Tag Archives: Labour

QP: A special kind of incompetence to read the same script over and over

Posted on by

Neither the prime minister nor his deputy was present today, but neither were any of the other leaders, so that didn’t necessarily bode well from the start. Pierre Paul-His got things started in French, and he repeated Pierre Poilievre’s lead talking points from yesterday—that the prime minister has a “special kind of incompetence” for increasing the cost of the bureaucracy while still allowing them to go on strike, and demanded he fix what was broken. Mona Fortier praised the work of civil servants, and that they continue to bargain in good faith for a fair agreement. Paul-Hus demanded to know why the prime minister wasn’t answering, speculating that it was because he was too busy planning his next vacation, to which Mark Holland somewhat crankily responded that for the third day, yes the prime minister took a vacation with his family, and they stayed at the home of a family friend. Jasraj Hallan took over in English, and repeated the same “special kind of incompetence” talking points with an angrier tone, and Fortier repeated her same points about praise and good-faith negotiations. Hallan then insisted that the only people getting ahead are “crony insiders,” blamed the government for inflation, and turned this into a rant about the “scam” of the carbon price. Holland noted a lot of hypocrisy in the question, then listed the ways in which the leader of the opposition avails himself of government funding—house, car, office, staff—before he talks on the phone with American billionaires to try and destroy the CBC, and wondered if Poilievre should have a Twitter label that notes he’s 99 percent government-funded. Hallan got indignant, and said that nobody believes the government, before he completely mischaracterised the PBO’s report on carbon prices, and Holland needled back and wondered how the Conservatives are trading in conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he tried to insist that appointing people who have connections to the Trudeau Foundation could mean that the prime minister has nothing to do with it. Holland got up and recited that Trudeau has not been associated with the Foundation for ten years. Therrien went on a tear about Beijing-backed donations and demanded a public inquiry. Holland insisted that foreign interference is concerning for everyone in the Chamber.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and ranted about contracts to consultants rather than giving civil servants a good deal. Helena Jaczek stated that there is a need for flexibility but they are keeping an eye on contracts. Gord Johns repeated the same accusation in English, and Jaczek stated that the budget had plans to reduce that kind of consultant spending.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Impressing the Scots

Posted on by

The Speaker of the Scottish Parliament paid a visit to Ottawa’s Parliament earlier in the week and was apparently so impressed with our Question Period that she plans to write a report to take suggestions from it. I’m frankly a little dumbfounded, because our QP is pretty gods damned terrible in pretty much every respect, but let me first take what her observations are.

One of them is that ours operates bilingually fairly seamlessly. Well, she didn’t see the seams, in any case. In Scotland, they have translation available for those who speak Gaelic, but it’s not automatically provided like English/French is here. But she didn’t seem to see the stress that the pandemic has caused our simultaneous interpretation abilities, from the injuries to interpreters, or the strains to resources that are now severely limiting the function of our Parliament because MPs didn’t care enough about those interpreters as they abused them over Zoom, and lo, we’re staring down a crisis.

She was impressed with the “brevity” of our QP, where it operates in thirty-five second questions and answers. I’m not sure that’s a good thing, frankly, because it has largely just created a demand for talking points, both in asking and answering questions, and so much of the exercise is useless—the questions must contain key phrases (and that’s getting worse), while the answers are frequently non-sequiturs or just bland pabulum that is disconnected from what has been asked. I’m not sure what she saw that was so impressive. The fact that it happened at a rapid pace and bilingually looks impressive from afar, but spend more than a day here, and the uglier underside quickly becomes apparent. Yes, ours can be more dynamic than Westminster’s because we don’t require questions be asked in advance in order for briefings to be prepared, so the PM must be nimble when answering, but again, most of those answers are going to be vague and superficial.

