Tag Archives: Temporary Foreign Workers

Roundup: Few answers at committee

Posted on by

The Procedure and House Affairs committee met yesterday for an emergency meeting around these recent allegations of Chinese interference in the last election, and it wasn’t the most illuminating exercise—not just because MPs constant attempts at point-scoring, but because most of the national security agencies couldn’t answer very many questions, because answering questions can jeopardise sources or investigations. And we got the same cautions that virtually every media outlet is ignoring, which is that intelligence is not evidence, and much of it is out of context or incomplete, which is why everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt and not repeated credulously the way absolutely everyone is.

We did learn a couple of things. The first is that the RCMP were the ones who opted not to proceed with any investigations or charges around interference when presented with information about it. The second is that the prime minister is being briefed constantly about these kinds of threats, and that the problem is getting worse instead of better.

And then there were all of the calls for a national public inquiry, which the NDP insisted they were going to try and look tough in demanding. Not to be outdone, Poilievre not only demanded an inquiry, but said that all recognised party leaders had to have a say in who would chair it, otherwise it would just be another “Liberal crony” (which was again used as a smear against Morris Rosenberg). The prime minister’s national security advisor said that a public inquiry wouldn’t get many more answers because of the nature of the secret information, and all of that would still be kept out of the public eye, which is a good point. Incidentally, the opposition parties cannot demand a public inquiry—it doesn’t work like that. They can’t force a vote in the House of Commons, or anything like that, so this is once again, mostly just performance.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Despite the warnings that the Ukrainians may not be able to hold Bakhmut for much longer, they nevertheless held positions for another day, while Russian forces are also gearing up for a renewed offensive in the Zaporizhzhia region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, LNG sales aren’t being blocked

Posted on by

It seems that Pierre Poilievre, and by extension other members of his caucus like Michael Chong, are trying to sell another false narrative to the Canadian people, and this time, they are claiming that the prime minister is “blocking” LNG sales to Germany. This is patently false, but that’s not surprising considering that this is coming from Poilievre, and he is without any sense of shame when it comes to outright lying at all times. His “proof” is a National Post article with a framing device claiming that Canada “snubbed” Germany on LNG, so they are signing a deal with Qatar.

The federal government has not blocked any LNG projects. We did not “snub” Germany either because they know full well we don’t have the export infrastructure, and by the time we could build it, it would be too late for Europe, hence why they came looking for hydrogen and got it. It wasn’t the government blocking any LNG terminals from being built—it was the market. There is very little supply along the East Coast to try and tap into for supply for export (indeed, there is one import terminal in New Brunswick), so unless you’re piping it all the way from Alberta or the United States, at an increased cost, there has been little sense in constructing it (and no, fracking is not going to happen in New Brunswick). There are terminals being constructed on the West Coast, where there is supply, but they are still being built, because it took a long time for them to secure the export contracts to make construction viable. If Trudeau was really “blocking the sale” then why would these projects still be allowed to proceed? It makes no sense.

There is also the consideration that Canadian LNG is more expensive than that coming from Qatar, which is a large part of why it has been unattractive to the European market (especially when it was coming pretty cheaply from Russia). It’s why most of the proposals aren’t getting off the ground–these projects won’t make their money back for thirty or forty years, by which time we will be deep in decarbonizing and reaching Net Zero targets. Even if we could somehow build an export terminal and a pipeline to supply it, the market for the product is likely to rapidly decrease, which means we’d be stranding those assets and have billions of dollars in these terminals going nowhere. The market doesn’t want to invest for a reason, and it’s not the Canadian government.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 283:

In a rare admission, a top aide to president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that between 10,000 to 13,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed since Russia’s invasion began in February. (The Russian losses have been much higher). The International Atomic Energy Agency says a deal aimed at safeguarding the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant is almost completed. Here is a look at how school children in Kyiv are faring between Russian bombardments and blackouts. Meanwhile, here’s a look at a Canadian-funded work doing de-mining work in Ukraine.

