Tag Archives: Refugees

Roundup: Reactions to the Trump win

Posted on by

The (somewhat) surprising victory of Donald Trump meant that the government here in Canada, and other world leaders, had to jump to action to offer obsequious, fulsome (in the proper meaning of the term) congratulations to Trump, while Cabinet ministers insisted that this wasn’t a complete disaster. None was more painful to watch than Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s, where he had to put on a show of making Trump feel like a tough guy in the hopes that Trump won’t immediately sell out Ukraine to Putin. We’re in for a rough few years of thuggery, kleptocracy, outright authoritarianism, and the possible breakup of NATO. It is also not lost on anyone the way in which Viktor Orbán offered his own congratulations to Trump, given that MAGA Republicans have been big fans of Orbán’s work, and hope to replicate it in America, much as Orbán is hoping Trump will help him damage Europe for Putin’s benefit.

In terms of fallout, The Logic has a look at what the economic impacts for Canada are likely to be under the second Trump administration, as well as gets the government’s line about how ready they are for the return of Trump to power. The Star has its own grab-bag of reactions from industry, federal and provincial governments, as well as a look at how this win is likely going to impact plans to combat climate change. The CBC has a look at the various pressure points in the relationship that could be exacerbated.

In reaction, Emmett Macfarlane points out that while the Americans have been dismantling their guardrails, Canada’s are still robust, including our courts and vice-regal officers, in spite of creeping nastiness. The Line makes an interesting supposition about the “collapse of the moral authority of the institutional left,” and while I don’t agree with all of their thinking, there is a point to be made in it. Paul Wells gives his own bigger-picture take, which includes his thought that the Trump win is more of a rejection of governance that has been failing people than anything, while nobody seemed to notice or acknowledge that damage.

I will add that if someone is feeling vindicated today, it’s Justin Trudeau because all of those people who told him to step aside in the hopes that it would replicate the energy and excitement of the Harris campaign, only for Harris to lose. This will just convince him to stick around longer, particularly given his history with Trump, and it will further cement his saviour complex and to disregard the fact that most Canadians are tired of his face (and voice) and that he is becoming the biggest drag on his party.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine says it downed 38 out of 63 drones overnight Tuesday, while a drone attack early morning Thursday damaged an apartment building in Kyiv. Russians claim to have captured two more settlements in Eastern Ukraine. US officials confirm that North Korean troops have engaged in combat in the Kursk region of Russia, which Ukraine occupies part of.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making more dishonest hay out of the New York condo

Posted on by

The House of Commons’ Government Operations Committee heard from Mélanie Joly yesterday about the purchase of the new residence for the Consul General in New York, where Joly spoke about the importance to have a presence in New York, and that all of the rules were followed. (Both are true). The Conservatives, however, think they found some kind of smoking gun when Politico obtained documents through Access to Information that they claim “proves” that Tom Clark, said Consul General, had a role in the decision when he previously testified that he hadn’t. Except the documents don’t really say what they claim. There, the documents show that Clark pointed out that the residence is not wheelchair accessible, and that the relationship with the condo board has been deteriorating because of rules around when and what kinds of events can be hosted, which is one of the main reasons this residence exists.

They are trying to get Clark back to committee to grill him again, but that doesn’t change the fact that even if he pointed out that the current residence isn’t suited, he didn’t have any hand in the decision making that led to the new property. There is no contradiction to his testimony, but they have been content to lie about it all day, in press releases and in the House of Commons, because they can. In the political right, brazen lying has become a power play because they know they can get away with it because they won’t be called on it (the most media will do is both-sides them), and in creating these alternate universes from those lies, it becomes an in-group identification for their followers. We are in a very dangerous place with our democracy, and nobody wants to call this out.

Speaking of committees, far-right commentator Lauren Chen of Tenet Media, which is alleged to have taken Russian money, was summoned to appear at the public safety committee, where she attended, but refused to answer questions. This led to a unanimous motion to refer the matter to the Speaker, who will no doubt rule that this is yet another prima facie case of privilege being breached, but the Conservatives will have to end their current filibuster before they can move onto this particular issue.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine’s military shot down 48 drones and two missiles overnight Monday, while a missile attack on Zaporizhzhia killed six and injured at least twenty more on Tuesday. Ukrainian troops say that they have engaged with North Korean units in their occupied portions of the Kursk region of Russia, for the first time.

