Tag Archives: Public Service

Roundup: A dog and pony show at the bar of the House

Posted on by

There was the extremely rare instance of a private citizen being summoned to the bar of the House of Commons yesterday to be admonished and to be ordered to answer questions—something that hasn’t happened since 1913. The person in question was Kristian Firth, one of the partners of GC Strategies, who was part of the ArriveCan imbroglio, and he was summoned for refusing to answer questions at committee and prevaricating in cases, and was accused of lying to the committee in other circumstances.

As expected, this became a dog-and-pony show from the very get-go, because that’s about the level at which most parliamentarians operate these days. The government didn’t want to ask him questions because he had a doctor’s note explaining he’s being treated for “mental health episodes” and is supposed to avoid extreme stress. Too bad, the Conservatives said, and refused to delay this to another day, and began their own questions, which were theatrical in nature, intended for clip-gathering, and for constructing an alternate reality where the Cabinet was somehow implicated in this whole affair and that Firth was somehow covering for them—something for which there has been absolutely zero evidence, but the Conservatives have absolutely no qualms about lying in order to tarnish reputations and try and paint the government as corrupt, in spite of the fact that there are no links between the political players and what happened on this file. The Conservatives made additional hay when they learned that the RCMP had executed a search warrant at Firth’s home for electronic records in an unrelated case, and they were quick to spread that all over social media along with the clips they had choreographed of this whole exercise. To be clear, nothing new was really learned, most of the Bloc and NDP MPs spent their time soliloquising on the record rather than asking real questions, and nothing has really changed other than the new social content gathered. What a way to run a parliament.

More budget coverage:

Because there weren’t enough stories on Budget Day itself, here are more of the follow-up stories:

  • Here is an explanation of the capital gains changes, and Chrystia Freeland pointing out that this was carefully researched and that the measures help restore fairness.
  • Here are more details on the plans to turn government buildings into housing.
  • The budget promises to redefine what counts as “rural” to qualify for the carbon rebate top-up, but offers no details as to how they’ll do that.
  • There is a measure in the budget about exploring how to make “halal mortgages” more available for Muslim Canadians.
  • The CRA is getting more tools to combat tax avoidance and evasion, including a requirement for more transparency around crypto transactions.
  • Here is a recounting of some of the angry pushback to what’s in the budget (and some of it is complete bunk, others are letting the premiers skate once again).
  • AFN national chief Cindy Woodhouse Neepinak says the budget isn’t sufficient for Indigenous people and wants a first ministers’ meeting on the subject.
  • Disability groups are deeply disappointed with how little the Canada Disability Benefit provides, but government indicates it will go up over time.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1780726502008512549

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles hit Chernihiv in northern Ukraine, killing at least 17 people, while Ukraine attacked an airfield in occupied Crimea. There was also a Russian drone attack against the Ivano-Frankivsk reg9ion in the country’s west, the debris causing fires. Ukrainian soldiers are also accusing Russia of illegally using tear gas on their trenches.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Compromising the GG for clicks

Posted on by

Last week, the Governor General held a national symposium on online harassment, and invited people who have experienced significant amount of it over the past few years to speak about it.

https://twitter.com/GGCanada/status/1778413516266840314

Of course, the Attorney General, Arif Virani, decided to make some hay around this in order to promote the online harms bill, which may be great for him, but is very bad for the GG, and he should have known that. His staff should have known that and ensured that he didn’t tweet something out that could compromise the GG and her position. The staff at Rideau Hall should have also known this and not invited Virani for this very reason, because come on.

