Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Roundup: Demanding the Speaker to something he can’t

Posted on by

The Liberals are no stranger to stunts, and the “poor me” stunts are some of the worst of all. With this in mind, it should be no surprise that MP Ya’ara Saks has written an open letter to the Speaker to demand apologies from Conservatives for sexist remarks, be it Michael Cooper in Committee or Rick Perkins telling Jean Yip that she deserves a participation ribbon. The problem? There’s nothing the Speaker can really do about it.

Saks didn’t cite any Standing Orders that were contravened, and the Speaker is bound to operate within the Standing Orders. Those are the rules by which he is refereeing. And for well over a generation now, the Canadian House of Commons has seen fit to effectively neuter the Speaker so that he (or she) doesn’t have much in the way of leeway in order to enforce, well, anything. Other Speakers in other Westminster parliaments have a lot more authority and latitude—Australia’s Speaker can even demand that governments answer the question when they are seen to be evasive (though this can sometimes stray into Speakers acting in potentially partisan ways). But ours? Nope—because MPs chose to have a ridiculously unempowered Speaker. The result? More of a gong show, more speaking lists, more canned speeches without any flow, and overall, an unserious Parliament, particularly in relation to our comparator countries.

And MPs could change this. But they don’t want to, so they won’t. And that is a problem.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that his country’s military chiefs are unanimous to keep defending Bakhmut, probably because they are grinding the Russian forces down there at a fairly alarming rate. Meanwhile, the Americans are accusing the Russians of downing one of their drones over the Black Sea, which Russia denies.

https://twitter.com/yermolenko_v/status/1635649300922245120

https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1635665484954718208

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre’s facile budget demands

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre called a Sunday morning press conference, which is a particularly Conservative tactic that tries to set the agenda for the week, in which he made his demands around the upcoming budget. We all know that it’s pretty much set in stone by this point and is on its way to the printers, but that never stops parties from making performative demands right up until the end. To that end, Poilievre had three main demands:

  1. Bring home powerful paycheques with lower taxes, so hard work pays off again.
  2. Bring home lower prices, by ending inflationary carbon tax hikes & deficit spending that drive up inflation & interest rates.
  3. Bring homes people can afford by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits.

First of all, the thing he refuses to acknowledge or understand is that tax cuts fuel inflation. If he’s worried about the increasing cost of living, tax cuts won’t actually do anything meaningful, and are more likely to just add fuel to that fire. (Meanwhile, taxes aren’t going up for anyone except profitable corporations and on luxury goods). When it comes to housing prices, carbon prices are not inflationary (the Bank of Canada has cited that their effect on inflation is negligible), and deficit spending has absolutely nothing to do with either inflation or interest rates. This is a facile narrative that Poilievre keeps insisting, preferring an austerity budget that will only make the vulnerable even more precarious without government supports, but this economic message still resonates for a particular generation. Meanwhile, none of this will affect housing prices, because that is driven by a lack of supply, which is because municipalities refuse to zone for density, and because provincial governments won’t use their powers to force the issue. And that leads us to the third point, which is that the federal government has no ability to “remove gatekeepers” at the provincial or municipal level. They can’t do anything about building permits, and I am dubious that there is enough federal land that is suitable for housing developments in major cities around the country that is underutilized. I may be wrong, but this has been a perennial promise by governments for years and nothing has really moved, which leads me to believe there’s not a lot to be had.

It’s not at all surprising that Poilievre is sticking to facile and wrong budgetary narratives, but it would be great if he could actually be called out on it rather than both-sides at best, which is barely even happening. This is important stuff and we’re just shrugging it off, and focusing on more bullshit polls about people believing the Conservatives are still the better economic managers in spite of decades of proof to the contrary.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces have believed to have suffered more than 1100 dead in a week of battles near Bakhmut, with another 1500 wounded so badly as to be removed from the fighting. The Institute for the Study of War believes Russia’s planned advance has stalled in Bakhmut, and that the assault will be more difficult to sustain without more significant losses.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1634849209840173057