Continue reading →

QP: Torquing the Supreme Court’s rulings

Posted on by

While the PM was in town and had a press conference scheduled for shortly after QP, he was absent from the Chamber, as were all other leaders, though the deputy PM was present, for what it’s worth. Luc Berthold led off, and he gave a misleading statement about what the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday, and demanded that the government do something about this. David Lametti said that the fact they are eligible for parole does not mean they will get it, and the parole board will determine if the Quebec City mosque shooter will get it…in 25 years. Berthold then pivoted to affordability, and mischaracterised the effect of the carbon price, ignoring the rebates, to which Chrystia Freeland recited that inflation is global, but that they were taking action such as dental care, a one-time housing benefit and tax credits. Berthold accused the government of lacking compassion, to which Freeland listed measures to help the vulnerable. Dan Albas took over in English to demand price controls on gas, and Freeland listed benefits that are indexed to inflation. Albas railed about prices rising, and Freeland repeated her list of indexed benefits.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed that the federal government would challenge Law 21 at the Supreme Court, insisting this was a matter of democracy (ignoring that liberal democracies protect the rights of minorities). David Lametti lamented the pre-emptive use of the Notwithstanding Clause, and said the government has concerns about provisions in the law. Therrien accused the government of trying to pick a fight with Quebec, roping Law 96 into the conversion, and Lametti reminded him that he too is a Quebecker and that plenty of people have concerns about this law.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, lamented that the Deschamps report gathered dust and wanted the Arbour report to be implemented. Anita Anand read a script about accepting the Arbour Report, and having a conversation with the prime minster about it, and that they agree with the significant issues identified in it. Lindsay Mathyssen repeated the question in English, and Anand read the English version of the same script.

Continue reading →

QP: The “soft on crime” square dance

Posted on by

The prime minister was away in Newfoundland to meet Prince Charles and Camilla for the start of their royal tour, and most other leaders stayed away as well. Somewhat unusually, Blaine Calkins led off, and he accused the government of being soft on crime, and that crime was getting worse in Liberal-held ridings, to which Gary Anandasangaree read a script about the bill getting rid of sentences that disproportionately target Black and Indigenous people and don’t make anyone safer. Calkins complained that the government was just trying to bring back a gun registry that only targets law-abiding gun owners. Marco Mendicino reminded him that they were banning military-style rifles like AR-15s, but the Conservatives were trying to make then legal again. Calkins insisted it was just a new gun registry, but Mendicino listed new measures that they announced this week to tighten restrictions. Luc Berthold took over in French, and accused the Liberals of wanting armed criminals on the streets, to which Anandasangaree read the French intro to his script, before switching back to English to read the rest of it. Berthold insisted that Bill C-5 would leave criminals on the streets, and Mendicino listed the measures that the Conservatives opposed.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed that the federal government was subsidising oil companies while refinery margins keep increasing, and Randy Boissonnault recited a list of affordability measures that were somewhat of a non sequitur. Therrien repeated this accusations both oil companies, to which Steven Guilbeault recited that they have been cutting subsidies and are moving faster than other G7 partners.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, repeated the same accusations, and wanted the government to support their plan to double the GST credit to help people who need it. Boissonnault listed economic engines for the country and railed that the real problem was Putin and his war on Ukraine. Singh repeated the question in French, and Guilbeault repeated his previous response.

Continue reading →

QP: Stop spreading information!

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau back in the House of Commons after his visit to Kyiv, only one other leader was actually present, which is curious in and of itself. Candice Bergen led off, with her script in front of her, and she decried the former Bill C-69, noted that the Alberta Court of Appeal declared it to be unconstitutional, and demanded the government repeal it. Trudeau read a script that noted the Act created stability after the previous government gutted environmental assessments (and simply turning everything to litigation), and stated that they would appeal that decision. Bergen pivoted to gasoline prices and demanded Action, but Trudeau was not done with the Impact Assessment Act. He noted that the same Alberta court found the national carbon price unconstitutional until the Supreme Court of Canada told them it was. Bergen then decried that the Canadians were suffering and that this government was raising taxes every year, and then demanded that the prime minister “stop spreading information.” Trudeau replied that he would indeed keep spreading information, especially about things like climate rebates. Luc Berthold took over in French, and accused the government of misinformation, insisting that the prime minister has not helped people, to which Trudeau repeated the points about climate rebates in provinces that participate. Berthold decried the rising prices in the grocery store—ignoring that the main cause of those rising prices is drought—and Trudeau read that they were helping by means like the Canada Child Benefit, which is indexed to inflation.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he accused the government of trying to anglicise Quebec by not applying the province’s language Charter. Trudeau read that their bill to modernise the Official Languages Act would protect French in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Therrien was not mollified and decried this supposed anglicisation, and Trudeau repeated his same script.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP, and in French, he bemoaned profits in the oil sector and executive compensation, demanding the government do something. Trudeau reminded him that they already raised taxes on the wealthy and were adding taxes on big banks. Rachel Blaney repeated the question in English to demand the companies pay, to which Trudeau read the English version of the same response. 

