Tag Archives: Immigration

Roundup: When concerns become confessions

Posted on by

Yesterday, La Presse published an editorial cartoon that was all the way back to 1930s Germany in terms of its antisemitic tropes about Jews being vampires, and lo, there was controversy and much condemnation. It was pulled not long after, with a half-assed apology from the editor, but what I found particularly interesting was how many people lost their minds about what heritage minister Pascale St-Onge said, in particular that she would be “very prudent” on questions concerning the freedom of the press and refused to pass judgement, and called for compassionate conversations.”

I say this in particular because of all of these very same people losing their minds about the Online Harms legislation, and the frankly false concerns that this is going to be about the Liberals deciding what is and isn’t hate speech, and that they’ll prosecute and censor things they don’t like. And these are also the same people who insist that because the government is offering assistance to the struggling news sector (mostly by way of tax credits for salaries or digital subscriptions) that it means that the government must obviously be exerting control over what the news sector says or does. And then when a newspaper does something clearly antisemitic and the minister doesn’t offer threats, they condemn her for not doing all of the things they are saying the government is going to do and that we should be very, very afraid of them for.

Taking the cake in all of this was Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner, who taunted St-Onge over Twitter to “pull their government funding. I dare you.” Which pretty much proves the whole gods damned point, doesn’t it? If anything, it certainly makes all of these concerns about government powers—which are clearly structured in a way that they can’t be abused, particularly by codifying the Supreme Court of Canada’s Whatcott standard of what constitutes hate speech so that it’s not arbitrary—sound like projection or a future confession. But that would also require self-awareness on the part of all of these people losing their minds, which they clearly don’t have, and it’s all very telling.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia has launched a missile attack on Kyiv, while a missile attack on Kharkiv has killed five. Russia says they will add two new armies and thirty formations by the end of the year to Ukraine as they push Ukrainian forces back while ammunition delivers are slowed. Ukraine did launch a drone attack against a bomber base deep inside Russian territory. Here’s a look at why Ukraine has been targeting Russia’s Belgorod regions. Here’s the story of a ballet studio inside of a bomb shelter in Kharkiv.

Continue reading →

QP: A late pivot to shouting about Ukraine

Posted on by

It being Wednesday, the prime minister was present to answer all questions, as is his wont, while his deputy was elsewhere. Most of the other leaders were present again today, which is great to see, even if they take up most of the spotlight on Wednesdays. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and after reciting his slogans, and then took a swipe at the Bloc before accusing the prime minister of stoking inflation with “tax hikes” on April 1st (blatantly untrue), and wondered if they would need an election on carbon pricing. Justin Trudeau recited that the carbon rebates give eight our of ten households more back than they pay, and that Conservatives don’t want to help with affordability or climate change. Poilievre insisted that the PBO said that most families will pay more and be negatively impacted—again, not what he actually said—and then said there was a “second tax” coming to Quebec—also not true—and wondered if the Bloc would support the government on this. Trudeau said that if Poilievre listened to Canadians, he would know the cost of inaction is high on farmers and fishers, while the government’s plan puts more money in people’s pockets. Poilievre switched to English to again recite his slogans and repeat his demand to cut the price increase or face a non-confidence motion, and Trudeau reiterated that the plan puts more money back into the pockets of most Canadians than they spend. Poilievre recited a bunch of falsehoods about the impact of the price, and repeated his demand. Trudeau again stated that the choice is more money in the pockets of Canadians. Poilievre raised the numbers from the PBO, knowing full well they are out of context, and Trudeau again repeated that people get more back than they pay.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised that the National Assembly voted on yet another unanimous motion to demand that Quebec get full powers for immigration, as though that means anything. Trudeau insisted that they were friends with the Quebec government, and Quebec already has more powers regarding immigration than any other province. Blanchet decried that Quebec pays for asylum seekers and demanded a billion dollars in compensation. Trudeau noted that they are compensating Quebec for asylum seekers. 

Blake Desjarlais rose for the NDP, and demanded the government not cut any funds to Indigenous Services, and Trudeau insisted that they have tripled investments and have come to settlement agreements, and that they were still doing the work. Desjarlais decried that this was insufficient, Trudeau reiterated his same points about the investments made.