And so, we now have a punch of loudmouths from the pundit class railing about the GG and how she has “endorsed” a controversial bill (which she actually did not), but of course truth doesn’t actually matter to these kinds of loudmouths, whose only goal is to try and embarrass the government. But this government, of course, so desperate to get their content for their socials, ignored all of this and went ahead and tried to co-opt the GG’s event for their own purposes. And of course, they’ll justify this by saying “oops, but we meant well.” Like they always do. The ends justify the means, the rules only apply to bad people, and so on. Every gods damned time with these guys.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Fragments of a downed missile fell over a settlement outside of Dnipro on Sunday, injuring twelve. Ukraine’s military chief has signalled that the battlefield situation on the front lines in the east has significantly deteriorated over the past several days, and that they are attempting to take the town of Chasiv Yar by May 9th, which is when Russia marks Victory Day.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Running interference for Scott Moe

Posted on by

There is no shortage of terrible opinion pieces in Canadian media, but I believe that the prize for utterly missing the point comes from the Globe and Mail yesterday, where John Ibbitson tried to lay the blame for Saskatchewan’s flirtation with lawlessness on Justin Trudeau, with the headline accusing him of “botching” national unity. It’s a…curious accusation, because the implication therein is that if the federal government doesn’t accede to every demand or tantrum of the provinces that they can be accused of damaging national unity. I take that back. It’s not curious, it’s utterly absurd and wrong.

Ibbitson goes to great pains to both point out how unprecedented it is that Saskatchewan is going to break federal law, but then turns around to run interference for Scott Moe and tries to insist that this is really Trudeau’s fault because he used federal spending powers to “bend provinces” to his will rather than negotiate, and in imposing the federal carbon price on provinces who failed to meet national standards. Both of those are half-truths at best—there is nothing illegitimate about using federal spending powers to get provinces on board to ensure that there are equitable services across the country, particularly for programmes with greater economic good such as early learning and child care. As for the carbon price, provinces had an opportunity to come up with their own system that met minimum standards, and most provinces refused. He also didn’t explain that when the system was enacted, most provinces already had carbon pricing in place (Alberta and Ontario both changed governments who dismantled their systems and were subsequently subjected to the federal system), and he doesn’t spell out that BC and Quebec have their own systems that meet the standards.

Yes, the federal government should have found a different solution to the problem of heating oil than the “pause,” and doomed themselves when they announced it with all of their Atlantic MPs behind them. I’m not disputing that. But while Ibbitson insists that this doesn’t justify Saskatchewan’s lawlessness, he thinks that the best solution is to “reach some sort of compromise.” Like what? He won’t say. He just laments that “Canada doesn’t work like that right now.” Did it ever? What compromise can there be when one province breaks the law and tries to justify it with a fig leaf of “fairness” but obscures the facts and truth of the situation? This kind of white bread, milquetoast “Why can’t we find a compromise?” handwringing is a hallmark of a certain generation of punditry, and it serves absolutely no one.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed 33 out of 37 Russian drones fired at Odesa, the remainder of which damaged infrastructure, though there were other attacks in the north in Sumy and Kharkiv that cost civilian lives. There are concerns that safety is deteriorating at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, as the international community keeps trying to convince Russians to leave the site. India says they have encountered a human trafficking racket which promises young men jobs in Russia, and then forces them to fight in Ukraine on their behalf.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An investment in more artillery

Posted on by

Bill Blair made an announcement yesterday related to Canada’s ability to produce more artillery, both for our domestic stockpiles and to be able to send more to Ukraine, to the tune of $4.4 million to go to two defence contractors to come up with plans to increase their production. Our inability to produce enough artillery domestically at a fast enough pace has been a problem for a while, but there has been this resistance within those same contractors to scaling up production without guaranteed, long-term plans signed with governments (as though the need and market for said artillery wasn’t obvious enough).

There are problems with some of this, however—a new production facility would need to be built, to the tune of $400 million, and you can bet that they’re going to demand that the government subsidise invest in such a facility, and it could take as long as three years to come online, which means it won’t be much help to Ukraine in the meantime. But it also makes one wonder why the company didn’t start investing on its own two years ago when the writing was on the wall, and why they have been so insistent on needing deals and funding from the government when there has clearly been a demonstrated need that they should be addressing.