Continue reading →

QP: Panic at the passport office

Posted on by

While the prime minster was in town, he was not present for QP, though his deputy was. No other leader was present either, for what it’s worth, and we did learn later in the day that Candice Bergen tested positive for COVID earlier in the week, and has been isolating. Before things got started, the Deputy Speaker returned to what happened yesterday regarding unparliamentary language, and said that reviewing the tapes found no definitive proof if the prime minister actually said anything amidst the noise, but he did hear unparliamentary things on both sides, and he cautioned MPs that it was not acceptable. He also noted that the question on abortion from Sophie Chatel did not have to do with the administrative responsibilities of the government, and such questions will be disallowed in the future. (Famous last words…) He also asserted that for those whose blood pressure is running a little high, it was a beautiful day outside and they should go take a walk.

Luc Berthold led off, worrying about delays at passport offices, and asserted the solution was to have civil servants back at work in their offices. Chrystia Freeland noted that they understand their responsibilities to Canadians, but she could not agree that everything was going wrong in Canada, and the IMF praised our growth. Berthold carried on with the complaints about delays, and again demanded civil servants go back to their offices. Freeland thanked civil servants for their efforts, and that she knew they worked diligently. Berthold insisted that Canadians expected service from civil servants, and once again demanded that civil servants return to their offices. Freeland again repeated that civil servants do exceptional work. Michael Chong took over in English, and worried about another court challenge against Line 5 in Michigan—ignoring that the challenge is coming from Indigenous groups—to which Freeland assured him that they understand the importance of Line 5 and that the government was standing up for our rights including treaty rights with the US. Chong wondered why Canada was in court to fight this challenge, and Freeland repeated the assurances that the government was on the case.

Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc, and she repeated this week’s demand that the federal government turn over the responsibility for immigration to Quebec. Freeland recited the government’s lines that Quebec sets their own targets and that the federal government supports them. DeBellefeuille was not mollified, and repeated the demand, and Freeland repeated her assurances, with a few added figures to quote.

Jenny Kwan rose for the NDP, and she cited the MMIW inquiry listing housing as a contributing factor, blasting the government for not having a dedicated housing strategy for Indigenous women and two-spirit people. Freeland first recognised that today is Red Dress day, and that they agreed that housing is a problem and part of the solution, which is why it was a central part of the budget. Niki Ashton took over, and demanded immediate action in the MMIW inquiry’s calls to justice, and insisted it wasn’t in the budget. Freeland repeated her initial acknowledgment of the day in French, before returning to English to correct that there were investments in this budget.

Continue reading →

QP: An amazing amount of revisionist history

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was away at Guy Lafleur’s funeral, none of the other leaders showed up in the House of Commons either, never mind the brewing political storm and promise of some mischief after QP. Luc Berthold led off, and he accused the prime minister of doing nothing about the Ottawa occupation before he pulled out the Emergencies Act, whereas this past weekend, those same “protesters” came back and left, and wondered what was different. Marco Mendicino talked about how police were better prepared, but the measures were needed at the time. Berthold tried to downplay the occupation and insisted that if it wasn’t safe, MPs should not have been able to cross it, and Mendicino talked about how Parliamentarians’ experience was not necessarily that of other residents of the city, and and they looked forward to the inquiry. Berthold tried to be cute and wondered how many people were arrested for sedition in relation to the blockade, and Mendicino waved it off, and said they government would cooperate with the inquiry. John Brassard took over in English, and raised that RCMP memo—ignoring that the memo stated there was no evidence to support a charge—and wanted to know if the prime minister was above the law. Mark Holland stood up to sermonise about the opposition was concerned with personal attacks and not the business of the nation. Brassard gave it another go, and Holland pleaded with them to let Bill C-8 pass.

Alain Therrien considered it arrogant that the government wouldn’t devolve powers to Quebec to deal with their own immigration files, and Marie-France Lalaonde cited some figures about the province not managing to fill their entire quotas as it is. Christine Normandin got up next, and gave a paean to a woman’s right to choose, and Chrystia Freeland assured her this government would protect a woman’s rights, and she expressed shock at the news coming out of the United States, and gave a clear defence of a woman’s rights, to an ovation from most of the Commons, but not all.

Jagmeet Singh railed about an alleged tax agreement achieved with a corporation, to which Diane Lebouthillier said that this allegation was examined by a third party and determined there was no wrong doing and that the CRA came out ahead in the arrangement. Singh switched to French to decry the profitability of the oil and gas sector while getting subsidies, and Jonathan Wilkinson gave a bromide about working with sectors including the oil and gas sector.

Continue reading →

QP: Appealing to the NDP Whip?