It’s kind of flattering that they’re seeing the good we have to offer, but these days, our rules and system has given rise to an increasingly unserious Chamber, and that’s not something we should be exporting to anyone.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the border with Poland and Belarus, citing a need to be ready in case Belarus became another invasion route for Russia.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1648688637670830083

Continue reading →

QP: That big, imaginary IOU

Posted on by

The prime minister was present today, for the second day in a row, and all of the other leaders were as well, all eager to get their clips for their respective socials. Pierre Poilievre led off in English, unusually, and he chided the government for allowing the public service to go on strike, questioning his competence, and demanded to know how the prime minister would “fix the government he broke.” Justin Trudeau said that unlike the Conservatives, they respect unions, which is why they are making progress at the bargaining table. Poilievre switched to French, and repeated the same accusation of incompetence, and Trudeau reiterated his same response. In English, Poilievre moved onto the subject of the prime minister’s vacation and asserted that the stay at this resort comes with a “big IOU,” because those Trudeau Foundation donors would obviously expect something in return, and demanded that the prime minister pay back the “$80,000 gift.” Trudeau insisted that these were family friends, that he has stayed at this place many times since he was a year-old, and that they worked with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure the rules were followed. Poilievre insisted that they didn’t begrudge vacations, and that he took one at the same time on a Sunwing package that he paid for himself—which earned him sycophantic applause from his caucus—and demanded again to repay the cost of accommodation so that he “doesn’t owe anyone anything.” Trudeau once again reiterated that these are family friends for 50 years, and he has been to that resort many times with his family, and made mention of the security requirements. Poilievre repeated that this was about wealthy donors who expect IOUs and would have “inordinate influence” on him (so family friends wouldn’t have the same influence without the stay at their resort? Really?) to which Trudeau hit back about Poilievre running to billionaire tech giant fiends to attack local news, which Canadians should be concerned about.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised the Chinese donations to McGill and the Trudeau Foundation, citing it as being too close to Trudeau, so they needed a public inquiry. Trudeau insisted that they were after the wrong Trudeau, he is not his father, and has not had anything to do with the Foundation for a decade. Blanchet insisted that Trudeau must have known about the Green Family donation to the Foundation, and Trudeau insisted that because he doesn’t deal with the Foundation, he wasn’t aware.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, lamented that the civil service unions have gone on strike, took some jabs at the government and demanded that they negotiate a solution and not impose back-to-work legislation. Trudeau insisted that they continue to bargain in good faith. Singh repeated his demand in French, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The optics ouroboros

Posted on by

So, that big CBC/Radio-Canada “scoop” that dominated the news yesterday about Justin Trudeau’s Christmas vacation. Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, I figured I would make a few remarks, because there were some very obvious things about it that were just being shrugged off, or actively ignored by some of my fellow journalists. To begin with, there is not a lot of substance to the story. It’s some typical cheap outrage—how dare the prime minister go on a luxury vacation on taxpayer dollars when there are people struggling in Canada—mixed with a specious connection that doesn’t mean anything in substance, but which looks bad when you make it sound sinister in order to fit it in with the current nonsense around the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. Fit those two in a particular frame that makes it sound salacious, and you have the makings of a story that dominates Question Period. Congratulations! You’ve set the agenda for the day, you can pat yourselves on the back to your heart’s content.

But the whole connection to the Foundation is a construction that implies a relationship that doesn’t exist. Yes, the Trudeau and Green families have been friends for 50 years, but the donation to the Foundation was a bequest after the death of one of the Green family members, and it was done two years ago, which was eight years after Trudeau stepped away from any involvement in the Foundation. Implying that there was something untoward about the donation and then vacationing with Trudeau—who has been family friends his entire life—is simply scandal-mongering. And this gets justified with the pearl-clutching about “optics!” But you’re the one creating the optics with the distorted framing of the situation, so you’re literally inventing a mess that doesn’t actually exist, so that you can report on the invented mess, and then report on the follow-up reactions from other political leaders who will tut about “optics.” Which you created in the first place with your framing, like some kind of ouroboros. Very convenient, that.

