the climate-related economic modelling that MPs are demanding, that the government should be doing it, but his one job is literally doing this kind of analysis to provide an independent analysis from the government’s. Of course, Giroux has always had a problem sticking within the bounds of his legislated mandate, and has preferred to act like a talking head pundit and opining on all kinds of things the government is doing, while still insisting that he’s independent and hence more credible than the government as a result. And I’m not too surprised that Giroux is trying to avoid taking any responsibility, being that he is a career civil servant for whom responsibility is something to be avoided, but in refusing to do so, he has tainted his office. There can’t be trust about his numbers going forward, and as was pointed out, especially if he’s going to be costing election platform promises (which he’s done a pretty shite job of so far, such as sticking his letterhead on Andrew Scheer’s handwaving), but that was something the PBO never should have done in the first place. This should be a resignation-worthy offence, but so should it have been when he decided he wanted to be a television pundit. But we’ll see if he can finally accept responsibility and do the right thing here and step down.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Four people were injured in a Russian missile attack on Kharkiv early Thursday morning. NATO’s secretary general is proposing a way to help Trump-proof military aid for Ukraine, but there will be obstacles that include Hungary’s objections. Reuters has a lengthy look at the front lines in Donetsk.

Continue reading →

QP: Mocking each other’s housing plans

Posted on by

With precious few Wednesdays remaining in the spring sitting, the prime minister was present today, while his deputy was off at a Senate committee meeting to talk about the budget bills. The other leaders were all present, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and raised an interview that the PM gave where he said that if he spends more, That inflation will go up, and claimed that he had been saying that the whole time. Justin Trudeau noted that he ignored the rest of the sentence from the interview and talked about investments in helping Canadians like dental care. Poilievre mocked this, and demanded his “dollar for dollar” budget slogan be implemented. Trudeau noted that dental care is not inflation, it’s help for people who need it, which the Conservatives are against. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the quote from the interview, and Trudeau repeated that the Conservatives have been using inflation as the excuse not to support programmes like dental care. Poilievre mocked this, saying Trudeau was going against his own words, which he actually wasn’t, but Trudeau insisted that they have been focused on bringing down inflation, which the Conservative found uproarious. Poilievre again mocked that Trudeau was finally talking about monetary policy, and Trudeau repeated the Conservatives were standing against help for people.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, worried about what was happening in Rafah, wanted a ceasefire, humanitarian aid, and to work with the Arab League for a peacekeeping force in the area toward an independent Palestinian state. Trudeau noted that they have been calling for a ceasefire and working toward a two-state solution. Blanchet asked if he believed they needed a peacekeeping force in the region, and Trudeau noted they were working with partners in the G7 and the region to get to a sustainable solution.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he insisted that Trudeau could do more about Rafah like a two-way arms embargo and sanctions against the Netanyahu government. Trudeau reiterated that he was sickened by what happened in Rafah, and that they continued to call for a ceasefire, humanitarian aid, and the hostages being released. Singh repeated the demand in French, and got much the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Responding to events isn’t a desperation move

Posted on by

If you’ve been paying attention to Question Period over the past several days, you may have noticed that the Liberals haven’t been asking endless questions about abortion, or rather, asking the government to comment on the Conservatives’ stance about abortion. Throughout this, you had a bunch of pundits, almost all of them located outside of Ottawa, going “The Liberals are desperate! They’re using the abortion move 18 months too early!” The problem with that particular analysis is that it ignores the events going on around them.

What the Liberals were really doing, if someone bad bothered to pay attention, was responding to things the Conservatives have been doing around them. It started with Pierre Poilievre’s speech where he promised to use the Notwithstanding Clause to “make” tough-on-crime policies and laws “constitutional” (never mind that invoking the Notwithstanding Clause is a flashing red light that what you’re doing isn’t constitutional, and you’re doing to do it anyway—at least for the next five years, anyway. The Liberals were not going to pass up an opportunity to ask Poilievre just what else he planned to use those powers for, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.