Continue reading →

QP: A victory lap for immigration concern trolling

Posted on by

The PM was absent today, his deputy off in Washington, and all of the other leaders absent as well—even Pierre Poilievre, who was in Toronto for the day. That left Andrew Scheer to lead off, and he rhymed off slogans, claimed the Liberal caucus is “revolting,” and gave a declinist vision before debanding an election. Sean Fraser said that while Canadians have had a tough time because of global inflation, they are right to ask who is fighting for them, which isn’t the Conservatives, who want to cut supports they need. Scheer rhymed off more slogans, concern trolled some more about Liberal backbenchers rebelling, and again demanded an election. Marci Ien wondered if her own ministry would even exist in a Conservative government because they plan to cut supports for women, and said the Conservatives don’t stand for women or gender-diverse people. Scheer listed things they would cut, such as the CBC, and again claimed that Liberal backbenchers were confiding in Conservatives because they can’t get a hearing from Trudeau and claimed Marc Miller called these rebels “garbage” (which is not what he said), and he yet again called for an election. Patty Hajdu got up this time to decry just what the Conservatives would cut if they ever returned to power, including to First Nations for clean water. Luc Berthold took over in French to claim that Trudeau was all smiles when he left caucus yesterday because he knew he could count on the support of the Bloc, and listed a number of falsehoods before demanding an election. Diane Lebouthillier stood up to denounce cuts the Conservatives made when they were in office. Berthold continued unabated, and again demanded an election, to which Jean-Yves Duclos cited the falsehood that Poilievre only built six affordable housing units when he was “housing minister.”

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, did a little round of self-righteous told-you-so about immigration capacity, and wondered why they didn’t listen to Quebec earlier. Miller said that the targets were still close to those around 2020, and that immigration was still valuable. Therrien tried again, and this time Miller thanked him for his contributions to Canadian unity.

Heather McPherson rose for the NDP, and lambasted the government for not ensuring enough abortion access across the province (because apparently provincial governments don’t exist). Marci Ien recited the funding the federal government delivered to help increase access. Lindsay Mathyssen gave more of the same, and Mark Holland pointed to agreements they are signing with provincial governments. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Implicated Conservatives and the lack of security clearance

Posted on by

It was quite the day at the Foreign Interference inquiry, as Justin Trudeau was on the stand and dropped this particular bombshell: “I have the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians and-or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada who are engaged (in) or at high risk of, or for whom there is clear intelligence around foreign interference.” He also indicated that where his own party is concerned, he has been dealing with any accusations internally, which includes ensuring that those implicated are not being given certain committee assignments or so on, which to be perfectly frank, is how one should be dealing with it (though he could have said at some point that he was aware of the report and has been dealing with it internally). The implication in all of this was that Pierre Poilievre, who refuses to get security-cleared, can’t do the same and it’s bewildering as to why.

Poilievre immediately fired back and accused Trudeau of lying under oath (quite something, especially considering that Poilievre is an avowed liar who lies all the time), and demanded that Trudeau release the names, which denies anyone implicated any due process. After all, some of this is intelligence and not evidence, and subjecting someone who was naïve in an interaction with a diplomat to a kangaroo court is hardly fair and could have particularly profound consequences, especially considering the escalating violence toward MPs, and that they will be tarred as “traitors” when in most cases, as the National Security Advisor said last week, many have simply engaged in bad behaviour or are unwitting because they don’t know better, but it hardly escalates to espionage or sabotage.

Part of the subplot around Poilievre’s refusal to get security clearance is the fact that his chief of staff is cleared and receives briefings—but is not considered “need-to-know” on this, because he’s not the party leader, and that’s a pretty big deal. It shouldn’t be up to the chief of staff to deal with implicated MPs, senators, or candidates, or to do something like rescind a nomination as a result of these allegations. In fact, two former CSIS directors even stated on television that they wouldn’t brief a chief of staff if the leader didn’t have clearance because the leader is the principal actor, and needs to be able to act on what the chief of staff tells him, which again, means needing to be briefed.

Another subplot around that security clearance issue was a delineation between someone who is a Privy Councillor, as Poilievre is, and security clearance, which frankly hasn’t been properly articulated before, and created confusion as a result, particularly because there were instances in the past where opposition leaders were sworn into Privy Council before being given classified briefings. This doesn’t, however, change the fact that Poilievre has chosen not to get a clearance, not that he can’t, which is the difference.

Meanwhile, the Beaverton managed to once again hit on the truth of the matter better than any legacy media outlet.

