Tag Archives: Refugees

Roundup: Lessons to be learned, and hopefully soon

Posted on by

It’s day one-hundred-and-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the fighting continues around Severodonetsk. For the people of the city, they can see what happens when they fall under Russian control—in Mariupol, which has fallen, the remaining residents are dealing with the fact that sanitation has broken down, and corpses are being left to rot, which means there has been an outbreak of dysentery and cholera. Meanwhile, it looks like Russia’s move is to attempt to keep the fighting going on for long enough for the West to lose interest, at which point they can push for Ukraine to make territorial concessions, which Ukraine has no interest in doing.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1535149890950643712

Closer to home, some of the official counts from the Ontario election have been released, and it’s disrupted a whole lot of narratives, particularly around the notion that it was vote-splitting that sunk the NDP’s chances. Nope—in the vast majority of ridings, the Conservatives won by a margin larger than both the Liberals and NDP votes combined. And yes, I know it’s easier to blame the other guy than looking at your own abysmal performance, but come on. Full thread from Mike Moffatt here, and some additional commentary from Hunter Knifton on the Liberal loss here.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1535296477202993154

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1535307246028087297

https://twitter.com/hunterknifton/status/1535323152963837953

Meanwhile, Scott Reid (not the MP, the other one) calls out the Toronto Star editorial board’s assumptions that Pierre Poilievre is just putting on a show that he’ll moderate once he wins the leadership. Reid doesn’t believe he will, and I suspect he’s right. Full thread here, but some highlights. As to whether the Liberals can let go of their happy-clappy pabulum and take this threat seriously, I have some serious doubts, which should worry everyone.

https://twitter.com/_scottreid/status/1535267527139418113

https://twitter.com/_scottreid/status/1535267532449501184

https://twitter.com/_scottreid/status/1535267544935845889

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Ontario horror show

Posted on by

It is now day one hundred of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suspects that Russian forces now hold some twenty percent of the country’s territory, and asks for more Western weapons. Russians hold most of Severodonetsk, and they are moving onto its twin of Lysychansk, which will help them secure control over the Luhansk province. Meanwhile, Ukrainians who return to their homes often find them to be destroyed, with all of their possessions.

Closer to home, the Ontario election was, well, a disaster for everyone involved. Ford gets a larger seat count on a hollow platform he won’t know what to do with, while most of his experienced performers have left politics. The NDP lost nine seats and still think they’re the “strongest” they’ve ever been, but Andrea Horwath did say it was time to step down, as well she should have. Steven Del Duca also stepped down after he lost his own seat, as well he should have. Voter turnout was extremely low, which tells you that people had nothing to vote for, but this breakdown of how each party lost votes is pretty instructive about the level of disillusionment with each, for what that’s worth as the opposition parties start to rebuild. (My full column on the election will be out later today).

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1532558713948708887

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1532535636485455872

Continue reading →

QP: Missing the mark on the tough-on-crime questions

Posted on by

While the prime minister was off to Calgary to sign a land settlement with a First Nation, and his deputy off to Washington DC, none of the other leaders were in attendance either. Luc Berthold led off, laying out that the prime minister promised to run a transparent government, but raised the CBC story on 72 secret orders-in-council (which are secret for statutory reasons, not because the government simply declared them to be). François-Philippe Champagne noted that there are particular decisions which need to be secret, particularly under the Investment Canada Act and under national security considerations, and while they strive for transparency, there are instances where the national interest requires secrecy. Berthold tried once again on this, and Champagne repeated his response. Berthold then raised the rise in gun crimes and worried that the bill revoking mandatory minimums was making life easier on criminals. David Lametti reminded him that there are many cases where the justice system targets Black and Indigenous people and that serious crimes will still receive serious sentences. Rob Moore took over in English to also decry the same bill and demanded the government abandon the bill. Lametti repeated his response. When Moore tried again, Pam Damoff listed actions the government is taking to tackle gun violence.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and claimed that the National Assembly has a democratic duty to protect secularism in the province, and insinuated that the federal government was trying to overturn democracy in the province. Lametti reminded Therrien that he too is a Quebecker, that Law 21 prevented a teacher from working, and that the federal government has a duty to protect minority rights. Therrien listed areas where the federal government turns down Quebec’s demands, and Pablo Rodriguez stated that while the Bloc is trying to pick fights, the government is trying to move society forward. 

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, he noted a lot of food bank users are disabled, before he denounced the new disability benefits bill. Carla Qualtrough recited that they have worked with the disability community and provinces to lift disabled people out of poverty, which included ensuring that provinces don’t claw back benefits. Bonita Zarillo repeated the same condemnation in English, and Qualtrough reiterated points before calling on the House to get it done.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pandering to a false narrative, Quebec edition

Posted on by

It is now on or about day ninety of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and we have the first war crimes conviction, as the tank commander who pleaded guilty last week to killing civilians has been handed a life sentence. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that Russia is waging “total war” intended to inflict as many casualties as possible, and destroy as much infrastructure as they can. Zelenskyy also addressed a gathering of the World Economic Forum in Davos, and he told assembled global and economic leaders there to apply “maximum sanctions” to Russia.

Meanwhile, Belarusians are joining the fight on Ukraine’s side, hoping that it will eventually help topple the regime in their own country. As well, the dreaded Russian hackers have not proven effective in the Ukraine invasion, and have themselves been the successful target of government cyber-operations and hactivists, so perhaps their reputation is not as deserved as it has been.

Closer to home, Quebec is close to passing Bill 96, which expands its language laws to almost absurd levels, including forbidding the use of English in nearly all circumstances, and there are concerns that the bill allows for warrantless searches in order to enforce it. (There CBC had an explainer here,  but beware the both-sidesing).This is all predicated on the notion that French is “declining” in Quebec—erm, except it’s not. Census data shows that, and the only decline was where French was the “mother tongue,” meaning that its decline may be because of immigration, most of whom learn French is fairly short order (though this is one area where Bill 96 is again overreaching—and they wonder why they have a labour shortage). Unfortunately, every federal party including the Liberals have bought into this narrative, and are not challenging it very hard. Some Liberal MPs have been to protests in opposition to the bill, which the Bloc freaked out about in Question Period last week, to some minor pushback from the Liberal Quebec lieutenant, but it’s not a good sign when any party refuses to call out a blatantly false narrative because they are afraid it will lose them needed votes. Such courage!

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1528807121692803072

Continue reading →

QP: Pretending the pandemic is over

Posted on by

Despite the prime minister being in town and having chaired a Cabinet meeting hours before, he was absent from QP, as were every other leader. Luc Berthold led off, and in the spirit of his party’s Supply Day motion, insisted that it was time to lift mask and vaccine mandates because “enough is enough.” (Erm, when did the pandemic end? Asking for a me.) Adam van Koeverden read that we know more about the pandemic than we used to, and that vaccines work. Berthold was not mollified, and demanded the measures end to speed lines at airports. van Koeverden read that they have tools to detect variants of concern and to prevent transmission. Berthold listed all of the files that he accused the government of being in “chaos” over, to which Karina Gould recited her lines about working to speed processing of passports. Melissa Lantsman took over in English, and demanded an apology to travellers who missed flights because of “incompetence.” Annie Koutrakis read that CATSA has hired 400 new screening officers in various stages of training, and that they are working with airports to relieve bottlenecks. Lantsman insisted that there was some kind of secret advice the government was following that no other government was, to which Gould repeated her lines about passport processing delays.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he was worried that the government plans to appeal the court decision in New Brunswick around the appointment of the lieutenant governor (which is a bad ruling because of what it does for executive appointment powers and constitutional incoherence) while three Liberals spoke out against it. Ginette Petitpas Taylor state that they would ensure future bilingual appointments for the province. Therrien was incensed that the Bloc were being considered radicals, to which Pablo Rodriguez launched into his particular rant that the Bloc are not the only real Quebeckers in the Chamber.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and in French, he railed about inflation, and demanded an excess profit tax on oil companies and to give more GST refunds. Randy Boissonnault reminded him that they indexed benefits to inflation and raised taxes on the top one percent. Daniel Blaikie took over in English by video and made the same demand, and Boissonnault repeated his same answer in English.

Continue reading →

QP: Gathering outrage clips about gas prices

Posted on by

The prime minister was away in meetings, but his deputy was present, so that was something, though no other leader was present either. Luc Berthold led off in French, and he proclaimed that masks came off in Quebec, but pivoted this toward a question on gas prices and inflation, demanding a break be given to people. Chrystia Freeland recited that they sympathised with the families, which was why they had measures in the budget like dental care. Berthold railed that the Liberals liked high prices, and invited Freeland to join him at a gas station. Freeland reminded him that Canadians are smart and know this is a global issue, caused by Putin’s war in Ukraine. Berthold then raised Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada ruling and the invitation to bring forward new legislation around extreme intoxication. David Lametti got up to read that they are closely studying the ruling, and specified that Friday’s ruling does not apply to most cases where intoxication is a factor. Karen Vecchio took over in English and read a hugely torqued reading of the decision and demanded action, and Lametti read the English version of the same response. Vecchio carried on building a moral panic around the ruling, and Lametti reiterated that the ruling came out on Friday, so they wanted to examine their options.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he complained that a number of Liberal MPs attended a protest in Quebec against the province’s proposed (draconian) language laws, to which Pablo Rodriguez said that Liberal MPs were not handcuffed, and the government had their own official languages legislation. Therrien was outraged by this, and Rodriguez continued to needle him that Liberal MPs were no less Quebeckers than Bloc MPs. 

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, he railed that gas prices were increasing while the government subsidised the fossil fuel sector, hitting Canadians twice. Freeland replied that they were phasing out those subsidies, and carbon capture was part of the way forward. Rachel Blaney appeared by video to repeat the question in English, and Freeland reiterated her points, with some added emphasis on the efficacy of carbon prices.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, the Supreme Court did not allow an extreme intoxication defence

Posted on by

We are now on or about day eighty of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like Russian forces took heavy losses to the tune of as many as 73 tanks in a two-day battle that saw them destroyed in a failed river crossing. So that’s something. Meanwhile, a twenty-one-year-old Russian soldier is now on trial for war crimes for killing civilians. It also looks like some six million Ukrainians are now displaced out of the country by this point, most of them in neighbouring countries, and that situation is starting to take its toll.

As for the potential expansion of NATO with Finland and Sweden about to make their applications, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan says he is not favourable to those countries joining—and applications must be approved unanimously by member countries. This may be a ploy to extract concessions by Sweden in particular, as it relates to Turkey’s domestic political interests.

Closer to home, you will have no doubt seen a bunch of headlines saying that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that “extreme intoxication is a valid defence in murders and sexual assaults.” That is not true, and is extremely misleading. The court in fact stated that extreme intoxication is not a defence that can be relied upon. What they did state was that the section in the Criminal Code that said that a state of automatism brought about by intoxication was not a defence was in fact unconstitutional, because it removed the principle around needing criminal intent. (There was a second, related decision that ruled on a few other related issues). There is a difference between extreme intoxication and a state of automatism, and it should behove news outlets to make a proper differentiation so that they’re not spreading misinformation—which they essentially are with these headlines designed to induce a moral panic. So please disregard them, because it is explicitly not what the court ruled. (I will have a piece delving deeper into its issues out in a day or two).

Continue reading →

Roundup: How to remove a central bank governor

Posted on by

It is now approximately day seventy-nine of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and war crimes trials are beginning in the country, hearing from one youth who whose father was murdered in front of him, and who was shot by Russian soldiers but who survived. Shooting at civilians—and children especially—is a war crime, and Russians will be hard-pressed to come up with justifications for them. As well, the UN is declaring a “child rights crisis” in the country, given how many children have been killed in the invasion. Meanwhile, here is a look at the “partisans” fighting on Ukraine’s behalf from behind Russian lines, which may or may not be the cause of all of those fires and explosions.

Elsewhere in Europe, Finland’s president and prime minister are urging the country’s parliament to vote in favour of making their application to join NATO, while Sweden is expected to follow suit days later. If Putin’s fig-leaf excuse for invading Ukraine was to stop NATO’s expansion, well, he’s just done the opposite, so good job there. There will be some sensitivity in managing the time between Finland applying for membership and when they are granted it, as they could be particularly vulnerable to Russian aggression during that period.

Closer to home, Pierre Poilievre’s attack on the Bank of Canada is not going unnoticed, but it helps for the rest of us to know just what he’s trying to suggest. To that end, Kevin Carmichael provides needed context to what exactly Poilievre is threatening to do to the Bank of Canada governor, and why he’s wrong on inflation. As well, this thread is a good take on the mechanism for the how governor is appointed and what it would take to remove him.