From there, Arnold Viersen tabled his petition calling for abortion restrictions, and the March for Life happened on the same week, which the Liberals (and usually the NDP) always put on a big production in Question Period about how important a woman’s right to choose is. This all happened within a few days, so of course they were going to respond to it. And once those events happened, they moved onto other things (like lambasting Poilievre’s “housing” bill). Not everything is a desperation move. They talked about abortion back in December when the Conservatives swapped a bill so that Cathay Wagantall’s backdoor abortion-banning bill could be voted on before they rose for the winter break (so it wouldn’t act as a millstone around their necks, even though the entire caucus voted for it), and everyone wasn’t insisting this was some kind of desperation move then. The moral here is that sometimes you need to pay attention to what is going on around Question Period, because it’s not the only thing going on.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine shot down 13 out of 14 drones launched by Russia on Monday night, with most of the debris falling on the Rivne region. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Belgium to sign another security agreement.

Continue reading →

QP: Blaming federal dollars for permit delays

Posted on by

Both the prime minister and his deputy were present today, as were all of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and worried that the time to get a permit in a Montreal has doubled, blaming the prime minister for it. Justin Trudeau read an attack script about how terrible Poilievre’s housing “plan” terrible was. Poilievre insisted that the built all kinds of housing when he was “minister,” taking credit for all builds that happened during that period, and for rent being cheaper then. Trudeau pointed to how the Conservatives withdrew from affordable housing and co-op funding. Poilievre switched to English to worry about rents rising in Toronto and how the city there raised development charges, and wondered why he was spending money on bureaucracy. Trudeau repeated his attack script on Poilievre’s bill in English. Poilievre repeated his false claim about how many units he ostensibly built, and Trudeau repeated the line about the Conservatives withdrawing from affordable housing and co-ops. Poilievre worried about the rise in homeless encampments, and Trudeau listed the measures they are taking to help combat homelessness. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried about the NSIRA report on foreign interference and the worry therein that certain briefings may not have been read. Trudeau read a line about the challenges of foreign interference. Blanchet called this unacceptable, before demanding more cooperation with the Hogue Commission in turning over documents, and Trudeau insisted that they have shared more documents than ever before, and that they were transparent. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and demanded the federal government build a hospital in Moose Factory near James Bay, to which Trudeau insisted that they were working with the province and First Nations in order to make it happen. Singh switched to French to accuse the Liberals of abandoning Montreal, and Trudeau dismissed this as rubbish, and listing all of the things they have done for the city.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recruitment rage-farming

Posted on by

It’s getting exhausting to think of the number of things that Justin Trudeau is supposedly personally responsible, whether it’s global inflation or the rise in interest rates. Today, it’s apparently the military recruitment crisis that the country faces.

First of all, in his tweet, Conservative MP James Bezan mischaracterized what the exchange between the committee chair and the Canadian Forces officer was, and the Chair said nothing about Trudeau or the government at all. But that’s what Conservatives to when they clip these committee exchanges and try to gin them up to make them look like it’s something scandalous happening, because that’s how they get their clips for their socials. To reiterate—nobody said anything at all about the government in the clip. The Chair was frustrated that the military can’t process potential recruits faster, not the government, because the government doesn’t play a role in this at all.

And even more to the point, Bezan knows this. He was a long-standing parliamentary secretary to successive ministers of defence in the Harper government, and he knows gods damned well that nobody in government approves or disapproves of recruits. But like everything these days, facts or truth doesn’t matter—it’s nothing but constant rage-farming to keep people angry, over the dumbest, most illogical things, because rage-farming doesn’t need to make sense. It’s all about feelings and vibes, and they’re willing to undermine democracy for clicks.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Three people were killed and six wounded in a Russian missile attack on the southern Mykolaiv region, while the Russians claim to have captured two more settlements—one in Kharkiv region, the other in Donetsk. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Spain, and secured a promise for more air defence systems to help deal with the onslaught of Russian glide bombs.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1795083380192604436