“Getting it would require him to lie slightly less than he does currently.”Bingo.Yet again, the Beaverton can get to the truth better than most legacy outlets can.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-10-16T23:44:40.382Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The latest drone strike by Russia saw 136 drones launched against Kyiv and other cities, and 68 of those were shot down, with 64 others unaccounted for, while at least two struck targets. Russians claimed they took two more villages—one in Donetsk, one in Luhansk—but Ukraine says that those attacks were repelled. Ukraine has asked the International Maritime Organization to send a monitoring mission to the ports in Odesa among increasing Russian attacks on grain storage and port infrastructure, which threatens global food security. A former Canadian soldier currently fighting in Ukraine has been injured, but wants to get back to the fight when he recovers. And we finally have details on President Zelenskyy’s “Victory Plan,” some of which hinges on an “unconditional” NATO invitation.

Continue reading →

QP: Concern trolling your own filibuster

Posted on by

The PM was in Laos, his deputy elsewhere, and all of the other leaders were present because Wednesday. Pierre Poilievre, fresh out of his no-speaking-for-one-day punishment, began in French, and he claimed that he would have liked to use Parliament’s time to deal with pressing issues but they’re paralysed because the prime minister has refused to turn over documents. (Seriously?!) Karina Gould said this was all false, and read the RCP’s concerns with the production order, and they could send this to committee today. Poilievre listed selective facts to make this seem more scandalous than it is, and wondered if someone steals from you whether you call the cops or send the matter to committee. This time François-Philippe Champagne recited that Canadians are tired of these games and slogans, and that they have had enough of filibustering, and that they will always protect rights and freedoms. Poilievre switched to English to retread his first concern-trolling question, and Gould reiterated that this was not true and repeated the RCMP’s statement. Poilievre again listed the selected facts, and claimed the minister’s story was changing (false), and mocked the notion that this would cause Charter rights to come cashing down. Gould said this was a typical witch-hunt to go after things that have nothing to do with the events, such as personnel files of people not implicated by events, and repeated that this should go to committee. Poilievre scoffed at the notion that this was a witch hunt, and mischaracterised the relationship between the government and SDTC. Gould said that if the police request documents, they are turned over, but this is an abuse of authority.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried about the Bloc’s Supply Management in the Senate. Lawrence MacAulay recited that they support Supply Management, and they are encouraging the Other Place to pass it. Blanchet railed about the two senators allegedly holding up the bill, and Marie-Claude Bibeau recited the support for Supply Management before noting they appointed independent senators, which is a concept the Bloc should understand. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and was incredulous with the story that “corporate landlords” are using AI to jack up rents (which is not federal jurisdiction). Sean Fraser said it was too bad the NDP decided to walk away from the government’s attempt to do something about the situation. Singh then turned to the reports that government lawyers are claiming that there is no duty to provide First Nations with water. Patty Hajdu said that they Have been fixing the mess the Conservatives left, and urged the NDP to support their safe drinking water bill.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Setting a precedent in this privilege fight

Posted on by

There was a privilege debate in the House of Commons yesterday, and it’s expected to carry forward through today, on the subject of the refusal by certain entities, including the Auditor General, to turn over documents related to Sustainable Development Technologies Canada with the intention that they be turned over to the RCMP, even though the RCMP says they don’t want them, in part because it could be tainted evidence that may not stand up in court. This has been an abuse of the Commons’ privilege around the production of papers, in large part because they’re not for the benefit of the Commons or its committees, but to turn them over to the RMCP, which is also interference in their independence. Having politicians direct the police in terms of who they want investigated is the stuff of banana republics or authoritarian regimes, and it amazes me that neither the Bloc nor the NDP could recognize that fact in their quest to use any tool at their disposal to embarrass the government.

The government’s counter-argument to this abuse of privilege is not only that this erodes the independence of officers like the AG, or the RCMP, btu this becomes a dangerous precedent when it comes to Canadians’ Charter rights, particularly around unlawful search and seizure. The Conservatives mock this argument in saying there is no Charter right for government documents, but that’s the thing about precedents when you have a party who is willing to use the authoritarian playbook to their own ends. Today it’s government documents, but how long before it’s a private individual whom they want to embarrass or to encourage police intervention? We watched the Conservatives (with the assistance of the Bloc and the NDP) haul one of the partners from GC Strategies before the bar of the House of Commons, against his doctor’s wishes because he was in the midst of a mental health crisis, because they wanted to embarrass him publicly. It looks like we’re about to get something similar with Randy Boissonnault’s former business partner, who is the subject of the second privilege debate that will be taking place, possibly later today, who has also not turned over demanded documents to the committee as they are on a witch-hunt to find “corruption” that the Ethics Commissioner has repeatedly found no evidence of. And as a reminder, there has been no evidence of any criminal behaviour with the SDTC allegations, but they are trying to find that evidence using the most ham-fisted and abusive methods possible.

