Tag Archives: Immigration

Roundup: Fix nominations how?

Posted on by
1

Over in the Globe and Mail, Andrew Coyne points to Hogue Report’s comments on party nomination races as a possible vector for foreign interference, and declares that they need to be cleaned up, but declines to say how. He disputes that parties are entirely private clubs, because “Their sole purpose is to seek and wield coercive power over the rest of us. How they go about it is therefore a matter of vital public concern, and regulation in the public interest – at the least, transparency – is entirely justified.”

But how exactly does one propose to do that? Involve Elections Canada with all internal deliberations of these parties, whether it’s a nomination contest, leadership race, or policy convention? While I get the temptation, we have to ask ourselves if any of this is practical, not only because when an election happens, there are a tonne of last-minute nomination meetings, but there are hundreds of registered political parties. Should they only concern themselves with parties that have seats in the Commons? Would they create disparate sets of rules for the big four parties than any others? Could they get away with that in the courts? I’m not sold that this is a solution because it would involve a massive expansion of their powers and bureaucracy, and because they are ultimately reporting to an Independent Officer of Parliament who has no real accountability, the potential for abuse if enormous.

This isn’t to say that things don’t need to change, because they do, but it’s not exactly something that external monitors can fix. In fact, the solution on its face is much less mysterious than it might sound, but it goes back to the original sin of Canadian politics—the decision to remove leadership selection from the caucus to the party membership. Restore this to caucus selection, and you can start separating the parliamentary and constituency party powers again, so that the parliamentary party leader can’t exert outsized influence on the nomination races, and the constituency party is motivated to keep a closer eye on the nomination races, particularly because that’s their job rather than the parliamentary leader trying to stuff the races with its parachute or hand-picked candidates. I would also note that the number of races that would be vulnerable to foreign interference is actually very small, given that you’re not going be able to find diasporic communities in most rural ridings, so again, we should beware what we’re talking about here. I think we need to better appreciate the scope of the problem, and ensure that the right incentives are there for the parties to clean up their own messes rather than involving Elections Canada.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian infantry has been trying to breach local defences in the Kharkiv region, but so far, Ukraine has been holding them off. Ukraine is due to start receiving their first F-16s by summer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Huffing those culture war fumes

Posted on by
Reply

My absolute exasperation with the need to constantly import American culture war bullshit into Canadian politics continues to grow, as we see yet another example playing out in the House of Commons. This time, it’s opposition whip Kerry-Lynne Findlay using the far-right gotcha of “What is the definition of a woman,” in the hopes that the response is some kind of confused mess in order to include trans women in the definition of women.

This being said, I’m not surprised that it was Findlay, because she has a growing record of doing things like this, most especially when she was tweeting her concern about how Chrystia Freeland once interviewed George Soros when she was a journalist. Findlay was greatly alarmed by what she saw, and in case you’ve been living under a rock, the attacks on Soros are largely rooted in antisemitic tropes that date back to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Findlay has repeatedly shown that she hasn’t learned her lesson from that incident, and this latest one is more proof of that.

The panic over trans people continues to infiltrate the discourse in Canada. The Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a thinktank that initially billed itself as a centrist endeavour in the mode of the two pivotal prime ministers who helped build and shape the country as we know it, has increasingly been pulling further and further to the right, and adopting anti-trans rhetoric as part of their offerings, which is a little alarming (and people who are associated with the Institute should start distancing themselves the more this kind of bullshit takes hold). This is also in the context that CSIS is seeing threats coming from the “anti-gender” movement, and for a group like MLI to pander to those sentiments is irresponsible, and dangerous.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia launched one of its biggest air strikes against Ukrainian thermal power generation stations in weeks, causing blackouts throughout the country. A separate air attack hit a school stadium in Kharkiv. It was Victory Day in Russia, celebrating their victory in WWII, and it should be noted that they did not take Chasiv Yar like they were hoping to beforehand.