Continue reading →

QP: Calling out a committee chair

Posted on by

Both the prime minister and his deputy were present today, as were all of the other leaders, who had all attended the lying-in-state for Brian Mulroney earlier in the morning. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he rattled off his slogans, but quickly switched to English and claimed that the PBO “confirmed” that in every province people pay more in carbon levies than they get back in rebates (which isn’t really true, because he’s looking at a different set of numbers), and demanded that the prime minister give his caucus a free vote on their Supply Day motion about cancelling the increase. Justin Trudeau responded in French that eight out of ten families get back more than they pay, and that Poilievre only wants to take money out of people’s pockets while they do nothing about climate change. Poilievre stayed in English to read that the Nova Scotia legislature voted unanimously to reject the carbon levy increase, and demanded a free vote on their motion, to which Trudeau listed what their carbon rebate is. Poilievre read a misleading number about how much the PBO says the levy costs the province, and repeated his demand, and Trudeau doubled down to praise the rebate, but didn’t dispute the PBO number. Poilievre then raised Bonnie Crombie saying she won’t implement a carbon price in the province if elected and again demanded a free vote. Trudeau trotted out the full lines about affordability challenges, and the Ontarian rebate level—because he needed his full clip. Poilievre then raised BC, misleadingly stated that the province “administered” the federal price, which is wrong, and Trudeau complained that Poilievre doesn’t care about facts, but only making “clever arguments,” to which the Conservative caucus got up to applaud before he could finish his point.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he resurrected the “fiscal imbalance” talking point from the grave, to which he accused the federal government of engineering Quebec’s deficit, which is…a novel argument. Trudeau said that the federal government is there to help provinces, while the Bloc is only trying restart a sovereignty debate. Blanchet accused the federal government of owning Quebec $7 billion, and Trudeau insisted that he works with the Quebec premier, not the Bloc.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and raised the Auditor General’s report on Indigenous housing. Trudeau thanked the Auditor General for her report, and said that they are working in partnership with First Nations to advanced their priorities. Singh repeated the question in French, and Trudeau insisted that they have invested recorded amounts in housing and services for Indigenous communities, but they have made progress.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Watering down a non-binding motion

Posted on by

Much of the sitting day was consumed with a great deal of nonsense, some of it procedural, as the NDP moved a Supply Day motion that, among other things, called for the immediate recognition of Palestinian statehood. This was supposed to have been debated on the previous Friday that the House sat, before they decided to suspend because of the death of Brian Mulroney, and it got picked up today.

From the start of the debate, Mélanie Joly corrected pointed out that you don’t change foreign policy with an opposition motion (and one could argue that matters of foreign policy should perhaps be confidence measures), but behind the scenes, Liberals spent the day trying to negotiate amendments to the motion in order to find some shared language that more of them could support, because this was going to divide the Liberal caucus one way or the other (and one suspects that the NDP was fully trying to create some mischief and sow some discord, if only to try and claim a self-righteous position in the matter of Gaza). And at the very last minute, they did come up with an amendment that softened the NDP’s motion a lot, including the removal of the call for an immediate declaration of statehood, but it all went sideways at that point, as the amendment was moved before French translation had been provided, and there were howls of protest from both sides as MPs felt blindsided by them. Andrew Scheer got all huffy saying that the amendments were out of order because they essentially changed the fundamental nature of the motion, but the Deputy Speaker eventually decided that since the NDP, who moved the original motion, didn’t object, then the motion could be considered in order. There were then subsequent votes to adopt the motion, and when that passed, to vote on the amended motion as a whole, and it too passed.

In the aftermath, the NDP declared victory, and Jagmeet Singh crowed about what they “forced” the government to do. Erm, except it’s a non-binding motion and nobody is forced to do anything, and pretty much everything in the amended motion were things the government was doing already. Of course, the NDP watering down their motion in order to claim a hollow, moral victory is pretty much 100 percent in keeping with how they roll, particularly lately, while the Liberals dodged yet another bullet on this particular file where they cannot win no matter what they do.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian defences shot down 17 out of 22 Russian drones yesterday, but there was still damage to Kryvyi Rih from those that got through. Ukrainians continued to target Russian refineries, as drone warfare remains one of Ukraine’s best weapons against Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials are alarmed that Putin’s talk about creating a “buffer zone” inside of Ukraine means a likely escalation in the conflict.

