Tag Archives: Tough on Crime

QP: Why won’t you take the briefing?

Posted on by

The prime minster, his deputy, and all of the other leaders were present today, which was a nice change of pace. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and declared that nobody believes that the prime minister’s “chalet buddy” David Johnston has to say, accuse him of covering up foreign interference, and demanded the prime minister fire his “Trudeau Foundation Buddy” and call a public inquiry. Justin Trudeau pointed out that Poilievre claims to want the facts but he has refused briefing in order to know them. Poilievre insisted that a briefing was a trap to silence him, to which Trudeau suggested that it was why he didn’t do anything about foreign interference when he was minster of democratic reform. Poilievre gave a tortured recitation about secrets, and suggested Trudeau was so enamoured with Chinese dictatorship that he wants to silence his critics. Trudeau repeated that Poilievre would rather hide behind a veil of ignorance so he that he can carry on making baseless personal attacks. Poilievre insisted that he would have been subject to silencing measures, and Trudeau noted that as a former minister of the Crown, he was already subject to oaths of secrecy and he could handle those, but now he prefers ignorance in order to make personal attacks. Poilievre returned to French to again link Johnston to the Trudeau Foundation and demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau said that this was a clear demonstration that Poilievre has no understanding of how security and intelligence works, and that he is manufacturing reasons to remain in ignorance.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc and listed people calling for a public inquiry, and wondered if Trudeau would listen to David a Johnston or Morris Rosenberg. Trudeau recounted Johnston’s calculation as to why he chose not to recommend one. Blanchet insisted that Johnston and therefore the report had no legitimacy, and Trudeau pointed out that Blanchet was also refusing briefings in order to maintain partisan attacks.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, claimed an “overwhelming perception of bias” and demanded that Johnston stand aside and call a public inquiry. Trudeau sang Johnston’s praise, and that it was too bad the opposition was too busy playing politics. Singh switched to French to demand support for his Supply Day motion on a public inquiry, and Trudeau insisted they took the allegations seriously, which is why they have instituted a number of mechanisms to combat it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith stays, Alberta still a one-party state

Posted on by

Well, Alberta has decided that it remains a one-party state, no matter how corrupted that party is, or how completely awful the leader is, and just how utterly unsuited Danielle Smith is for office, and that she has embraced all manner of conspiracy theories, or behaved in ways that imperilled democracy. While I have a full column on this coming out later today, there are a couple of things not mentioned therein that I did still want to mention.

One is that I cannot fathom how the whole “Take Back Alberta” narrative persisted. Take it back from whom? From what? You’ve been a one-party state for nearly fifty years, minus the four-year NDP interregnum that came about as a result of a perfect storm that in no way could be replicated this time around.

The NDP ran a weak campaign, and they are now comforting themselves with the fact that they have the largest official opposition in the province’s history, for what little it matters because Smith still has a majority, and they have no actual leverage to make any particular difference in the legislature. I am feeling some flashbacks to 2011 when the federal NDP formed official opposition and felt like they won the election, when they also handed the Conservatives a majority and they had no actual ability to make change or have leverage.

There is also still a particular ugliness in this election, as exemplified by the fact that the UCP candidate who compared trans children to faeces in cookie batter won by a landslide. Smith claims that she’s out of caucus “for good,” but I don’t actually believe her, and I have no doubt that after a few months in that penalty box, she’ll be welcomed back into the party because Smith believes in forgiveness, or some bullshit like that. And not nearly enough people will do any soul-searching over this, and this ugliness will fester.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Another night, another massive air raid against Kyiv and other cities in Ukraine, with more than 20 drones shot down as of this writing, and at least one high rise is being evacuated as falling debris has caused a fire. The constant nightly air attacks against Kyiv are taking a toll on its citizens (which is of course why the Russians are doing it). Russians did also allegedly hit a Ukrainian air base, plus port infrastructure in Odessa. There was also a Russian attack on the city of Toretsk in the Donetsk region, which killed two and injured at least eight.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1663350609385254912