None of this is to say that Trudeau shouldn’t know better than to take these kinds of trips, because he knows full well that there is an intrinsic culture of petty and mean cheapness in Canadian media, and that his opponents will take full advantage of it. And lo, the story also quotes unnamed Liberal Sources™ who are once again shocked and dismayed that the prime minister once again did something with poor optics, because that’s who he is. And Trudeau then made it worse, as pointed out in my QP recap, by not answering about the gift of the accommodations, which just perpetuates the story rather than cutting it off at the start. “Yes, I accepted the gift of the accommodations. Yes, the Ethics Commissioner cleared it. Yes, I paid the equivalent commercial rate for the flight.” And it stops their ability to try and stretch this into a scandal. But Trudeau and the people who advise his communications are so tone-deaf that they keep doing this. They keep stepping on every rake in their path, every single gods damned time.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited troops in the eastern city of Avdiivka, which is facing an advance like Bakhmut, which itself is facing an increase in Russian shelling and air strikes. Ukraine has reached a deal with Poland about grain and other food products transiting that country, but the future of the Black Sea deal remains in doubt.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1648431809200553985

Continue reading →

Roundup: Troll-bait taken

Posted on by

Well, Pierre Poilievre’s troll-bait worked, and everyone was frothing at the mouth over the application of “government-funded media” to CBC’s main Twitter account (but not its news accounts, or any of their French accounts). And the Conservatives lapped it up; Andrew Scheer, pleased as punch and in full smirking doofus mode, even gave a trollish member’s statement ahead of Question Period which was quickly clipped for use as a shitpost. In protest, CBC declared they would “pause” their use of Twitter, which just cedes the field the flood of bullshit. And then later in the day, Elon Musk decided to adjust his tag to say “70% government-funded,” as if it makes a difference to the insinuation Poilievre was trying to impart, only for a short while later, change that to “69% government-funded,” because this is Musk and Poilievre we’re talking about, and they have the mentality of twelve-year-olds in their quest to become shitposting edgelords.

 

Justin Trudeau, somewhat cleverly, noted that Poilievre ran to the arms of American web-giant billionaires to support his attack on Canadians, which bolsters the Liberals’ narrative about their legislation to curb the power of web giants and forcing them to pay into the Canadian content ecosystem (which the Conservatives have been falsely decrying as government censorship). The NDP and the Bloc went with the tactic of calling this an attack on Quebec culture, which may do more damage to the Conservatives in the province where they are hoping to make inroads.

But this is all culture war bullshit, and yet, people fell for the troll bait. The Liberals immediately tried to fundraise off of this, and played right into the Conservatives’ hands.

I did note that three former CBC bureau chiefs did impart their experiences about editorial independence, and governments going after them for their reporting, which is not exactly the narrative that Poilievre has been trying to prompt.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The Ukrainian grain deal is threatened as Poland, Hungary and Slovakia have all banned Ukrainian grain as part of protectionist measures, and the EU is likely to mount some kind of response. The prisoner exchange on Sunday saw 130 Ukrainians returned, but it’s not clear how many Russians were turned over. A top Ukrainian official said that they will launch their counteroffensive when they’re good and ready, and not before.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1648018653885898756

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1647891561915596800

Continue reading →

QP: Useless responses to bad faith questions on carbon prices

Posted on by

While the prime minster was in town earlier in the morning, he headed off to Montreal for private business instead of attending QP, while his deputy continued her weeks-long absence from QP. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and accused Trudeau’s brother of accepting the dubious Chinese-funded donation to the Trudeau Foundation, and wanted him summoned to committee. Mark Holland insisted the prime minister had no relationship with the Foundation. Poilievre repeated the same in English with some added flourish, and Holland repeated his same response. Poilievre then moved onto the GHG emissions inventory, noted that it did increase in 2021—without noting that the curve has been bent and emissions are falling overall, to which Terry Duguid recited a script about the rebates. Poilievre cherry-picked figures from the PBO’s report that distorted what it claims, insisting the carbon price was useless and costly, and Duguid proved his own uselessness in repeating another good news talking point. Poilievre then demanded the government cut taxes and their “inflationary deficits,” to which François-Philippe Champagne listed priorities that Canadians told them they held, and that the government was acting on them.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and spun a narrative about David Johnston and the Trudeau Foundation, and demanded a public inquiry at once. Dominic LeBlanc disputed that the government has done nothing, and listed some of their actions. Therrien then raised Katie Telford’s testimony at committee and complained about it, to which LeBlanc praised the work that Johnston is undertaking.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and demanded the government “get serious” in negotiating a “fair contract” with public sector workers. Mona Fortier read a script about a good offer on the table and that they expect both parties to act in good faith. Singh repeated the question in French, and got the same scripted response.