Continue reading →

Roundup: The allegations reach Queen’s Park

Posted on by

Another day, another Global news story about supposed foreign interference allegations, this time naming Ontario PC MPP Vincent Ke as someone who has been working on behalf of the Chinese government, and who was given funds to disperse for election influence. Ke denies this, but Doug Ford swiftly demoted him from parliamentary assistant to committee chair, and then hours later, Ke “voluntarily” stepped out of caucus for the time being. But there are a lot of problems with the reporting in the piece, as both Stephanie Carvin and Jessica Davis—both of whom are former CSIS analysts—point out in separate Twitter threads that are absolutely essential reading to understand why this reporting is so suspect.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1634268769697640449

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1634272246817607682

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1634282290921590798

Meanwhile, former Senator Vern White is calling out the Conservatives’ characterisation of NSICOP to be the bullshit that it is, and says that it would be faster and cheaper for that committee to do the review into interference allegations than a public inquiry. He also doesn’t believe an NSICOP member leaked an unredacted report to Global news considering how strict the security is. I previously wrote a piece about the legislation empowering NSICOP and how it compares to other Westminster parliaments’ own parliamentary national security committees, and they too face redactions from their political executives—NSICOP is not out of line in that regard, not to mention that we don’t have secure places for a secret-cleared parliamentary committee to meet on Parliament Hill (which should be part of the renovations to Centre Block).

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1634335994525757440

Ukraine Dispatch:

An aide to president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that the decision to stick out the battle in Bakhmut has to do with the ability to pin down and degrade Russia’s best forces ahead of the planned spring Ukrainian counter-offensive. Meanwhile, most of the power in Kyiv has been restored after Thursday’s missile barrage from Russia.

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1634182540868108290

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1634245229627809792

Continue reading →

Roundup: Derailing the committee with sexism

Posted on by

The big happenings of the day on the foreign interference file were at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee when ministers Dominic LeBlanc and Mélanie Joly testified. We found out that thus far, one diplomatic visa has been rejected by Canada because of interference allegations, and we also got the very reasonable explanation from Joly that we haven’t been expelling diplomats because that invites tit-for-tat from the Chinese government (and they are not afraid to take hostages), and we need our eyes and ears on the ground in that country. We also learned from Joly’s Great China director at Global Affairs that “diplomatic representations” were made about their alleged boats around helping to defeat Conservative candidates in the last election.

What made the news, however, was that Conservative MP Michael Cooper was hostile and belittling toward Joly in a clearly misogynistic manner, made worse by the fact that he later put out a statement that refused to apologise for it, but insisted he wanted action and not a “symbolic stare down.” Erm, you guys keep bringing up Harper’s symbolic stare down of allegedly telling Putin to get out of Ukraine in 2014 and calling that courageous, so I’m not sure why Joly’s confrontation with her Chinese counterpart is considered any lesser. Oh, wait—we know why.

In other news on the interference file, here’s an interview with former CSIS director Ward Elcock on recent developments, and there are a couple of takeaways—that this is old news, and that we’ve known about Chinese interference for years; that there is no reason to believe that the PM did get these briefing notes (and it has been noted by other experts that Canada does not have a system of pushing intelligence upward, and yet this is what so much of Global’s reporting in hinging on); and that it is highly unlikely these leaks are coming from CSIS, but someone who has access to their documents (and the good money is on someone within the RCMP).

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633863409211961346

As well, NSIRA did announce that they too are undertaking their own investigation of the allegations and what CSIS has been doing around it, while not looking to duplicate the work that NSICOP is doing.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633808644935409666

Ukraine Dispatch:

Yesterday’s widespread Russian attack saw more than 80 missiles, plus more drones, hitting cities across the country, killing six people and cutting the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant off of the power gird for eleven hours.

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1633720689541652483

Continue reading →

Roundup: A leaked NSICOP report?