Posted on by

While the prime minister was away, none of the other leaders were present either, though the deputy PM was attending virtually. Luc Berthold led off, and he decried Motion 11 on extending sitting hours, and wondered if the NDP were be whipped on the vote (which…isn’t really a question to the government, as much as they’re trying to be clever about there allegedly being a coalition). Kevin Lamoureux insisted this was simply about more hours for debate, which surely nobody could object to. (Note that there are things that can be objected to, but neither side will be reasonable in the discussion). Berthold then listed off some torqued versions of this government’s ethical lapses, and wondered if someone on the other side would say enough was enough, and Lamoureux dismissed this as mere personal attacks. Berthold demanded that the RCMP re-open the investigation into the Aga Khan vacation—never mind that they already concluded that there was no evidence—and Lamoureux dismissed it again as personal attacks instead of focusing on things that matter. James Bezan took over in English to demand an RCMP investigation, and Lamoureux insisted that this was simply character assassination. Bezan tried to pretend he was a prosecutor who had obtained a witness box confession, and Lamoureux deployed the “three leaders ago” quip.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he praised the police action over the weekend with the “bike rally” and how they didn’t need the Emergencies Act, and he wondered if it was necessary at all months ago. Marco Mendicino also praised the police’s actions, and said that the invoked the Emergencies Act at the time because it was needed. Therrien spun a version of events during the occupation that presumed more federal powers than exist, and Mendicino repeated that they needed the Act that time.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, and he lamented that federal COVID sickness benefits were expiring, and Karina Gould appeared by video to say that they extended EI sickness benefits, which was not the same thing. Daniel Blaikie took over to add some sanctimony to the question, and demanded the benefits be extended, and Gould listed actions they have taken around sick days (for federally-regulated sectors) and EI modernisation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pronouncements that should be disqualifying

Posted on by

We are now on or about day forty-one of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the word of the day is “war crimes.” In particular, American president Joe Biden declared that Putin needs to be tried for war crimes…which is odd, because the Americans don’t believe in the International Criminal Court and haven’t signed onto its treaties for fear that they will be hauled before it at some point. So, I’m not sure who Biden thinks will be trying Putin for said war crimes, unless he plans to bring American into the ICC system at long last (though I am dubious that will ever happen). In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Bucha and witnessed the atrocities there for himself, calling Russia’s actions a “genocide” (though there is some debate about the applicability of the term given that it is a crime of specific intent).

Closer to home, there has been some attention being paid to the fact that Pierre Poilievre is trying to promote crypto and Bitcoin, and it’s just so ridiculous how this isn’t automatically being seen as disqualifying. (And it’s not just Poilievre—Michelle Rempel Garner has a private members’ bill in the queue about promoting crypto and blockchain in Canada). Never mind that everything Poilievre is saying is bunk, and his pronouncements about the Central Bank are utterly bonkers. The truth of the matter is that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is that they are nothing more than elaborate Ponzi schemes, and if he can’t see that, then we have a serious problem on our hands.

Meanwhile, here’s the former Governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, eviscerating Poilievre and his nonsense thinking:

Continue reading →

QP: Looking for the “secret agreement”

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau back in Europe for more NATO and G7 meetings, most of the other leaders didn’t show up either, even though it was caucus day. Candice Bergen was present, however, and led off, concern trolling about the confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, and insisted there was a signed agreement between them that is being kept secret (never mind that the details of the agreement are public). Mark Holland noted that Canadians expect MPs to work together in a hung parliament, which is a foreign concept to Conservatives given that they didn’t even try when they were in similar circumstances under Stephen Harper. Bergen insisted that there must be a signed agreement and that there is a so-called new executive committee that excludes the opposition, and Holland repeated that they are always looking to work together whenever possible. Bergen railed about “social experiments” (like pharmacare?) and decried the “nightmare socialist deal” that would be hugely expensive, and Holland gave another paean about working together to get things done. Luc Berthold took over in French, and he worried about “secret committees” under the agreement, to which Dominic LeBlanc reminded him that the Conservatives wrote a whole book on how to sabotage committees, so it was rich for them to insist the government didn’t respect Parliament. (Note that this government’s parliamentary vandalism is largely relegated to the Senate). Berthold worried this agreement would trample on Quebec’s jurisdictional rights, to which Pablo Rodriguez got up to list things the government is doing for Quebec.

Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he too worried about Quebec’s jurisdiction, and LeBlanc lamented the Bloc’s frustration which led them to picking fights, and assured him they do respect provincial jurisdiction. Therrien read a statement from the Quebec government that gave a nonsense reading about the revenues they send to the federal government, and Rodriguez listed things they are doing that is good for Quebec, which is bad for the Bloc.

Rachel Blaney rose for the NDP, and she lamented that their motion on an excess profit tax failed, and wanted the government to tax companies and not people. (Erm, you know that people pay corporate taxes, right? That it’s not a magical money tree?) Randy Boissonnault acknowledged the sentiments behind the motion but that that the government was building a fairer and more affordable country with more benefit for people while taxing the rich. Alexandre Boulerice repeated the question in French, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →