Tag Archives: Refugees

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 →

Roundup: The sudden concern over redistributing asylum seekers

Posted on by

There is a particular strain of ugly anti-immigrant rhetoric which has largely been tamped down in this country but has started to re-emerge thanks to the permission structures being formed by the Republicans in the US, and which are being laundered into Canada by blaming the Liberals for somehow “breaking the consensus” around immigration in recent years with high arrival numbers, ignoring that the vast majority of these numbers have been asked for by provincial premiers. Nevertheless, the issue with asylum seekers (which are not economic immigrants) has disproportionately landed in Quebec’s lap because of the ease of border crossing there, and Quebec has made demands of other provinces to share the load.

Well, the federal minster, Marc Miller, has had discussions with provinces about taking more of these asylum seekers—with federal supports—but that was enough to get New Brunswick premier Blaine Higgs to start lying about it over social media. (Higgs is floundering in the polls ahead of an election and has been turning to Christian Nationalists as his strategy to stay competitive). And while Miller has called out Higgs for his fictitious alarm, it has already spread to other provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, with BC’s Conservative leader also weighing in (and talking out of his ass as he does about many, many files).

https://twitter.com/marcmillervm/status/1834359608481100045

Miller is an effective communicator, unlike most of his fellow Cabinet members, so he’s actually mounting a good defence, but we cannot forget that this particular xenophobic rhetoric has been creeping into the discourse here, enabled by certain premiers and by Pierre Poilievre who have been blowing this particular dog-whistle while the Elder Pundits shrug and insist that it’s not really happening because Canada is different (it is, but it’s not that different), but they see it being used effectively in the US, and in places like Hungary, and they want a piece of that action if it’ll get them the power that they crave. We’ll see if Miller can score enough blows, but I suspect that with the Elder Pundits dismissing the nature of these attacks, the effectiveness of his counters, even with receipts, will be blunted in broader public.

In case you missed it:

  • My Xtra column on the three upcoming provincial by-elections, and how conservative parties all moved further to the right in each of them.
  • My weekend column on the way the Public Accounts committee went from being the best, most non-partisan committee in Parliament to yet another sideshow.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take that explains Supply Days, and why they’re going to be a lot more weighty now that the NDP have reneged on their agreement.
  • My column on the tiff at TIFF over that Russian film, and why Conservatives blaming Trudeau are really telling on themselves about their own censorship ambitions.

Ukraine Dispatch

https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1834204204405039436

 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Waiting on the Industrial Relations Board’s decision

Posted on by

As the Industrial Relations Board began its deliberations of the rail situation and the request of the minister, one of the two railways, CN Rail, opted to end their lockout and start the trains running again. But because the minister’s order included extending the previous collective agreement to now, it somehow reset things for the union, and they issued a seventy-two-hour strike notice, so…the trains may not run again? The whole while, the other rail company, CPKC, just stayed the course with their lockout in order to wait for what the Board had to say.

As for the Board, it needs to determine if binding arbitration is the only way to resolve the impasse in the labour dispute, and whether it can justify that the economic situation has a sufficient impact on the general public that arbitration is, again, the only way to resolve this, and the parties need to present evidence to this effect because this is a quasi-judicial body. The way this whole situation with the Board has been described by most media outlets has been outright wrong, and coupled with the fact that the business lobbies don’t seem to understand the limits of the minister’s powers, and it has led to nothing but confusion as to what is really going on.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are keeping conspicuously silent about the whole thing, no doubt in a cynical attempt to continue to court the blue collar union vote (as though their history of attempted union-busting will just magically disappear). It is impressive, however, just how much message discipline they have had over this, with nary a stray tweet being sent out (probably because they know Jenni Byrne will scream at them if they do).

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia has suspended ferry service to occupied Crimea after the Ukrainian navy blew up one of those ferries that was hauling fuel and munitions to the occupied region. The Ukrainian forces say that they have used high-precision US-made glide bombs in parts of Kursk, and that they have also re-taken some land in Kharkiv.

Continue reading →