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1663176973793861633

Continue reading →

QP: Not reading the Johnston Report

Posted on by

While the prime minister was elsewhere in the building entertaining the president of Iceland, most of the other leaders were present today, as was the prime minister’s deputy. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and accused the government of using China to help them win two elections, and demanded they fire David Johnston and call a public inquiry. Dominic LeBlanc responded by pointing out that Poilievre refused a briefing in order to make outrageous comments rather than be serious. Poilievre insisted that he refused to be “silenced,” and repeated his demand. Marco Mendicino repeated the point that Poilievre refused briefings for partisan reasons. Poilievre moved onto the Chinese “police stations” in Montreal that got government funds, and were still active. Mendicino carried on with the retorts that Poilievre was closing his own eyes. Poilievre repeated the question in French, and Mendicino gave his same response. Poilievre then said that he can ask question of any member of the government, and tried to ask Jagmeet Singh demand a public inquiry or end his “coalition.” Mark Holland gave a sanctimonious speech about the Conservatives attacking Johnston, who Harper appointed as GG, for the sake of partisan games.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he called Johnston’s inquiry a farce, and demanded a public inquiry. LeBlanc got back up to tell them that they should let NSICOP do their work rather than casting aspersions prematurely. Therrien repeated his demand for an inquiry, and LeBlanc urged him to speak to his leader and take the briefing on the evidence, along with NSICOP.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he worried about the failing negotiations with Stellantis over their blackmail. Chrystia Freeland assured him they will ensure the deal goes forward and that the jobs stay in Canada, but also that Ontario pay its fair share. Singh switched to French to worry about rising rents in Montreal. Soraya Martinez Ferrada reminded him that they sent $5 billion to Quebec for housing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A rare Harper appearance

Posted on by

Former prime minister Stephen Harper was recently at a Fraser Institute event in Vancouver, where he said that Chinese foreign interference is probably “far worse than we think,” and is calling for an end to what he calls “naïve globalism,” which is a pretty loaded term. On the former, one has to ask just what exactly Harper did about said foreign interference when he was prime minister, because all indications are that it was probably close to zero, as he weakened oversight over national security and intelligence agencies and put no electoral safeguards in place (as he was trying to make it harder for groups like students to vote), while he went over to Beijing to grovel before Xi Jinping for the sake of opening up trade after his earlier tough-guy stance on China wasn’t getting him anywhere. And hey, he got a panda out of it (for a little while, anyway).

On the latter, this whole “globalism” thing is pretty cringey because that’s frequently code-word for “the Jews,” and falls into a number of antisemitic conspiracy theories. Harper was a big fan of the whole “somewheres” versus “rootless cosmopolitans” view of the world, but again, the “rootless cosmopolitans” also falls into those same antisemitic tropes. This fear over “globalism” or “globalists” is pretty big in far-right circles, and Harper is using those same dog whistles.

I would also point out that in the same speech, he mentioned that his activist investment fund is located in Florida because “Florida is booming,” citing its “low taxes, low regulation, lots of spending on police and falling rates of crime.” Again, red flags because Florida is also engaging in fascistic behaviour, targeting minorities and most especially the LGBTQ+ communities, and it’s particularly alarming that he’s glossing over this while offering praise to Pierre Poilievre and Danielle Smith, who has also been praising Ron DeSantis as part of her campaign. (And no, the IDU is not a fascist organization, and Harper is not some Bond villain, so don’t even think about commenting on that, because I have zero patience for it).