Continue reading →

QP: Spike the Hike vs Scrap the Crap

Posted on by

Kicking off the sole sitting week of the month, the prime minister was not present for QP, though he did show up immediately after, for the speeches paying tribute to Brian Mulroney. Trudeau’s deputy was present, however, as were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and after rattling off his slogans, he railed about the increasing carbon price, and pivoted to a decree about supposedly closing the forestry sector in Quebec. Chrystia Freeland responded that Quebec has their own system for carbon pricing, which…was not the question. Poilievre noted that wasn’t what he asked, and then asked something around police needing to control crowds for food basket deliveries. Freeland noted that the Conservatives only want to cut supports for those less fortunate. Poilievre switched to English to again rattle off his slogans, and noted military families going to food banks and demanded the levy increase be curtailed. Freeland repeated that the Conservatives only want to cut programmes people rely on. Poilievre declared this to be “fear and falsehoods” and repeated some slogans about the carbon prices. Freeland retorted that Poilievre traffics in fear and falsehoods, and repeated that he wants to cut the carbon rebates. Poilievre read an out of context figure about how much the increase will cost—citing a different figure than what applies to households—and Freeland gave a somewhat confused group of carbon rebate points that didn’t really flow.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and raised the PM’s meeting with François Legault last weekend, and lamented all the things that Trudeau rejected that Legault warned. Marc Miller noted they already have an agreement with the province, but they won’t turn over all powers. Therrien took a swipe at Trudeau’s radio interview on Friday, and Miller repeated that they have constructive dialogue with the province.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP to exhort the government to vote for their Supply Day motion on Palestinian statehood. Mélanie Joly said they agree with the aims of peace, but didn’t say if they would or would not support it. Singh repeated the demand in French, and Joly noted that she was in the region last week, and spoken about a two-state solution but again didn’t give a clear answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Eby calls out Poilievre’s baloney factory

Posted on by

Because the clown show never ends, Pierre Poilievre sent a letter to BC Premier David Eby yesterday, calling on him to not increase the carbon price on April 1st in line with the federal expectation. This after he has been spending months claiming he’ll “axe the tax” in BC if he forms federal government, never mind that it predates the federal system and has frequently been higher than the federal price, and very few have balked at it. Along the way, Poilievre also claimed that BC was just “administering” the federal levy, which again, is not true.

Eby, for his, part, laughed at Poilievre, pointing out that he doesn’t live in Poilievre’s “campaign office and baloney factory,” that BC has long had the price and that if they did stop the increase, it would mean less money for people in the province (who get the rebate back mostly as tax credits and not cash transfers). But seriously, this has broad-based political support in the province, it was brought in by the then-BC Liberals (who are mostly conservatives, some of whom now sit in the federal Conservative caucus), and nobody has time for Poilievre’s performative nonsense.

More to the point, Poilievre likes to play fast and loose when it comes to jurisdiction—he keeps telling Justin Trudeau to butt out of areas of provincial jurisdiction and leave the premiers to run their own provinces (especially around things like odious anti-trans policies), and how he’s writing premiers and trying to get them to do things his way and stand against valid federal laws? How exactly does he think this is going to play if he ever forms government federally? But then again, he’s counting on the cognitive dissonance that he’s training people to accept for them to not notice his inconsistencies or his complete reversals, or when he swallows himself whole, and that remains a very big problem within the population.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile struck a residential area in Odesa and at least twenty people have been killed and more than seventy wounded; President Volodymy Zelenskyy has promised a “fair response” against Russia for it. Ukrainian authorities are also evacuating communities in the northern Sumy region after extended periods of shelling. Ukrainian drones damaged another Russian refinery, this time in the Kaluga region. Russians claimed that they repelled another cross-border incursion by Russian rebels in Ukraine. A UN report has found evidence that Russia systematically tortures Ukrainian POWs.

https://x.com/ukraine_world/status/1768642103968485561

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking Atwood’s unfounded concerns too seriously

Posted on by

I am starting to think that the Globe and Mail has a secret penchant for humiliating Margaret Atwood while pretending to substantiate her concerns about legislation. They did it with Bill C-11 on online streaming, where Atwood read a bunch of utter nonsense on the internet, some of it by a fellow CanLit author who is currently a crank in the Senate, and she got concerned about bureaucrats telling people what to write. It was utterly ridiculous, but what did the Globe do? Write up her concerns as though she knew what she was talking about, including the part where she admitted she hadn’t really read the bill.