Posted on by

Another day, another story on foreign interference, this time from Global. It was largely a rehash of material released earlier, but hidden inside was mention of seeing an unredacted report from NSICOP, which raises more questions about who is leaking this material (and to what end). Justin Trudeau continues to be evasive and not give any answers to fairly clear and specific questions about what he was told and when, which is not something you should need the special rapporteur for, and which shouldn’t be a matter that requires the blanket of national security secrecy, but the barrage of pabulum about the importance of national security oversight bodies is not exactly helping his case, or making it look like he has everything under control.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633509940064133130

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633509943625105411

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633472781428948998

NSICOP did announce that they will look into the allegations of foreign interference, but the fact that one of their unredacted reports was leaked to the media is going to undermine trust in that process by security officials in this country, who were dubious about the process from the start, and who will find it even harder to trust now. That’s not good for the ongoing ability to have parliamentarians play a role in the oversight of those bodies, which is necessary in a democracy.

In the meantime, there’s more that the government could get started on right away when it comes to combatting foreign interference, and Jessica Davis has a good thread about those actions here.

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1633488015573041153

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians fired a massive missile barrage across Ukraine early this morning, with more critical infrastructure being targeted. The Wagner Group is claiming that they have made advances into Bakhmut, but it’s still too early to tell the veracity or what it means in the bigger picture. Here’s a look at Canadian soldiers training Ukrainians on how to operate the Leopard 2 tanks we’ve sent them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The tone of the interference debate gets worse

Posted on by

Because we are in an era of bad faith and lowest-common-denominator shitposting, Pierre Poilievre called a press conference yesterday to assert that Justin Trudeau was working in China’s interests against Canada—no doubt catnip to the conspiracy theorists whom he has been trying to attract to his banner, who carry signs about “treason” and who carry nooses to rallies. Even one-time sensible moderate Michael Chong has gone on television to be “just asking questions” about Trudeau’s loyalty to Canada, which is frankly beyond the pale. (Poilievre also said some absolute nonsense about LNG in Canada and his steadfast belief that there would have been a market for it if not for red tape—never mind that proponents could find buyers and couldn’t make a business case to proceed with projects that were fully permitted).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1633197743131750400

Trudeau later responded that Poilievre’s was eroding faith in democracy with this kind of rhetoric, but that’s kind of the point with this brand of populists. They are trying to erode faith in institutions so that they can insert themselves as the solution to the problems of democracy, without needing to worry about things like minority rights. Not that Trudeau has helped, with his back-patting and platitudes, which doesn’t push back against this kind of threat. (Some good analysis here).

In the meantime, we wait for the announcement of the special rapporteur, but if the goal is to have opposition sign-off, that could be difficult. The NDP say they are cautiously optimistic, but the Bloc want someone who has pre-determined that there needs to be an inquiry, while the Conservatives are likely to engage in bad faith regardless of what happens, so the ability for there to be consensus on a name is not a hope I am holding out for. But seriously—everybody howling for a public inquiry doesn’t seem to realise that NSICOP is likely more independent, because a public inquiry would be appointed by Cabinet, with terms of reference set by Cabinet, and would report to Cabinet. The government is trying to create some distance from themselves with this rapporteur, but nobody wants to hear the actual process or procedure around the demands they’re making.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633129536358346755

Ukraine Dispatch:

Kyiv is disavowing a group that has been making raids over the border in Russia, while other small groups within Russia are also conducting sabotage operations in opposition to Putin. Ukrainian officials have identified the soldier in a video that was executed by Russians, in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1633042812605280256

Continue reading →

Roundup: Empathy for the deeply selfish?

Posted on by

Update: Sorry for the delay. I had issues with the website but everything should be running smoothly now.