Ukraine Dispatch:

On the anniversary of Kyiv’s founding, Russia launched its largest air assault yet on the city, with 58 out of 59 drones being shot down, the debris causing some damage including to an institute for the blind. Meanwhile, Russian attacks have eased in and around Bakhmut, possibly because of the Wagner Group handover.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1662337489334419458

Continue reading →

Roundup: A bad report and a bad debate

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released another one of his highly dubious reports yesterday, this time on the incoming clean fuel regulations. Why is it dubious? Because it’s entirely one-sided and assumes no costs to climate change, and no adaptation on the part of industry in order to bring costs down to meet their obligations under the regulations, which is the whole gods damned point of these kinds of mechanisms. Oh, and this isn’t fiscal policy, so it’s not clear why he’s even doing this kind of report in the first place.

As you may have noticed during Question Period, the Conservatives jumped all over this report and its findings, and when they were questioned, their media staff were over social media accusing people of calling the PBO a liar. Well, it’s not that he’s a liar—it’s bad data, a bad report, and the numbers taken from it were used dishonestly and entirely in bad faith. And the PBO gets the attention he’s looking for, and around and around we go.

Rachel Notley vs Danielle Smith

For the purposes of researching my column last night, I subjected myself to the leaders’ debate in the Alberta election and it was…not great. Yes, lots of people gushed at how nice it was just to have two leaders going head-to-head and not four or five, but we don’t have a two-party system federally (and it’s a bad sign that Alberta has a de facto one provincially).

My not-too-original observations were that Notley was weirdly on the defensive most of the night, while Smith was pretending to be the upstart challenger rather than the incumbent, attacking Notley on her record at every turn when Notley wasn’t effectively throwing many punches herself. Yes, she did well on the healthcare and education portions, but was not effectively countering Smith’s confident bullshit throughout, and that’s a real problem in a lower voter-information environment, where that confidence plays well regardless of the fact that Smith lied constantly with a straight face. On the very day that Smith was found to have broken the province’s Conflict of Interest Act, Notley had a hard time effectively making this point, while Smith claimed vindication because it showed she didn’t directly call Crown prosecutors, while it full-out warned that Smith’s behaviour was a threat to democracy, and Notley could barely say the words.

Programming Note: I am taking the full long weekend off, so expect the next post to be on Wednesday.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There are reports of more air raids in Ukraine early Friday morning. Russians fired 30 cruise missiles against Ukrainian targets in the early morning hours on Thursday, and Ukraine shot down 29 of them, with the one that got through striking an industrial building in Odessa, killing one and wounding two. There were also further gains made around Bakhmut, and even the Wagner Group’s leader says that they have bene in retreat. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy set up a reintegration council in order to provide advice for the restoration of Ukrainian rule when they liberate Crimean.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1659213321927794693

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ad hoc panel assembled to review documents NSICOP should have handled

Posted on by

After months and months of delay, the government has finally unveiled the ad hoc panel that will examine the Winnipeg Lab documents, and that panel will comprise of four MPs and three former judges—two former Supreme Court of Canada justices, and one from the Federal Court of Appeal. Allegedly it took so long to set up because they needed to convince the judges, and then it took forever to get the Bloc and finally the Conservatives on board.

Of course, this whole exercise is completely unnecessary because this should have all been done by NSICOP. This is exactly the kind of thing that it was created for, but the Conservatives have been bad actors about this entire affair (and Michael Chong being among the worst of said bad actors), turning this whole thing into a needlessly drawn-out affair that has involved the government suing the House of Commons over a production order, and years of absolutely unhinged conspiracy theories as to what happened (again, with Chong being among the worst offenders).

I can pretty much guarantee you that this committee is going to find nothing to write home about. There has been plenty of reporting as to what happened. It wasn’t Chinese espionage. It was almost certainly a policy breach related to intellectual property, but this being a highly secured facility, you can imagine that has complicated matters. In any case, this whole thing is going to wind up being one giant waste of everyone’s time and resources because they decided to make a dog and pony show out of it for the sake of trying to embarrass the government rather than being responsible and just letting NSICOP read the unredacted documents that were provided to them in the first place.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There have been more early-morning missiles fired at Kyiv, and falling debris has set fire to one non-residential building, while at least one person was killed in a missile strike on Odessa. While Ukrainian forces continue to make gains around Bakhmut, the Russians are still sending people into the fighting, and there doesn’t appear to be any ammunition shortage, in spite of those Wagner Group videos.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658751950165356544