Continue reading →

QP: Facile questions about the deficit

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town and in his office, he was not available for QP on Wednesday as is his usual practice, as he was instead speaking virtually at the Summit for Democracy, before he and his deputy whisked off to a photo op. That’s right—the day after Budget Day, and the finance minister was also absent from the Chamber. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and both gave several falsehoods about deficits and inflation before complaining there was no path to balance in the budget. Randy Boissonnault pointed out the measures to help, and that this was a budget about hope. Poilievre listed four things that Chrystia Freeland said last year that he deemed false (to varying degrees of veracity), and wondered how anyone could trust anything this government says. Boissonnault listed the declining deficit and low debt-servicing charges. Poilievre returned to French to complain the government has “lost control” of finances, and this time François-Philippe Champagne said that it was the Conservatives who were disconnected because the government did the three things that Canadians were asking of them. Poilievre switched back to English to worry about people living in their parents’ basement while the country “goes broke.” (It’s not going broke). This time Karina Gould got up to decry that the Conservatives had already declared they were going to vote against things like the grocery rebate and supports for families. Poilievre denounced the budget as “tax and squander,” and once again, Gould reiterated the things the Conservatives were voting against.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he listed measures that were not green, and wanted an admission that money was going to oil companies. Steven Guilbeault said that this was not the case, and quoted the David Suzuki Foundation’s praise. Blanchet complained the budget was anti-Quebec because it meddles in provincial jurisdiction on things like dental care, but Guilbeault just kept reading praise for the budget.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, patted himself on the back for the things in the budget he liked, and said that if the government needs more ideas, they can tackle the housing crisis. Ahmed Hussen recited the elements of the National Housing Strategy that he trots out. Singh repeated his backpatting in French, and this time, Irek Kusmierczyk read their plans about reforming EI, and that it is on the way.

Continue reading →

QP: Taking personal responsibility

Posted on by

In the aftermath of the prime minister’s meeting with the premiers, and after a moment of silence for the bus crash in the daycare in Laval, things got underway. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he raised the daycare collision, and offered support and prayers for the families, and asked for an update from the federal government. Justin Trudeau echoed the sentiments, pledging support, and offering thanks to first responders. Poilievre then got back to his usual attacks, blaming the prime minister for people needing to have $1.7 million in savings to retire, and demanded the prime minister take “personal responsibility” for inflation. Trudeau noted that while some seniors face difficult situations, the government increased their benefits and listed a number of programmes. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the same question, and Trudeau said it was “ironic” that Poilievre talks about fixing things when they needed to reverse Conservative cuts when they took power, and listed more programmes for seniors. Poilievre blamed the prime minister for rent increases and for heating bills (what global oil prices) and mortgage prices, and demanded the prime minister admit he broke things so that they can fix them. Trudeau listed support programmes for low-income people and seniors, and reminded him that the Conservatives nickel-and-dimed seniors and veterans, and said he was surprised that Conservatives voted against affordability measures. Poilievre then accused the PM of banning anyone from saying that the country is broken, and yet “his own” parliamentary budget officer said that things were broken, and he wondered if the prime minister would call him to try carpet to explain himself. Trudeau said that there is always more work to do, and cited his new funding for healthcare as proof.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and first needled the prime minister on the divisions in his caucus over the official languages bill before complaining that the health care deal was woefully insufficient. Trudeau recited his points about the funds and what they hope to achieve. Blanchet accused the government of indexing underfunding, and Trudeau again recited what Canadians need around doctors and mental health service, which is why they were improving the situation in partnership with provinces.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and accused the government of not putting his foot down on more privatisation and that Doug Ford said that it didn’t come up. Trudeau said that Singh was misinformed and that the first thing he raised was the public system and the Canada Health Act. Singh repeated the question again in French, and Trudeau repeated his answer in French.