Continue reading →

QP: Border crossings and gun control

Posted on by

Even though the prime minister was mere steps away, concluding a press conference with this Latvian counterpart, he was not in the Chamber for QP today, though his deputy was, and most of the other leader didn’t bother to show up either. Luc Berthold led off in French, and he worried about Roxham Road, accusing the prime minister of creating a “gap” in the safe third country agreement, and he echoed François Legault’s demand to suspend the agreement and close the crossing. Chrystia Freeland read that they respect the immigration system, and that they work closely with the Americans on the shared border including with the agreement. Berthold then pivoted to gang violence in Montreal (and for a moment, it sounded like he was drawing a comparison because it was such a clumsy transition), and Freeland agreed with him that as a member from a big city, there is a problem with firearms, which was why the government was taking steps to limit them, and invited the Conservatives to support them in that. Berthold insisted that the prime minister was turning a blind eye, and targeting innocent people, and Freeland repeated her same response. John Brassard took over in English to decry gun violence and noted that in one arrest, the accused had been arrested on an unrelated charge 48 hours earlier. Freeland insisted that as a mother of Toronto teenagers, she was well aware of the problem of firearms, which was why they were banning military-style assault rifles. Brassard listed other gun incidents and insisted the prime minister was protecting violent criminals and not families. Freeland assured him that farmers and hunters do not use military-style assault rifles, which is why they were being banned.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried about the escalating cost of the Trans Mountain expansion, as it gets another $10 billion (loan guarantee, not actually new funds), and Freeland assured him that they did not intend to be the long-term owners and that it was a responsible investment that created jobs. Therrien bellowed louder on the matter, and Freeland repeated her response.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he worried that oil and gas companies got government money and is now raking in massive profits. Freeland listed efforts on eliminating subsidies and imposing emissions caps. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “debate” spectacle sans substance

Posted on by

It is now around day seventy-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like the Ukrainians have made some gains in the eastern part of the country, pushing Russian forces out of four villages near Kharkiv. Meanwhile, a team of Ukrainian soldiers has been tasked with revisiting recent battlefields around Kyiv to gather the dead, and have recovered the remains of around 200 Russian soldiers thus far. It sounds like they may try to return these bodies to Russia in exchange for prisoners, but we’ll see if those kinds of deals hold.

Closer to home, it was the first official English debate of the Conservative leadership race, and it was…an experience. While it was not the hostile snipe-fest that was the Conference Formerly Known As the Manning Conference debate, it was a strange format where they tried to have limited engagements between candidates, to control the temptation to talk over one another, and then insisted that the audience not clap or boo, which…defeats the whole point of a live audience, and it was a real choice to try and control their reactions. And it had a sad trombone sound. No, seriously. Not every segment was on policy—some of it were personal, asking candidates what they’re reading, or the kinds of music they like, which is fine and humanizes them a little. (But seriously, Roman Baber choosing Amy Winehouse? Has he ever listened to what she has to say in her lyrics?)

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1524548247456559104

Some observation on each candidate, in the drawn order of their opening statements:

  • Scott Aitchison: While he is aiming to be the reasonable, middle-of-the-road candidates, there are plenty of places where he displays the intellectual heft of the truck commercial he launched his campaign with. A lot of what he offered is not really credible, particularly on environmental or resource development files.
  • Roman Baber: I’m not going to mince words. Honestly, this guy is a moron. He says a lot of things that he’s picked up in the online discourse, but none of it makes any sense, most of it is contradictory, and he’s utterly vacuous—but nobody would call him on that.
  • Patrick Brown: While he kept insisting that he’s the only one who can deliver the suburbs like in the GTA, Brown also made some particular missteps, like insisting he would advance a no-fly zone over Ukraine (essentially committing Canada to a shooting war with a nuclear power), or that the point of reconciliation with Indigenous people is so that we can build more pipelines.
  • Pierre Poilievre: Aside from just using “freedom!” in as many answers as possible, he opened by outright attacking the Bank of Canada and saying he would replace the governor if he were to form government, which is a pretty big bomb to drop. He lied and prevaricated about his previous statements and positions, particularly during the Bitcoin portion of the evening. But the longer the evening went on, the more it became clear that he was just going down the right-wing populist checklist and name-checking every item on it, whether it was saying he’s reading Jordan Peterson’s book, or that he wants to fight “government censorship.” He displayed no principles, just virtue-signalling to the crowd he is courting.
  • Leslyn Lewis: Mostly said a lot of hyperbolic things about how “divided” the country is because of COVID, and that she is somehow going to heal the divides between people who believe in science and evidence, and anti-vaxxers who don’t care how many people they infect because they refuse to wear a mask or stay home. How does plan to heal those divides? Who knows?
  • Jean Charest: Charest was more pugnacious and was willing to break debate rules in order to how do you do, fellow kids?, and insist that he’s the only one who can unite east and west…but he too made a bunch of fairly questionable pronouncements. Like private healthcare delivery could have avoided lockdowns (erm, you saw the States, right?) or that he would cut income taxes to fight inflation (which is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline).

It was an event that begged for booze (which I did not imbibe in, because I had this post to write). But I will leave you with Paul Wells’ suitably acerbic take on the event, which sums the lunacy of it up nicely.

Continue reading →