Continue reading →

QP: Concern trolling about mortgage rates

Posted on by

The prime minister was in town but not present for QP today, while his deputy was, as were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and raised the OFSI report on rising mortgage rates, and falsely said the prime minister said the rates would stay low, before blaming the Bloc for supporting the government, and then demanding the government “cut waste and lower interest rates,” never mind that the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Chrystia Freeland said that they know that Conservatives don’t really support people having trouble with their mortgages because they oppose their mortgage charter. Poilievre then raised a newspaper stories about Quebec taxpayers being “bled dry,” and demanded the government accept their plan to suspend gas taxes for the summer. Freeland responded saying that the Conservatives don’t have a plan outside of austerity. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the OFSI talking point, and the same false attribution about the prime minister saying rates would stay low, before citing another Scotiabank report on government spending, but conveniently ignored that it was largely talking about provincial and not federal spending. Freeland repeated that the Conservatives don’t care about people struggling with their mortgages. Poilievre listed increasing food bank use and homeless encampments, and again blamed government spending. Freeland listed how much they reduced poverty thanks to their measures and repeated that the Conservatives only want to cut. Poilievre repeated his same point again, to which Freeland pointed out that Poilievre only built six affordable housing units when he was “minister” on the file, and repeated that they only want to cut programmes.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and railed that the working group on migration has done no work, to which Marc Miller said that work is ongoing ahead of their upcoming meeting. Therrien demanded that Miller stop “demonising” Quebec round resettlement capacity, and Miller shot back that the Bloc doesn’t understand the difference between capacity and desire.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and decried the bombing on Rafah and demanded the government do something about Netanyahu. Mélanie Joly denounced the attack, and demanded an imminent ceasefire. Singh repeated the question in French, and Got the same response. 

Continue reading →

QP: Concern trolling about homelessness and food insecurity

Posted on by

The prime minister was off in Toronto, having taken part in the WNBA expansion announcement, and his deputy was at a finance ministers’ conference, while most of the other leaders were also absent. Pierre Poilievre led off, and blamed government spending on homelessness and food insecurity, with Bloc complicity. Soraya Martinez Ferrada considered the question hypocritical because the Conservatives voted against housing programmes. Poilievre insisted that government programmes to eliminate homelessness have doubled the problem, and again blamed the Bloc, and trotted out his “feeding obese government” line because apparently he thinks that plays well on the socials. Martinez Ferrada repeated that the question was hypocritical because they voted against the school food programme. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question, minus the swipes at the Bloc, and this time called it a “morbidly obese government.” Anita Anand said that they would take no lessons from the Conservatives because they voted against all of their programmes to help people. Poilievre insisted that those government programmes were what doubled housing or homelessness, and Anand insisted that they have focused on keeping inflation lower while helping people, but did nothing to call out the absolute lack of coherence in the question. Poilievre gave a slow, incredulous recitation of how many homeless encampments had cropped up. Mark a Holland pointed out that when Poilievre was minster responsible for housing (sort of), there were more people living in poverty and without housing, and shamed them for promising to cut things like dental care.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and claimed that the Hogue Commission complained about withheld documents (she didn’t really), and railed about government secrecy. Dominic LeBlanc said that they had committed to share Cabinet information, and were available to work with the Commission to have access to all “appropriate” documents. Therrien railed that if the Commission doesn’t have all information, that Quebeckers would lose confidence in the process. LeBlanc repeated that they are committed to sharing all necessary information. 

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he railed about the serious problem about the St. Lawrence river and that it needed its own rights to protect its biodiversity. Steven Guilbeault pointed out that when they took power, there were no protections for any waterways, and now they were at fifteen percent, with twenty percent reached by next year. Laurel Collins took over in English to complain about a BC watershed fund. Jonathan Wilkinson did acknowledge the wildfires, and pointed out the measures they are taking, and took a shot at the Conservatives’ climate plan being to let the planet burn.

Continue reading →