Continue reading →

QP: Variations of keeping the heat on

Posted on by

While the prime minister and his deputy were meeting with premiers about future health transfers, most of the other leaders were absent, safe Pierre Poilievre. Poilievre led off in French, then pointed out the increase in the national debt without fixing the system, and demanded the prime minister take responsibility for the problems he caused, never mind that this is the result of generations of provincial premiers cutting their systems to the bone. Randy Boissonnault reminded Poilievre of the additional transfers under the pandemic, and that the PM is meeting with premiers today. Poilievre went another round in English and got the same answer. Poilievre went back to French to accuse the government of causing runaway inflation with overspending, misquoting people left and right along the way, to which François-Philippe Champagne vociferously defended the government’s investments in science and innovation. Poilievre returned to English to mock the investment in Medicago before reciting his “triple, triple, triple” ear worm and his new line about keeping the heat on while cutting the tax. Champagne got back up to defend the investment in Medicago as investing in all vaccines until they found ones that work. Poilievre listed a bunch of non sequiturs he considered misspending, and then modified his talking point to promise that they would keep the heat on until they take off the tax. Karina Gould got up to list the things the government has done to help people while the Conservatives voted against it.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc and he accused the prime minster of dividing people with his appointment of Amira Elghawaby and the Liberal MPs raising concerns about the Charter of the French language. Pablo Rodriguez got up to taunt that the Bloc only exists to divide. Therrien got up to rail some more about those Liberal MPs, to which Ginette Petitpas Taylor recited well-worn talking points about the bill protecting French across the country, after the opposition benches stopped chanting “Pablo! Pablo!” in the hopes he would respond a second time.

Don Davies rose for the NDP, and he railed sanctimoniously about private delivery of healthcare, and Adam van Koeverden read some pabulum about the investments under discussion with the premiers. Daniel Blaikie repeated the question in French, and van Koeverden repeated his script in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New Zealand’s leadership selection

Posted on by

New Zealand is about to have a new prime minister, and lo, it was a process that took a single day. Yes, it was an acclamation where only one person put his name forward (“to avoid disunity,”), but that is less of an issue because New Zealand is one of the last remaining parliaments where it’s decided by a vote held within the caucus among the MPs—the way that Westminster parliaments are supposed to work. And of course, it’s completely alien to how things have devolved in this country.

The quasi-American pseudo-presidential primary system that we’ve adopted in this country is corrosive to politics. It has hollowed out the political parties, and pretty much killed grassroots riding associations, because they no longer matter to the party. Memberships—paid or unpaid (as is the latest craze)—is about leadership selection, not sticking around to do the hard policy work, because the parties have centralized that and justify it using Big Data. It’s all about populating databases rather than ensuring you have a base of engaged partisans who act as a link between the community and the caucus in Parliament. The leader then turns the party into a personality cult while they wield almost absolute power because there are almost no checks on that remaining. At least with caucus selection, there is a direct line of accountability so that the caucus that chose the leader can remove said leader as well, which is one of the most important considerations.

Suffice to say, while one might have preferred that they at least had a vote between two candidates for the job, the fact that they have retained caucus selection is important, and Canada needs to return to the same system if we are to have any hope of fixing the damage to our system.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 332:

Russian forces claim that they took control of the town of Klishchiivka, south of Bakhmut, which their mercenaries claimed to have taken already. And they’re still claiming they’ve taken Soledar, which Ukraine disputes. Meanwhile, the NATO meeting in Ramstein, Germany, ended without an agreement on sending Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, as Germany is the holdout and needs to authorize the use of their technology.

https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1616506280876642317

Continue reading →