And now they’re doing it again—same journalist, in fact—about the Online Harms bill. Atwood again read some stupid things online, this time from the right-wing press in the UK, and is again worried about “Orwellian” consequences because of “vague laws” and “no oversight.” And hey, the Globe insists that because she wrote The Handmaid’s Tale, she’s an expert in Orwellian dystopias. But again, Atwood is operating on a bunch of bad information and false assumptions, and the story in the Globe doesn’t actually do the job of fact-checking any of this, it just lets her run free with this thought and spinning it out into the worst possible scenario, which if you know anything about the bill or have spoken to the experts who aren’t concern trolling (and yes, there are several), you would know that most of this is bunk.

The biggest thing that Atwood misses and the Globe story ignores entirely is that the hate speech provisions codify the Supreme Court of Canada’s standard set out in the Whatcott decision, which means that for it to qualify, it needs to rise to the level of vilification and detestation, and it sets out what that means, which includes dehumanising language, and demands for killing or exile. That’s an extremely high bar, and if you’re a government, you can’t go around punishing your enemies or censoring speech you don’t like with that particular bar codified in the gods damned bill. I really wish people would actually pay attention to that fact when they go off half-cocked on this bill, and that journalists interviewing or writing about the topic would actually mention that fact, because it’s really gods damned important. Meanwhile, maybe the Globe should lay off on talking to Atwood about her concerns until they’re certain that she has a) read the legislation, and b) understood it. Honestly.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed 15 out of 25 drones launched toward Odesa, while a Russian missile destroyed a grain silo in the Dnipro region. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that their frontline situation is the best it’s been in three months as they have improved their strategic position. Here is a deeper look at the Ukrainians’ retreat from Avdiivka, as ammunition was low and one of their commanders disappeared. UNESCO says that Ukraine will need more than a billion dollars to rebuild its scientific infrastructure that has been damaged or destroyed in the war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A stunt at committee everyone fell for

Posted on by

The Conservatives, and Michael Chong in particular, pulled a stunt yesterday where they tried to call for an emergency meeting at the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee to study the Winnipeg Lab documents. Liberal and NDP members on the committee said that this isn’t the right committee and this isn’t an emergency, and shut it down. This was the Conservatives’ plan, so that they could take to social media and scream and caterwaul about the “cover-up coalition,” and just like they planned, virtually every single pundit and media outlet did their bidding for them.

To wit, this is that particular committee’s mandate:

“Under Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee’s mandate is to study matters related to reports of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner pursuant to the Conflict of Interest Act (matters related to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons are studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs). The Committee can also study any legislation or regulation or propose initiatives that relate to access to information and privacy and to ethical standards relating to public office holders.”

This study has absolutely nothing to do with it, and while there should be some kind of parliamentary scrutiny, it belongs most likely at the Health Committee, as PHAC would fall within their remit, and possibly Public Safety and National Security, but not Ethics. The NDP think this should go to the Canada-China Relations committee, but I also find that one to be a bit of a stretch (because I also think that committee is little more than a sideshow). But again, it was wholly appropriate for the Ethics committee to shut this down, because it was only meant to be a stunt.

It’s absolutely maddening to see how many media outlets and pundits walked right into this trap and let themselves get played. The CBC, for example, both-sided it, with the headline of “Conservatives accuse,” and the Liberals pointing out this was the wrong committee halfway down the piece. The Canadian Press both-sidesed it more concisely, and didn’t provide any context about the committee. The Globe and Mail, somewhat predictably, downplayed the Liberals and NDP pointing out that this was the wrong committee, gave over plenty of space to the Conservative argument that it should be without actually checking it against the statutory remit of the committee, and privileged Michael Chong’s comments, when he is not on the committee and was 100 percent pulling a stunt.