Having parliament go after private citizens because they’re on private little crusades, mostly for the benefit of social media clicks, is a terrifying prospect for the future, and yet we are careening down that pathway. Speaker Fergus has been useless in putting his foot down against the abuse of Parliament’s powers in this way, and we may yet be in for another Supreme Court of Canada showdown on defining these powers and when parliamentary privilege because state-sanctioned harassment. But in the meantime, we’ll see the Conservatives drag out these privilege debates in order to derail the government’s agenda, because that’s the level of absolute dysfunction we’re at.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian guided bomb struck an apartment block in Kharkiv late Wednesday, injuring at least ten civilians. There were also drone attacks on port infrastructure in Odesa and attacks on power systems in Sumy region. Ukrainian forces are withdrawing from Vuhledar after two years of grinding combat, which some describe as a microcosm of the current state of the conflict.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A promise to waste millions of dollars

Posted on by

There are a lot of stupid, performative things being said right now, particularly in those three provincial elections, but one of the dumbest yesterday was courtesy of incumbent New Brunswick premier Blaine Higgs, who promised that if re-elected, he will mount a new legal challenge of the federal carbon levy. And to make that worse, several Conservative MPs picked that up and declared during Question Period that the challenge was already underway (it’s not), as though it were a devastating argument for their demands to “axe the tax” or to call an election.

Higgs’ promise is premised entirely on bullshit. There is no basis for him to mount a new challenge because nothing about the programme has changed since the Supreme Court of Canada already ruled that it’s constitutional and within the powers of the federal government, particularly because of the existential challenge that climate change poses to Canadians. The fact that the price is increasing or that we have been though a bout of higher inflation—which has already stabilised and returned to target, and for which the carbon levy did not actually cause any of said inflation because that’s not how inflation works—don’t change any of the legal bases or arguments around the levy. And because the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled, any lower court that Higgs tries to mount a new challenge in is going to tell him to go pound sand.

Higgs is essentially promising to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, because you know that when the courts tell him to go pound sand, they’ll also tell him to reimburse the legal costs of the federal government because they wasted everyone’s time and money in bringing such a frivolous suit in the first place. But there is a political calculus, particularly on the right, where they are prepared to waste millions of dollars in doomed legal challenges because they think that it’s good electoral calculus to show that you’re fighting. Federally, Conservatives have made this argument a number of times when the government didn’t pursue doomed appeals and just made changes, and no doubt Higgs figures that this will work the same way for him. But then again, I guess they’re not bothered by the cognitive dissonance of “we need to balance the budget” and “we need to waste millions of dollars on a doomed legal crusade,” because that might require introspection or self-awareness, both of which are in incredibly short supply in politics these days.

Pretty much all of #cdnpoli. It's really hard to be optimistic about any of it right now.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-10-01T14:21:44.377Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Six civilians were killed and more wounded when Russian artillery struck a bus stop in Kherson. Russian troops have also reached the centre of Vuhledar, a Ukrainian bastion in the strategic high ground of the Donbas region, which is significant because of where it borders and the supply routes it controls. Ukraine is also investigating an apparent shooting of sixteen POWS by Russian troops.

Continue reading →

QP: Griping about the Colbert appearance

Posted on by

The prime minister was still in New York, but his deputy was present once again, while the Conservatives were revved up because this was their Supply Day, and they were busy gathering clips from their prepared speeches in favour of their non-confidence motion. With that in mind, Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he immediately demanded that the Bloc vote against the government. The Speaker warned him about questions being related to administrative responsibilities of government, but Jean-Yves Duclos stood up anyway to denounce that Poilievre told people dental care doesn’t exist. Poilievre again listed the government’s supposed failures to demand the Bloc vote against them, and Soraya Martinez Ferrada decried that Conservative MP Jeremy Patzer got a trip paid for to Florida from a pro-life church. Poilievre switched to English to recite slogans and demand an election, and Mark Holland listed things the Conservatives would cut. Poilievre accused Holland of coming unglued before saying completely untrue things about pharmacare and demanded an election. Holland pointed out his scare-mongering before saying that free diabetes medication and contraceptions are actually freedom. Poilievre again claimed that pharmacare would “ban women” from using their existing drug plans before trotting out the “nuclear winter” line to demand an election. Karina Gould got up to say that freedom doesn’t look like trips to Florida to meet with anti-abortion groups.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded “justice” for seniors via enhancing OAS, and Steve MacKinnon listed efforts to help seniors and that the Bloc voted against it. Therrien declared that seniors deserve better than partisanship, and again demanded the OAS enhancement. MacKinnon again noted that the Bloc has always voted against more help for seniors, including dental care.