In spite of the Emergencies Act public inquiry report being released on Friday, there seem to be some awfully short memories as to what was happening at the time—or a bunch of people are acting disingenuously or in bad faith. Take, for example, Pierre Poilievre, who took to claiming that the assembled mass of far-right extremists, conspiracy theorists, grifters and grievance tourists were concerned about their costs of living and not being able to live. Which is funny, because inflation hadn’t spiked then, and interest rates were still at rock bottom. He is taking his current talking points and casting them back in time to a situation that didn’t exist, and has consigned the talking points of the era (“Freedom!”) to the memory hole. Funny that.

https://twitter.com/maxfawcett/status/1627033913188290560

And then there’s the Globe and Mail, whose editorial board decided that what the occupiers need is empathy. After all, they had hurt feelings, and this narrative of the prime minister’s “divisive” comments keep circulating, even though he was telling the truth. The fact that certain people kept telling on themselves by openly identify as racists and misogynists to somehow “own Trudeau” was quite something.

Oh, and the Globe and Mail’s editorial board, comfortable in their downtown Toronto offices, should take a look at their own life choices as they demand empathy for a group of deeply selfish people who refused to take public health measures for the good of everyone around them, and who traded in conspiracy theories instead of behaving like grown-ups, and who held a city hostage in an extended three-week temper tantrum, instead of empathy for the citizens of Ottawa as their city police and provincial government abandoned them.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 363:

US president Joe Biden made a “surprise” visit to Kyiv yesterday, and stayed for some five hours, meeting with president Volodymyr Zelenzkyy and pledging more support for the country. (Here’s a look at how that trip came together). Ukrainian troops training on Leopard 2 tanks compare them to a Mercedes. Ukrainian forces say they are inflicting “extraordinarily significant” losses on Russian forces in the Donbas as Russia continues to move toward Bakhmut. Meanwhile, midwives in Ukraine are looking to Canada for training on how to better deliver babies outside of hospitals (as they are not licensed for home deliveries).

https://twitter.com/re_dailymail/status/1627639235665702913

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inquiry report and influence reports

Posted on by

Justice Paul Rouleau delivered his final report from the Emergencies Act public inquiry yesterday, and in it, he concluded that the government was justified in invoking the Act, albeit somewhat reluctantly because of failures at every level, particularly with policing, but also most especially from Doug Ford and the Ontario government, whom he reserves some particularly even-toned scorn for. There was also some blame apportioned to Justin Trudeau for his “fringe minority” comments as having hardened the resolve of occupiers (erm, except it was true what he said). There was plenty of blame apportioned to the Ottawa police, as well there should be, and he did reject the occupiers’ claims that they were peaceful.

Rouleau made 56 recommendations, including better intelligence coordination and coordination among police, as well as to make changes to the Act, which Trudeau has promised to study and come up with a response to, and that he regrets the phrasing of his “fringe minority” comments (which, I repeat, were true). Pierre Poilievre, predictably, went before a microphone and insisted that Trudeau created the whole mess by “attacking his own population,” and went on a tear about inflation (which was not a pressing concern when the occupation happened), and then went on a rant about the CBC for daring to ask him a question, and around and around we go.

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/1626702909017554945

In pundit reaction, Susan Delacourt filters the report through the weaponization of the term “freedom,” and what it represents and misrepresents. Paul Wells offers some of his initial thoughts on the report. Justin Ling has his own perspective of the report based on his own reporting of the occupations’ membership and the role of disinformation that fuelled it. And of course, the Beaverton gets the last word.

Chinese Interference

The Globe and Mail published a story where their two journalists had been shown CSIS documents (illegally!) to show how Chinese officials were trying to interfere in the last two elections, and how their Vancouver consul was claiming to have defeated two Conservative incumbents in the last election. And it sounds concerning…but details don’t add up for me. The Chinese say they wanted a Liberal minority, but targeting eleven ridings cannot give you that kind of outcome. And the section on political donations doesn’t make sense given the rules around them, so I have a lot of questions that this story doesn’t answer.

In response, Justin Trudeau says that whatever Chinese officials claim, the election result was unaffected (and given how the alleged Chinese scheme doesn’t make much sense, I am giving this a bit more weight). Pierre Poilievre says that Trudeau turned a blind eye because the interference was to his advantage (again, how?) One of the defeated Conservatives says he fears the country has become an “open market” for foreign governments trying to sway elections (again, how?)