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658800755946528774

Continue reading →

QP: The “sneaky” fuel standard the Conservatives also promised

Posted on by

The prime minister was still in South Korea, but his deputy was once again present for the debate. (It’s been a while since we’ve had three in a row), and all of the other leaders were present as well. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and spouts some nonsense about deficits before insisting that Chrystia Freeland was incompetent for not answering at committee the size of debt payments. Freeland insisted that the person who won’t answer questions is Poilievre and what he plans to cut (which is not her job to ask questions). Following an incident of a shouter in the Gallery bellowing out a manifesto as he was removed, Poilievre tried again in English, and Freeland this time straight up asserted that Poilievre plans to cut. Poilievre said he would cut the carbon price, and worried about a “sneaky” second carbon price known as the fuel standard. Freeland said that she was glad to hear the Conservatives talking about climate, because building a clean economy was where jobs are. Poilievre repeated the question, and Freeland said that he doesn’t understand that the need to plan for the green future, and regaled a meeting with an electrician who was excited about electrification. Poilievre tried to riff that this electrician would have to pay more because of the “taxes” of the government, and demanded again how much this second tax (which is not a tax) would cost. Freeland noted this electrician’s wife is an emergency room nurse who is benefitting from this government’s investments, because of course she is.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and raised an issue around contamination on Indigenous land in Quebec, and Freeland noted that Patty Hajdu responded yesterday that she is working with the local Indigenous leaders. Blanchet said that these people were living in fear, and Freeland agreed it was a serious situation that the government was engaged on.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and worried about skyrocketing rental prices, and Freeland praised the child care investments benefitting the single mother raised in the question. Singh switched to French to worry about rising grocery prices, and demanded the government fight it by taxing excessive profits. Freeland agreed that the wealthiest pay their fair share, which is why they raised their taxes and set up the grocery rebate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chong didn’t explain how his privileges were breached

Posted on by

Conservative MP Michael Chong appeared at the Procedure and House Affairs committee yesterday to discuss the sense that his privileges as an MP—being able to do his job—were breached by Beijing’s threats to him and his family. And so, Chong gave a speech at the committee where he touched briefly on the privilege issue, saying that he wants a formal parliamentary censure of the Chinese diplomat named (and since expelled) in the situation, before going on to whole thing about the prime minister, national security, and what we should be doing in Canada. And he’s not wrong! But that’s not the point of this committee meeting. The point was to discuss his privileges being breached, and what MPs should do about said breach.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1658610455739346944

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1658615915540279297

As expected, the Conservatives on the committee mostly spent the time trying to get Chong to denounce the prime minister, and did they talk about his privileges being breached? Nope. The other thing that bothered me was that Chong kept bringing up the Winnipeg Lab issue, which is where I have lost a lot of respect for him because he has been building a bullshit conspiracy theory around it. What happened at that Lab has been extensively reported on by Dylan Robertson and others. There was no indication that there was a national security issue involving China at all, but rather a policy breach around intellectual property with the two fired scientists. Chong would know this if the Conservatives had allowed NSICOP to view the redacted documents that had been provided to them, but they have steadfastly refused to do so because it serves their narratives not to. Is NSICOP perfect? No, but it’s a very good start, and if we want to transition it to a parliamentary model, there need to be a whole lot more steps than just Parliament making a declaration (one of the most important considerations being the lack of secure meeting spaces and servers on the Hill).