It’s great that Bill Blair finally announced this kind of investment, but it feels too little and too late, but also like he’s caving into industry pressure to have the government pick up costs that they should be absorbing for their own growth and future profits, because they’re pretty much guaranteed.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian attack in Kharkiv region killed two civilians, and another in the Chernihiv region. There seems to be consensus that the Russian strike on Odesa on Wednesday was aimed at port infrastructure and not president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but it reiterates how very real the stakes are. Zelenskyy has named the former top general, whom he recently dismissed, to be the next ambassador to the UK. Zelenskyy also issued a decree allowing for conscripts currently fighting to be discharged into the reserves in the next two months, in order to give them some respite. The Czech president says that their multilateral plan to buy 800,000 rounds of ammunition for Ukraine has secured enough funding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making up censorship claims

Posted on by

Facing pressure for dismissing the Online Harms bill before he had even seen it, Pierre Poilievre put out a statement yesterday that said that things like child sexual exploitation or “revenge porn” should be criminal matters, and that police should be involved and not a new “bureaucratic” agency. It’s a facile answer that betrays the lack of resources that law enforcement devotes to these matters, or the fact that when it comes to harassment or hate, many police bodies have a tendency not to believe victims, especially if they are women.

But then Poilievre went one step further, saying “We do not believe that the government should be banning opinions that contradict the Prime Minister’s radical ideology.” I’m not sure where exactly in the bill he sees anything about banning opinions, because he made that part up. More to the point, the provisions in the bill around hate speech quite literally follow the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Whatcott, and codifies them, which means the standard is exposing someone to “vilification or detestation” if they are a member of a group that is a prohibited grounds for discrimination. That means that it goes beyond “opinion” one doesn’t like. The minister confirmed that “awful but lawful” content will not be touched, because the standard in the bill is hate speech as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. And it would seem to me that if the standard of “hate speech is bad” is “radical ideology” in your mind, well then, you are probably telling on yourself.

Speaking of Poilievre making things up, he spent the afternoon loudly proclaiming that the RCMP sent him a letter saying they were investigating ArriveCan. Then he posted the letter on Twitter. The letter doesn’t say they are investigating. It literally says they are assessing all available information. That is not an investigation. That’s deciding if they want to investigate. The fact that he released the letter that doesn’t say they are investigating, and says that it proves they are investigating, feels like a big test of the cognitive dissonance he expects in his followers, which is just one more reason why our democracy is in serious trouble.

Ukraine Dispatch:

As Ukrainian forces withdrew from two more villages near Avdiivka, one of which Russia has claimed the capture of, there are concerns that Russia is stepping up influence operations to scupper international support. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has landed in Saudi Arabia for meetings related to his peace plan and a push to get prisoners and deportees released from Russia. In Europe, NATO countries have been backing away from statements that French president Emmanuel Macron made about not excluding any options to avert a Russian victory in Ukraine, which were presumed to mean western troops. (Macron said this was about creating “strategic ambiguity.”)

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre punches down

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre made a lot of statements yesterday, and they were all alarming in their own ways. First up was expressing support for Bill S-210, which aims to require ISPs to ensure age verification for any online porn sites, or face massive penalties—a bill that passed the Senate and is now headed to committee with opposition support in the Commons. It’s a hugely problematic bill that is going to be a privacy nightmare and cause more problems than it solves. Poilievre also said he doesn’t want this implemented by way of a government digital ID or that prevents people from access legal materials, and his MPs keep handwaving and insisting that there must be some kind of technological solution here. There’s not, this is bad, and frankly is pretty Big Government/gatekeeping, which Poilievre claims to hate. What it does, however, is tap into the moral panic over porn being the root cause of a bunch of social ills, and Poilievre loves getting in on that action.