The thing is that this keeps happening—Conservatives have been regularly proposing studies on issues that committees have no remit over (such as trying to get the Public Accounts committee to go after the Trudeau Foundation), and then crying foul when they don’t play along, and then drive social media engagement off of the faked outrage. Rules matter. Parliamentary procedure matters. It’s not a “process story” you can dismiss, it’s bad faith actors playing the media, and the media going along with it when they should know better.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they stopped a Russian advance near Avdiivka, but that Russian troops appear to be regrouping further south.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brian Mulroney passes away

Posted on by

News came down last evening that former prime minister Brian Mulroney had passed away after some health challenges.

The Star has a pretty good obituary here, as well as some of the reactions to his passing, and the CBC has a series of photos over the course of his life.

https://twitter.com/yfblanchet/status/1763346642294411713

Bloc MP Louis Plamondon, who was first elected as a PC MP in 1984 along with Mulroney, reflects on Mulroney.

In reaction, Susan Delacourt notes that it’s hard to imagine a Canada without the larger-than-life Mulroney given his lasting legacy, and also reflects on the political lessons that she learned in covering him during his time in office. Ian Brodie praises Mulroney for his strategic sense in global affairs at a time of great upheaval.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces are pushing hard against the front lines in the east and southeastern parts of Ukraine, which Ukraine has repelled, and they do keep shooting down Russian warplanes, downing another three on Thursday alone. Ukraine is using more domestically-manufactured military equipment, as they strive to move more toward self-sufficiency and away from faltering Western aid.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Winnipeg Lab documents revealed at last

Posted on by

We finally got a look at the Winnipeg Lab documents yesterday, and the reason why those two research scientists were fired, and it’s certainly far more innocuous than the lurid tales that certain Conservative MPs have been telling over the years. The short version is that the scientists in question, likely out of sheer naïveté and belief in the goodness of science, were far too trusting of Chinese counterparts, and didn’t like to follow rules and protocols when they didn’t feel like it, and eventually, lied to CSIS security screeners about their activities. This doesn’t appear to be some kind of major espionage, but a pair of scientists were entirely too precious, and were used to having their own way, and became security risks as a result, hence their termination.

It shouldn’t have taken this long to see the documents, but this was a whole dog-and-pony show for the Conservatives, who demanded—bizarrely­—that the Commons’ law clerk do the redactions for the documents rather than trained public servants, never mind that the clerk has no national security training and doesn’t know what to look for in terms of potential security issues. Even though the government turned the documents over to NSICOP in an unredacted form, the Conservatives went and boycotted the committee for theatrical reasons alone, and eventually, the government came up with an ad hoc process that involved MPs from all parties and retired judges to go through the documents, and it took years longer than it should have if they just let NSICOP do its work in the first place. There was no reason for them to object and to do this song and dance, and make false accusations about what was being hidden, and yet they carried on like this for years for absolutely no reason.

Predictably, Pierre Poilievre is trying to make this an issue about Justin Trudeau “allowing” this potential security breach, except that these scientists did most of their work in the Harper era, and the Public Health Agency of Canada is an arm’s-length agency, which the government cannot micro-manage. Kind of like CBSA. There has been zero contrition from Michael Chong about the fact that he has been spinning outright fictions and conspiracy theories about these documents for the past four years, but he sold out his integrity years ago, so none of this is surprising. And now that these documents have been released, I will point out that reporter Dylan Robertson was getting these stories and had the context of their firing correct when he was reporting on this for the Winnipeg Free Press years ago. That reporting all stands up with the release of these documents, and he deserves major props for it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians bombed the Kharkiv region, killing four people including a six-year-old girl and a priest. Here’s a look at the new chief of military intelligence for Ukraine, who has hinted that the country’s previous counter-offensive plans wound up in Russian hands before it had begun. Ukraine’s finance minister says they need about $3 billion in foreign aid per month in order to maintain macroeconomic stability through the year.

Continue reading →