Continue reading →

QP: Continued weaponising of human misery

Posted on by
Reply

While the prime minister was in town today, he was not in QP, though his deputy was on the day that “debate” began on the budget implementation bill. Most of the other leaders were present, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, he worried about the cost of housing in Quebec, and lurid tales of certain people in media who have lost their homes. Sean Fraser got up to praise their agreement with Quebec to build more affordable housing. Poilievre dismissed this as “more expensive processes,” and took a shot at the Bloc for agreeing to government spending, and falsely blaming that on inflation. Chrystia Freeland praised the government’s plan to build more housing and for the green industrial transition, which the Conservatives voted against, before patting herself on the back for the renewed Moody’s Aaa credit rating. Poilievre switched to English to blame the government for the approximately sixty deaths that happened over the past ten days, as though they were solely because of decriminalisation. Ya’ara Saks stood up to say the problem is the toxic drug supply, and that were working with BC to amending their decriminalisation proposal. Poilievre insisted that they need to ban hard drugs and get people into treatment, and called the policy “insane.” Saks said they were working on a comprehensive solution with BC, and called out misinformation on the file. Poilievre went full Helen Lovejoy to worry about needles in parks, which have been happening for decades, and this time Freeland stood up to reiterate that they are working with BC, and to pour scorn on the opposition for trying to score points on this tragedy. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed about the possibility of CBC and Radio-Canada being brought closer together, and demanded they be kept independent. Pascale St-Onge said that French services will not be affected by internal restructuring, and that their position was closed to the Conservatives on trying to pit CBC and Radio-Canada against one another. Therrien again raised this spectre of a merger and St-Onge pointed out how the Conservatives were applauding the Bloc position, which spoke volumes.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, to decry the Conservative amendment to block contraception in pharmacare legislation, and Mark Holland got up to give a paean about women having control over their own bodies. Singh repeated the question in French, and Holland repeated his paean in French as well. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Back to challenging the Speaker once again

Posted on by

Not unexpectedly, a number of MPs have renewed the call to oust Greg Fergus from the Speaker’s chair after Tuesday’s dramatics during Question Period. For the Bloc, who soured on Fergus shortly after his election and his recording a video in his robes, they’re complaining that he can’t control the room, which is a bit unfair because MPs themselves have hobbled the Speaker’s ability to enforce decorum by giving him narrow powers in the Standing Orders. This logic also ignores the culpability of those who are making the noise—the Speaker isn’t making them behave like that. And for the record, Fergus says he’s not stepping down.

For the Conservatives, however, they are playing the victim, as is a common far-right tactic these days, and claiming that he had a double standard on Tuesday. Their proof—that prime minister Justin Trudeau wasn’t forced to retract or get named when he referred to Poilievre’s “spineless leadership” in not denouncing far-right extremists and Alex Jones. Note that the language Trudeau used was that the leadership was spineless, he did not call Poilievre that. And he was warned about inflammatory language, and he rephrased. Poilievre called Trudeau “whacko,” which was is a direct attack, and then refused to withdraw the word when instructed to—and again, the prevarication and wheedling of trying to replace the word is not respecting the Speaker’s authority, especially when invited to simply withdraw four times. There is a difference between what each leader said and how each responded, and if Conservatives can’t tell that difference, then they have a real problem with their critical thinking skills, which isn’t a good thing for an MP.

There was added drama when Conservative MP Rachael Thomas, who now claims that she withdrew her remarks yesterday but was ejected anyway, and more to the point, says that Hansard was edited to justify Fergus’ decision. Recall that Fergus was cautioning her for yelling at him during an outburst, to which she shot back “I have big problems with the Chair.” Fergus told her to withdraw that, to which Thomas’s response was “Mr. Speaker, I stated that the Chair is acting in a disgraceful manner,” and then says that she added “I withdraw,” which is also in the Blues (meaning the unedited transcripts before they go for final polish). But I was sitting right above her, and didn’t hear her say “I withdraw,” but even if she did, you can’t challenge the Speaker again and then just say “I withdraw” and expect no consequences. That’s not even like a qualified apology, it’s openly challenging a second time, and then trying to give yourself a fig-leaf of cover. That’s bullshit, and she knows it.

To put a cherry on top of this, CBC dug up video of then-Speaker Andrew Scheer saying you can’t challenge the integrity of the Speaker, which includes allegations of partisanship, and lo, what are they doing now? Rules for thee but not for me is very much their modus operandi, and it’s not great for democracy.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian ballistic missile struck a postal depot in Odesa, injuring fourteen and starting a huge fire, and Russians claim to have struck Ukraine’s southern command post in the same attack. There was also a guided bomb attack in the Kharkiv region, killing two in an attack on the village of Zolochiv, while there was also an attack on the town of Hirnyk near the front lines, which killed at least two more people. Drone footage shows the way that Chasiv Yar has been devastated by Russian bombardment as the move toward it, while Ukrainian forces in that area say they badly need more ammunition. The US is accusing Russia of breaking international chemical weapons ban by deploying choking agent chloropicrin against Ukrainian troops.