He was then asked by Rebel Media about trans people and washrooms—because of course the far-right remains obsessed about this—and Poilievre stated that he was against trans women in changing rooms, washrooms, or women’s sports, which is an outrageous egregious overreach and is Poilievre punching down in order to appease the Rebel Media audience. (I will note that you had pundits on Power & Politics baffled by this, believing that Poilievre has this demographic “locked down.” Not true—he needs to actively court them because they see him as being too soft and establishment—see Christine Anderson referring to him as “Pussyvere”—and he has to constantly prove himself to them). It’s also worth noting that for Poilievre’s press conferences, which are limited to five questions and no follow-ups, Rebel and True North are often at the front of the line for questions, which is another particular sign of who he’s speaking to. Justin Trudeau did respond and push back about this making trans people unsafe, which is true, but this is another moral panic Poilievre is trying to cash in on.

The last bit was perhaps the ugliest, where Poilievre was asking about the upcoming online harms bill, and he said that Trudeau shouldn’t be the one to bring it in, claiming this would be censorship, misquoting the line about “those with unacceptable views” (again, playing to the “convoy” audience who took up this misquote with great aplomb), and then launched into a tirade about how Trudeau needs to look into his heart about his past racism and Blackface. And then, because of course, a certain CBC journalist wrote this up (which I’m not going to link to) and devoted half of the story to rehashing the Blackface history including photos, because they didn’t learn a gods damned thing about how Trump got in (and this goes beyond just egregious both-sidesing). None of this is good.

Ukraine Dispatch:

With the loss of Avdiivka, Ukrainians are expecting more advances from Russians. This has spooked enough of the elderly in villages in the area, who are now heading for safer regions, worried that their towns are going to be the next to be ground to dust. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is downplaying the loss of Avdiivka as he calls for more western arms and support, but it has been relentless grind for Ukrainian forces. This said, western intelligence suggests that Russia doesn’t have the domestic capacity to manufacture the ammunition it needs either, so we’ll see how long they can keep up their current pace. Meanwhile, anti-corruption authorities in Ukraine are investigating more than sixty cases involving the defence sector.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1760235411987980541

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bad Supreme Court reporting is bad

Posted on by

There is a reason why journalists should have beats, and why it can be dangerous to write about topics or institutions when you’re not familiar with them. There was a case in point yesterday in the National Post which was trying to sound some kind of alarm about what’s going on at the Supreme Court of Canada—except there’s actually no story here. I’m really not trying to pick on the reporter of the piece, because he’s a good journalist, but he just doesn’t know the file, and got swept up in what a particular lawyer was telling him without having a proper bullshit detector.

The supposed crisis is that the Court is hearing fewer cases lately, and a lot of what it is hearing is being decided in rulings from the bench, meaning they generally don’t release written decisions, and that this is somehow bad for developing case law. Because he talked to one lawyer who tracks stats, he figures that’s the story. Except it’s really not. They’re hearing fewer cases as a direct result of the pandemic, which slowed down the ability to hear cases at the trial court level, which then slows down appeals, which slows down their ability to get to the Supreme Court. They piece pooh-poohs that almost four years later this is still a problem, when of course it is. These things take a long time, particularly when courts were operating on a minimal standard for nearly two years. And because they were operating minimally, most of what they did hear were criminal cases, because they have timelines attached lest they get stayed for delays. That means that most of what does filter up to the Supreme Court are criminal cases, many of them as of right (meaning that at the appeal level, it wasn’t unanimous, so it automatically goes to the Supreme Court of Canada). That’s why a lot of these cases are being decided from the bench—there isn’t any matter of national importance being decided, so they have few needs for written rulings. In the Court’s current session, only two of the cases are not criminal because that’s how the lower courts have been operating. It’s a problem for sure, but it’s one because provinces aren’t funding courts adequately, and the federal government is too slow to make appointments to fill vacancies. This is not a Supreme Court problem.