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 360:

Ukrainian soldiers fighting near Bakhmut make the direct plea to western countries to send more weapons, while president Volodymyr Zelenskyy made similar requests of assembled allied leaders in Munich. American intelligence is estimating that Wagner Group mercenaries (most of them convicts) have suffered more than 30,000 casualties in Ukraine, with about 9,000 of them killed in action.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1626559600110469125

Continue reading →

Roundup: Keeping the focus on the distraction

Posted on by

If our Parliament were at all serious, we would see House of Commons committee studies be actual serious affairs. But we’re no longer a serious Parliament, and MPs seem to go out of their way to demonstrate this at every opportunity. Yesterday it was the government operations committee, which is studying those McKinsey contracts, and they had an expert from Carleton University before them, who studies the use of external consultants by governments. She kept telling them that the focus on McKinsey was a distraction from the real problems. But what did the Conservatives in particular want to ask about? McKinsey, because they think it’s a political winner for them to start building this bullshit conspiracy theory that somehow Dominic Barton is secretly running Canada, and that McKinsey got all of these contracts because Trudeau likes Barton (never mind that the McKinsey contracts are on the extremely low end of the consultancy scale).

If we had a serious Parliament, they would have asked better questions and been more on the ball about the larger problem. But we don’t, and instead we got a bunch of showboating for the cameras, which will all wind up in social media shitposts.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 342:

Russian forces have been shelling both Kharkiv and Kherson, hitting residential buildings in both cities, while moving on the towns of Maryinka and Vuhledar, which are near Bakhmut. Meanwhile, France and Poland appear to be seriously considering getting fighter jets like F-16s to Ukraine, even though the Americans are unwilling.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford getting huffy about his Greenbelt plans

Posted on by

There was a hint of defensiveness from Ontario premier Doug Ford yesterday when he was asked about comments that the federal environment minister Steven Guilbeault made about the plans to develop parts of the Greenbelt. Guilbeault had pointed out that the plan goes against plans for dealing with climate change, and that he could look at potential federal tools to stop those projects, though later his office clarified that there are currently no projects proposed, so this was about potential legal processes to protect nature, which is fair enough, but is really getting up to the line on what he can actually do there.

Doug Ford, however, got a bit huffy and insisted that this is his jurisdiction, and then blamed the federal government’s immigration targets for needing to open up new spaces for housing development, which is bullshit because Ford has the tools to force cities to end exclusionary zoning that prevents densification, but he chooses not to use them. As well, much of the Greenbelt is on watersheds so you really don’t want to build housing there because it’ll be at high risk of flooding, and good luck getting those properties insured. It’s really not the place you want to build housing, so Ford is really not making any good case there for carving up those protected areas.

Of course, Jagmeet Singh also chimed in and demanded that the federal minister use his “tools” to stop the development, citing both the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act as possibilities, but that’s on some pretty thin ice. To use the Species legislation, well, you need to prove there is endangered habitat there, which may not be a relevant consideration in those particular places. And the Impact Assessment Act would be going out on a very big limb to try and assert jurisdiction there because there is unlikely to be an interprovincial federal effect to hang it on (such as increased GHGs or mine runoff). Yes, the minister currently has the power to add any project in exceptional circumstances, but I’m not sure this would qualify, if those powers are around much longer, because they’re being challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada in March, and this is far less of a sure thing than the carbon pricing legislation. Once again, there are very few ways for the federal government to swoop in and assert jurisdiction, and they may not have the ability to come to the rescue of the Greenbelt (and yes, Ontarians are going to have to organise if they want to stop the development).

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 339:

Renewed Russian shelling in the east and south killed ten Ukrainian civilians and wounded twenty others. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that Russians are focusing on Vuhledar and Bakhmut, methodically destroying towns and villages as they go. Meanwhile, here’s the tale of Canadian medic serving on the front lines near Bakhmut in Ukraine.

Continue reading →