So while there were interesting things raised, the point of the meeting was about privileges, and once again, a committee is being abused to go on a tangent or a fishing expedition. Committees have functions, and this one was supposed to be determining how his ability to do his job was impacted. I didn’t see really any of that in the testimony, which is all the more frustrating.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Overnight attacks against Kyiv saw 18 missiles launched, all of which were shot down—but Ukrainian forces are saying that six of those missiles were hypersonic, and that their new air defences brought them down too, which is proving the new Western systems against the supposed best of what Russia has to offer. One of the Patriot missile systems used by Ukraine may have been damaged in a strike, however. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces appear to be making more gains around Bakhmut, which they say is not connected to the upcoming counter-offensive. Elsewhere, Ukraine’s chief of the Supreme Court has been dismissed after being detained in a bribery case.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658379904029736960

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1658351720232108034

Continue reading →

QP: Inflation and opioids

Posted on by

While the prime minister was away in South Korea, his deputy was present for the second day in a row, as were all other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off, worrying that the deficit was fuelling inflation, and lo, it ticked up last month which was all this government’s fault. Chrystia Freeland noted that it is still coming down, it was 8 percent, it’s now 4.4 percent, and the Bank of Canada forecast it will be down to three percent by the end of the year. Poilievre continued to rail about inflation, noted increasing rent costs in Montreal, and demanded the deficit be slain. Freeland quoted that some good news economic points. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question, and this time, Freeland quoted the core inflation figures that were still falling. Poilievre insisted that the deficit was fuelling inflation (it’s not), and demanded it be defeated. Freeland first took a swipe at Poilievre’s cryptocurrency advice before repeating the core inflation measures. Poilievre insisted that the prime minister said his measure was CPI, which is up, and demanded she slay the deficit in order to bring housing prices down (again, not how this works). Freeland took some more swipes at Poilievre’s inability to understand finances, and repeated the core inflation measures falling.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and yet again railed about the “century initiative,” and its supposed plan to eliminate French and Quebec. Freeland said that they are committed to the Quebec Nation. Blanchet railed that the government couldn’t manage 500,000 new immigrants every year, but Freeland listed the investments in things that are priorities for Quebeckers.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and demanded the housing minister answer how much a single mother would have left if she earned an average salary and paid average rent in Toronto. Freeland patted herself on the back for the government’s measures to help people. Singh tried again for Vancouver, and Freeland repeated more back-patting on measures like childcare.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Abusing a committee’s mandate

Posted on by

Because our Parliament is made up of deeply unserious people, the Conservatives on the Procedure and House Affairs committee, led by Garnett Genuis, are trying to push investigations of the Trudeau Foundation. The problem? This is far beyond the remit of this committee, and they have absolutely no authority to do what they’re attempting to do. The opposition members of the committee have been blocking Genuis’ motions, but this is absolutely abusing the parliamentary process in order to pursue a bullshit vendetta and conspiracy theory.

For the record, the committee is charged with dealing with the reports of the Auditor General, and ensuring that the government is accountable for implementing them. It’s actually one of the low-key best committees in the House of Commons, which largely does serious and valuable work and has been known to put ministers and deputy ministers on the hot seat in a serious way.

But there is absolutely no connection between the reports of the Auditor General and the Trudeau Foundation. The only government connection that the Foundation has is the endowment, which they remain accountable to the industry minister for maintaining intact. That’s it. Their donations have nothing to do with the government’s business. The Auditor General has no authority to audit the Foundation, and the CRA operates at arm’s length from the government, so the government and certainly not this committee can’t bully them into auditing the Foundation beyond the compliance measures they are already subjected to in order to maintain their non-profit status.  This is simply an attempt to weaponise the committee for the Conservatives’ political gain, and it’s damaging one of the few good committees in the Commons for a bullshit purpose.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces launched an air raid of “exceptional intensity” on Kyiv in the early morning hours, but damage was limited, mostly because air defences have been working. Over near Bakhmut, Ukrainian forces continue to push Russians back. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy stopped in London at the end of his brief European tour to get a pledge of more drones and missiles from the UK. Anti-corruption forces in Ukraine seem to have found evidence of bribery in the country’s Supreme Court.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1658183072301342757

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658033675072598017

Continue reading →