Furthermore, the piece quotes from a literal constitutional crank—a particular law professor who is of the “burn it all down” school—because it’s a lazy journalist’s trick to make the piece sound more controversial or edgy. But here, he’s saying that he can’t believe they weren’t hearing certain cases without actually saying what he wanted them to hear, and then, out of nowhere, says the Court is going to have to expand, but doesn’t explain why. It makes no sense other than it’s piggybacking on an American issue that has nothing to do with our Court. There is also concern that the court’s decisions are a lot more divided these days and not unanimous without actually exploring that. This is largely because of the different styles of chief justice—under Beverley McLachlin, she strove for more unanimous decisions, and in the end, many of the rulings became so narrowly focused in order to achieve unanimity that they were largely useless for the purposes of developing case law. There is more dissent now because Richard Wagner isn’t concerned with achieving unanimity to the detriment of the decisions, and you have a couple of judges on the court who like to be contrarians. That’s not a bad thing. There is no crisis with the Supreme Court, and if the reporter had any grounding in the institution, he would have seen that there’s no smoke, no fire, and stats without context are useless.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The fighting is now inside the city of Avdiivka, which Russians have been trying to capture for months. There was another prisoner swap yesterday, with 100 exchanged on each side. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has replaced the top army commander, looking for fresh ideas on how to push Russian invaders back. (More about the new chief here).

Continue reading →

Roundup: The muted federal response to Danielle Smith’s latest policy

Posted on by

As expected, there was a federal response to Danielle Smith’s draconian anti-queer/trans policy video, but it was mostly just words of condemnation. Marci Ien and Randy Boissonnault had a scrum about it, but basically said that because they don’t have any document from Smith—the legislature isn’t sitting, and Smith herself said later in the day that nothing would be formally in writing until autumn—they don’t know how best to respond to this, so in the meantime, they’re going to consult and come up with ideas at the Cabinet table as to what the federal government can do, but one supposes that something like a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada of this policy, along with those of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, may be in the works. We’ll have to see, but it’ll take time, so for the moment, it’s a lot of words of affirmation.

Smith did hold a press conference, nearly twenty-four hours after her video was released, and in it, she kept repeating that she was trying to protect youth from “irreversible medical decisions,” which both conflates the purpose of any social transitioning that they may do beforehand, and buys holus-bolus into the moral panic that kids are being indoctrinated into being trans and then “mutilating and sterilizing” themselves, even though there are vanishingly few “top” surgeries for minors, and no “bottom” surgeries at all. But dubious and discredited reporting that echoes through the right-wing media ecosystem has convinced parents that it’s happening (thus the outsized concern for their “right” to know), along with the pre-existing notion that if they’re told, they can stop their kids from being queer or trans (in other words, de facto conversion therapy). But nobody wants to talk about this moral panic. (More analysis about Smith’s move here).

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre’s office has instructed his MPs to say nothing, especially to the media, and to report all requests to his office, and if they are to say something, it’s to emphasise “parental rights over decisions related to their children,” which a) is not actually a legal right in Canada, and b) has been the dog whistle for anti-queer and anti-trans rhetoric for a long time now. And of course, he wants them to stay quiet, but not because he’s worried about another homophobic eruption from someone like Cheryl Gallant, but rather he doesn’t want anyone coming across as too sympathetic because he needs to keep demonstrating to the far-right, reactionary crowd that he thinks is going to win him the election that he’s not too “woke” or small-l liberal, because that would doom their support. It’s little different than Smith keeping this up because she doesn’t want the leopards in her party (like the “Take Back Alberta” crowd) to eat her face like they did Jason Kenney. When you let your party get taken over or be entirely beholden to the crazies, you lose control, and that’s exactly what is happening here.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say that seas drones were used to sink a small Russian warship in the Black Sea, while Russia claims that Patriot missiles fired from Ukraine brought down the plane that was totally carrying POWs and wasn’t a psy op (really). Ukraine’s army chief published a series of priorities and challenges are rumours of his rift with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy continue to circulate.