Continue reading →

QP: Two ejections and a walkout

Posted on by

Tuesday, and both the prime minister and his deputy were present, which is a nice change. All of the other leaders were present as well, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and blamed the federal government’s “radical drug policies” (which aren’t federal) for tripling overdose deaths and claimed Bloc support, and cited newspaper reports about safe consumption sites near schools in Montreal. Trudeau insisted that they need solutions grounded in compassion, healthcare and science to fix the problem. Poilievre switched to English to repeat that the “radical” drug policy has resulted in even more deaths, and demanded the prime minister listen to the NDP to re-criminalise these drugs, which is not the demand—the demand is to re-criminalise public use only. Trudeau said that he already answered this and called out Poilievre consorting with white nationalists. Poilievre said that he denounces extremists and racists including the guy who spent the first half of his adult life dressing up in racist costumes, meaning the prime minister, and after he was cautioned by the Speaker, Poilievre changed his denunciation of the prime minister for funding Laith Marouf and not condemning the IRGC. Trudeau got up and pointed out that Poilievre was spineless, and in the ensuring uproar, Rachael Thomas wound up being named and kicked out for the day. Fergus warned Trudeau, and he re-started his response, saying Poilievre is courting radicals and gave a denunciation of Diagolon. Poilievre got back to calling Trudeau a “radical” for not banning drugs, and Trudeau retorted that Poilievre is still not denouncing groups like Diagolon, Poilievre accused Trudeau of killing 25,000 British Columbians by way of his “extremist” policies, and called him a “whacko prime minister.” Fergus again got up to ask Poilievre to withdraw the term, and Poilievre said he withdraws “whacko” and replaces it with “extremist,” which did not satisfy Fergus. Poilievre said he would replace with “radical,” and Fergus said that wasn’t the request. Poilievre still didn’t withdraw the remark, and after consultant with the Clerk, Fergus asked one last time to withdraw the comment. Poilievre pushed again, did not withdraw, and Fergus named him too, and Poilievre left the Chamber to great  applause on his side, followed by most of his caucus, who started screaming at the Speaker on their way out. After everything settled down, Trudeau started his last response, again calling out Diagolon, during which Michael Barrett screamed that Trudeau was endorsed by Hamas, and after yet another disruption, Trudeau finished by saying Poilievre’s plan to overturn Charter rights is dangerous, and by this time, every Conservative had left the Chamber.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, congratulated the Speaker for his good sense, and then decried government management and told them to stay out of Quebec’s jurisdiction. Trudeau said that his responsibility is to take care of Quebeckers everywhere. Blachet raised the premiers’ letter about staying out of their jurisdiction (but still giving them money), Trudeau dismissed this as the Bloc just picking fights.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he raised the report that 25 percent of Quebecker are in poverty but tied this to Big Oil, somehow. Trudeau noted that they have prioritised creating equal opportunities for all generations in the budget. Heather McPherson railed against Danielle Smith’s attack on pensions and demanded support for her private member’s bill on protecting pensions. Trudeau thanked her for supporting them in standing up for Canadians but did not commit to supporting the bill.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A genteel time that never was

Posted on by

I saw a post yesterday that took a page from Hansard on that day in 1978, and well, it was full of the first prime minister Trudeau and several honourable members accusing one another of being animals, or parts thereof. And while hilarious, I think it’s a bit of a corrective when people keep insisting that Parliament used to be a much more genteel place (and we got a lot of that during the Ed Broadbent and Brian Mulroney memorials).

It really wasn’t that genteel. It never has been—there are infamous reports in Hansard about early debates in the 1860s where MPs were setting off firecrackers in the Chamber and playing musical instruments to disrupt people speaking. And I can also say that Question Period was a hell of a lot more raucous when I started covering it fifteen years ago compared to what it is today, which has a lot to do with the Liberals clamping down on applause (for the most part) for their members, which has led to there being less heckling from the Liberal benches (not saying it doesn’t happen—it absolutely does—just not as much, and certainly not in the quantities it used to be).