Jagmeet Singh demanded the Liberals stand up to Doug Ford around private health care, and Mark Holland said that if he wants to talk courage, the NDP capitulated to the Conservatives when bullied. Singh switched to French, and swapped François Legault for Ford, but asked the same thing. Holland urged parliamentarians to stand up to what the Conservatives would do to the healthcare system.

Continue reading →

QP: Not Question Period, but Catty Bitch Period

Posted on by

The prime minister was away, off at Rideau Hall to swear-in the replacement minister for Pablo Rodriguez, and while his deputy was supposed to be present today she was not. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he raised the concerns by the “premier of the Quebec Nation” about asylum seekers and “temporary immigrants,” and who said he wants the Bloc to not support the government next week. This wasn’t a question for the government, but Jean-Yves Duclos got up to answer it anyway, and he first thanked the new cohort of pages in the Chamber, and then said that Poilievre’s statements were laughable. The Speaker then stood up to remind MPs that it’s important that questions have to do with the administrative responsibility of the government. Poilievre got back up to decry this the Bloc were going against not only Legault but also the Parti Québécois position. The Speaker warned again that this was not a matter for government, but Pascale St-Onge got up regardless—which she shouldn’t have—and spoke about how Quebeckers did not appreciate when Legault endorsed the Conservatives. Poilievre got up again and decried the loss of the Quebec lieutenant, and asked something of Pablo Rodriguez, who is no longer in government, so the Speaker moved to the next question. Poilievre switched to English to decry the NDP and their “taping up” their agreement, but again it wasn’t a question for government, to the Speaker moved on. Poilievre made a second swipe at the NDP, calling Jagmeet Singh a “fake, a phoney, and a fraud,” which still wasn’t a question, but Singh got up, and moved into the aisle (which you couldn’t see on CPAC), saying something inaudible to Poilievre, and there was much noise for a couple of minutes. When it died down, the Speaker said that the questions were supposed to be for government for the sake of accountability, that questions should be pointed and tough, and the answers clear, but this required working within the rules.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, who declared that their priority was seniors, and demanded they rise OAS and GIS for seniors under 75. Karina Gould thanked him for asking a real question. Therrien again demanded the increase, and Steve MacKinnon reminded him that they voted against lowering the retirement age, enriching the GIS, and dental care.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and with a hoarse voice, raised the Canadian Medical Association’s worries about privatisation in the healthcare system and a shortages of personnel, which is provincial jurisdiction, but blamed the federal government anyway. Mark Holland praised their work with the provinces, and took a dig at the NDP for capitulating to the Conservatives acting like Mean Girls. Singh got back up and in French, and demanded assistance of the Aging Well At Home programme in Quebec. Holland got back up and again called them out for caving to the Conservatives.

Continue reading →

QP: Did you hear the good news about inflation?

Posted on by

The prime minister had initially indicated that the would be present, but when the time came, he was not. His deputy was present for a second day in a row, in the wake of the by-election losses, but also in the wake of the news that the inflation headline figure has returned to target, and which I fully expected the Liberals to be insufferable about. All of the other leaders were present, unlike yesterday, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, raised the by-election losses, falsely called the federal government as having been responsible for the largest expansion of government in history, and wondered how the Bloc could support them—which really wasn’t a question for government. Chrystia Freeland got up to praise the inflation numbers, as expected. Poilievre dismissed this as cold comfort for people, and again asked why the Bloc supports them (which is not a question for government), and Freeland again praised the inflation numbers while calling Poilievre economically incompetent. Poilievre switched to English to again raise the by-election losses and recited his slogans. Freeland repeated her good news talking points in English. Poilievre again called this cold comfort, called Freeland incompetent, and raised the fictitious “second carbon tax” as taking a huge hit on the economy. Freeland insisted that the inflation news was good news for Canadians and bad news for the Conservatives. Poilievre repeated his fiction of the “second carbon tax,” which is not a Thing, and demanded an election. Freeland recited good news talking points about housing, repeating the announcement she made yesterday on mortgage amortization.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and first addressed to Poilievre that they got fourth place in LaSalle—Émard, before demanding support for their bill on expanding pensions for seniors under age 75. Freeland recited talking points about supports they have added for seniors, particularly those most vulnerable. Blanched again demanded a royal recommendation for the Bloc bill, and Freeland would not indicate support for that bill.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP and declared the Liberals “done,” then demanded price caps on certain groceries. Freeland hoped that they would set partisanship aside in order to congratulate Canadians for getting inflation back under control, before noting they have increased taxes on corporations. Singh switched to French to repeat his same declaration before demanding and end to “real estate giants” ripping people off. Freeland scoffed at the notion that the Liberals are teaming up with the Conservatives (earned Conservatives applause) and then slammed the Conservatives. 

Continue reading →