Continue reading →

QP: Memory-holing past indifference

Posted on by

The prime minister was elsewhere, meeting with the president of the Slovak Republic, who is currently on a state visit to Canada, but his deputy was present for a second day in a row (which is a rarity these days). Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and mocked the prime minister saying that all spending has been absolutely necessary, but noted that a large percentage of consultants hired for ArriveCan resulted in no work done, and demanded the money be recovered. Chrystia Freeland said that Canadians understand that when Conservatives talk about spending, they want to cut things like dental care and child care. Poilievre said that the ArriveCan app was an example of “corruption,” and then railed that the Bloc did an “about face” on their support for Bill C-234, and demanded the government pass it in its original form. Freeland insisted that while she can’t speak for the Bloc, the nation of Quebec understands the need to combat climate change. Poilievre switched to English to repeat that number of ArriveCan contracts were not fulfilled and demanded the money be recouped. Freeland insisted that the Conservatives only want to cut services. Poilievre then pivoted to Trudeau’s vacations, and demanded to know if he paid the “full carbon tax” on each ton of emissions. Freeland asked if he knows how much the heating of Stornoway costs, and that the government was helping people with climate rebates. Poilievre insisted that he pays for his own vacations, and demanded that the government undo the amendments to Bill C-234 and pass it. Freeland pointed out that Poielivre also doesn’t pay rent on Stornoway, and that he wants to take away the climate rebates people rely on.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and decried Quebec’s settlement capacity for immigrants and refugees, and railed that this was impacting housing. Sean Fraser praised the agreement that they came to with Quebec to build more houses. Therrien railed that immigration levels were still going up, and demanded the targets be lowered. Marc Miller pointed out that they already have an agreement with Quebec to manage its immigration levels.

Jagmeet Singh blamed the Liberals for the housing crisis in Toronto, and demanded they capitulate to Olivia Chow’s blackmail. Freeland praised Toronto, and said they were having “constructive conversations” with the city and the provinces, and that they have given more than any previous government. Singh switched to French to decry that the government has called for another investigation into grocery chains rather than taking action. François-Philippe Champagne said that the best solution is for more competition, and that he has asked the Commissioner to use his new powers for this.

Continue reading →

QP: Watch out, the kids are back

Posted on by

The prime minister had not planned to be in the Chamber today, and yet there he was, present for the moment of silence on the Day to Combat Islamophobia, and then stuck around for the Leaders’ Round. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, raised the prime minister’s vacation, and then blamed him for rising rents in Montreal. Trudeau stood up and gave a statement about the Day to Combat Islamophobia in French. Poilievre again blamed the prime minister for students living in shelters and demanded he end inflation and let developers ensure affordable housing. Trudeau noted that the was merely launching personal attacks, and that he voted against actions to help accelerate housing. Poilievre switched to English, and returned to the issue of Trudeau’s vacation, and wanted to know if he paid the “full carbon tax” on the flights he took. Trudeau read that Poilievre has no plan for climate change, while climate change causes droughts, which causes droughts, which rises food prices, and Poilievre has no plan for that. Poilievre called Trudeau a “high-carbon hypocrite,” and Trudeau called out individual Conservatives for voting against things they previously believed in. Poilievre then accused Trudeau of “muzzling” backbencher Ken McDonald and demanded he put his leadership up for review. Trudeau recited how they are working with mayors to build housing, before calling out Leslyn Lewis’ lunch with Christine Anderson.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he returned to his private little conspiracy theory about the Century Initiative around immigration levels. Trudeau pointed to the need for immigrants, and that the levels are stabilising. Blanchet then demanded better distribution of asylum seekers, and Trudeau insisted that hey were working with provinces. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he railed about homelessness but it was hard to hear him over Conservative roaring. Trudeau read a script about using every tool they have to ensure housing affordability, such as their announcement that morning. Singh switched to French to decry renovictions, which is a provincial issue. Trudeau read some boilerplate language.

Continue reading →