Question Period is worse in other ways, however—nowadays it’s all reciting slogans and everyone on the same script so that they can each get a clip for their socials, while the government gives increasingly disconnected talking points in lieu of responses, and there’s almost no actual debate (though every now and again, Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre will get into an actual exchange with one another). And the repetition of slogans or the reading of canned lines each give rise to heckling because of its ridiculousness, and yes, there is louder heckling when women ministers are answering questions (but this is not a recent phenomenon either). But there was never a golden age of gentility in our Parliament, and we need to stop pretending there was as we lament the state of things. Instead, we should be lamenting the quality of the debate, which has been dead and buried since about the time that Bob Rae retired from politics.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile struck an educational facility in Odesa, killing four. Russian forces are advancing in the eastern Donetsk region after the withdrawal from Avdiivka, while Ukraine waits for new arms from the west. UN experts say that a missile that landed in Kharkiv on January 2nd was indeed of North Korean manufacture. Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, visited Kyiv—the first member of the royal family to do so since the war began—and continued her work championing those affected by conflict-related sexual violence.

Continue reading →

QP: Two solitudes and a scripted gotcha

Posted on by

The first Monday after a constituency week, and the prime minister was off to deliver a “fireside chat” at a union event, but his deputy was present for a change, and this was to be her first opportunity to answer questions since the budget was released. Most but not all of the other leaders were also present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, cited a figure that said that 25 percent of Quebeckers are below the poverty line, and blamed the federal government’s spending with Bloc support. Chrystia Freeland noted their commitment to tax fairness versus Conservative austerity. Poilievre worried about debt servicing charges and again blamed Bloc support, to which Freeland said this wasn’t true, noted the Aaa credit rating, and their responsibility. Poilievre switched to English to lament the scourge of open drug use in BC, and demanded these drugs be re-criminalized. Ya’ara Saks said that they are reviewing the request of BC, because they have a plan for public health while the Conservatives did not. Poilievre insisted that this was chaos and disorder brought about by the Liberals demanding to know “What the hell are they thinking?” and got a caution from the Speaker. Steve MacKinnon got up to raise the fact that Poilievre was consorting with a far right encampment and got drowned out, and when the Speaker restored order, MacKinnon invited him to disavow white supremacists and Alex Jones. Poilievre says he disavows the person who spent the first half of of his life being a racist—meaning Trudeau—before demanding the federal government not allow Toronto decriminalise drugs like BC has. MacKinnon read a script about Poilievre showing who he really is.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and raised a poll that said Quebeckers want the provincial government to take care of things, not the federal government, and demanded unconditional fiscal transfers. Pablo Rodriguez said that the Bloc were simply trying to find excuses to vote against the budget. Therrien raised all of the premiers writing that they want unconditional transfers instead of federal interference, and Rodriguez repeated that the Bloc were merely looking to pick a fight.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he denounced the government’s disability benefit in the budget, to which Freeland patted herself on the back for this programme, and insisted this was just the first step which meant working carefully with provinces. Singh repeated the question in French, and Freeland repeated her same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bullshitting about pharmacare

Posted on by

In a radio interview yesterday, Pierre Poilievre claimed that the proposed federal pharmacare programme would force people to give up their existing private insurance and onto a federal programme—something that is entirely no true, and boggling as to how he could think that, particularly because the government has been pretty clear that to start, the only thing it proposes to cover are diabetes medications and devices, and contraception. (This is, of course, subject to provincial approval, because the federal government can’t do this on its own).

In spite of being called out by health minister Mark Holland on the lies and “fake boogeymen,” Poilievre has gone on to try and shift the goal-posts on the different programmes that the federal government has been trying to roll out, saying things like dental care hasn’t cleaned a single tooth (not true—the initial tranche of the programme was apparently fairly well-subscribed, while the current programme only came into being in December and is still rolling out), or that the school food programme is just a press release (again, the programme is about enhancing existing programmes, not creating anything new). Regardless, there is a complete inability to be truthful about anything, whether it’s outright lies, or it’s bullshit (and there is a difference in there between them, even if the line is fairly narrow).

This should be a warning about the next election, where he will say absolutely anything, shamelessly, and media outlets will be scrambling to do any basic fact-checking, while mostly just both-sidesing the whole thing, because that’s what legacy media does best—especially in an election, where fact-checks can come days or even weeks too late, or the rather useless exercise the Toronto Star engaged in where they listened to each leader’s speeches for a week apiece, and tried to data-journalism it into a quantitative exercise when it’s fairly qualitative, and can require nuance about degrees of dishonesty or disinformation to appreciate how it’s working. Nevertheless, this is not a good sign of things to come.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles attacked an apartment building and train station in Dnipro, killing at least eight people. Ukraine’s spy agency says that their attack on the airfield in occupied Crimea seriously damaged four missile launchers and three radar stations. Here’s a look at Russia’s tactic of making smaller attacks to keep exhausting Ukrainian forces ahead of a likely spring advance. A Polish man has been arrested on suspicion of gathering information on behalf of the Russians for a possible assassination plot against Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The burgeoning defence industry in Ukraine is looking for more certainty around orders as they deal with a lack of investment and needing to relocate production facilities to avoid being targeted by Russia.

Continue reading →

QP: Gold heist concerns

Posted on by

Neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present today, as they started their cross-country sales budget, and I will say it was quite a neat trick where the one day Chrystia Freeland showed up was the day Trudeau gave all the answers, so that nobody can ask her about the budget. As for the other leaders, none of them were present. Melissa Lantsman led off, and raised the biggest gold heist in history and that the suspects are already out on bail (because they’re not violent criminals?) Arif Virani noted that they passed significant bail reform legislation already, and that the budget has measures to combat money laundering and organised crime, and he hoped for their support. Lantsman claimed that the Liberals passed the bill that made this kind of bail possible (not really true—much of the law on bail has been set by the Supreme Court of Canada), and seemed to imply these criminals paid off the government. Virani noted that they have been dealing with the causes of crime, and that bail reform is there for violent, serious offenders with the support of law enforcement, before repeating his exhortation to support the measures in the budget. Lantsman switched to gas prices in Ontario, and falsely blamed the carbon levy, before demanding an election. Jean-Yves Duclos cited that eight out of ten families get back more in the carbon rebate than they pay. Dominique Vien took over in French, and she blamed the carbon levy on the cost of living crisis, particularly in Quebec (where it doesn’t apply). Duclos quoted that Poilievre only created six affordable housing units when he was “minister, and that they just created 173 units in her riding. Vien blamed the government on inflation (again, not actually the cause), and Duclos got back up to repeat the six housing units stat.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and accused the prime minister of threatening provincial transfers if they don’t agree to federal dictates, just like the Conservatives. Pablo Rodriguez noted all the things the Bloc are for that are in the budget, and yet they are threatening to vote against it like the Conservatives. Therrien said the budget was only about pandering, and about securing the election given how much money flows afterward. Duclos noted that it’s not happening in the future, but the 8000 housing units happening now in Quebec.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and complained about the planned elimination of 5000 public service positions rather than subcontracting. Anita Anand noted that these positions were likely to be eliminated through natural attrition. Don Davies raised a report that says the government doesn’t track job creation from subsidies, and demanded corporate accountability. François-Philippe Champagne took the opportunity to praise the investments in the budget.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The NDP back away from carbon pricing

Posted on by

The NDP have shown their true colours as populist used car salesmen, and are starting to back away from supporting the federal carbon levy, with Jagmeet Singh telling the “Progress Summit” that they can fight climate change by focusing on corporations and not working families. Which is stupid, because those corporations will pass along the costs in a less transparent manner, there won’t be the rebates that benefit lower-income households, and in the biggest irony, dismantling the consumer carbon levy will only benefit the top one percent of earners.

None of this is actually surprising, considering that the NDP don’t have original thoughts or policies—virtually everything they do is just reheat American Democrat policies, with no regard for whether the situation applies in Canada or not, and then runs with it, and that means adopting the rhetoric around billionaires and corporations, never mind that the handful of billionaires who live in this country couldn’t be taxed enough to pay for the NDP’s plans, or that taxing grocery oligopolies at a higher rate won’t lower prices. Every couple of weeks, Charlie Angus will stand up and demand to know why the government isn’t aping Joe Biden’s policies. It’s embarrassing, but what can you do?

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have forced another voting marathon on report-stage amendments to the government’s sustainable jobs legislation, which the government contends were AI-generated, which the Conservatives deny. Of course, the Conservatives have been spouting complete horseshit about the substance of the bill, calling it “a global, top-down, socialist agenda to central plan a forced economic — not only energy — transition away from the sectors and businesses that underpin all of Canada’s economy: energy, agriculture, construction, transportation and manufacturing.” Utterly unhinged. Nevertheless, thanks to the motion passed in February, there won’t be any more overnight votes, and they suspended the sitting shortly after midnight, and will resume voting at 9 AM, but that will mean it’s still Thursday in the House of Commons, and there won’t be Friday QP. (Such a loss).

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles and drones have completely destroyed the Trypilska coal-fired plant near Kyiv as part of what they claim to be retaliation for the Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries. A Russian missile also struck the southern city of Mykolaiv, killing four civilians. Here is a photo series about the winter war happening. Ukraine’s parliament has now passed the mobilization bill, and this is what it contains. Ukraine has also just signed a security agreement with Latvia.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1778322274304541004

Continue reading →