Tag Archives: Ukraine

Roundup: One month into Russia’s invasion

Posted on by

It’s now day twenty-nine of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or one month since it began. To that end, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling on people to gather in public around the world to show support for Ukraine to mark the occasion. NATO is estimating that somewhere between 7000 and 15,000 Russian troops have been killed to date (as many as 30,000 to 40,000 if you count killed or wounded), and to put that in comparison, Russia lost 15,000 fighting in Afghanistan over the course of a decade. And on that note, here’s a look at what went wrong for Russia (beyond Ukraine’s resilience).

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1506790177364131846

Closer to home, many more questions are being asked of some of the plans outlined in the Liberal-NDP supply and confidence agreement, especially around the areas of pharmacare and dental care. NDP MPs like Don Davies are already talking tough, insisting there should be a “phased in” approach, but the timelines for the Canadian Drug Agency to do their work are pretty much what was already being planned through the Hoskins Report, but the biggest obstacle remains the premiers. So far, only PEI has signed on, and I keep saying this, but the NDP have not been publicly haranguing their provincial counterparts in BC to sign onto the system, so that can’t be a good sign. Likewise with dental care, the expectation seems to be some kind of national insurance plan which builds on the system used for First Nations and Inuit people, who call under federal responsibility, but there are a lot of complicating factors to extending that approach, as Jennifer Robson points out in this thread. Right now, it’s a lot of handwaving and wishful thinking, which isn’t helpful.

And then there are the premiers, who are none too happy with these proposals as they consider them to be intrusions in areas of provincial jurisdiction (which they might be if done incorrectly). Of course, they would rather the federal government just turn over more cash to them with no strings attached, which should never happen considering how many provinces just took the federal pandemic money and applied it to their bottom lines, and then praised how low their deficits were this fiscal year (while their hospitals remain overloaded, and in plenty of cases, their health care workers are leaving in droves from burnout and low wages).

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 →

Roundup: Wondering who the real winner of the confidence agreement is

Posted on by

We are now on day twenty-eight, four weeks into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like Russia’s attempts at occupying Mariupol continue to be thwarted, though the city is being reduced to rubble. As well, Ukrainian forces retook a strategic suburb of Kyiv, so that is as good of news as can be hoped for in the situation. Remember how Russia thought it was a matter of marching?

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1506296240438452232

Back in Canada, the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and NDP was made official, and boy were there a bunch of reactions. Some of them were expected, like the Conservatives abusing the term “coalition” (it’s not a coalition) and claiming it’s a “power grab” rather than a legitimate exercise of cooperation in a hung parliament as happens not infrequently in Westminster systems. Oh, and she said that this ultimately benefits Putin. No, really—she said that. Even more problematic were certain CBC reporters pushing this bizarre notion that Canadians “elected a minority government” and that this agreement somehow violates it, which no, is not how things work. We don’t elect governments, and there is not majority/minority option on the ballot, and it’s been just as much a recurring narrative in the past two parliaments that a hung parliament means that “Canadians want us to work together” (which is just as silly a notion, frankly), but honestly, I expect better from the CBC than to push this kind of nonsense, and it’s embarrassing for them as the national broadcaster to be pushing this nonsense.

https://twitter.com/SusanDelacourt/status/1506273770176188427

In the meantime, there is a bunch of pearl-clutching that this agreement somehow means that we won’t be increasing defence-spending, even though the NDP has no veto on budgets, and the fact that we can’t even spend the current allocation so it’s way too soon to worry about this. The early indications of the outlined dental care plan could help millions—but it’s light on details and the actual mechanism that will be used given that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction (but some good perspective threads from economist Kevin Milligan here and here). The consensus seems to be that the Liberal are the real winners here and not the NDP, but others argue that the Conservatives could be the real winners because it will give the next leader time to rebuild the party and establish themselves given that the next election will be more than three years away (maybe). And then there is the question about whether this agreement gives Trudeau the runway to accomplish a few more things before turning it over to his successor, though he says otherwise when asked (which of course he will, because saying he won’t run again makes him lame duck instantly). It does make for a different dynamic for the next couple of years in any case, so we’ll see how it shapes up.

Continue reading →

QP: In the din of clinking glasses, talk of a political marriage

Posted on by

It was to be the only day that the prime minister was going to be present this week, given that he’ll be off on a red-eye flight to Europe tonight for NATO and G7 meetings over the rest of the week, and all of the other leaders were present as well. With Speaker Rota recovering from scheduled heart surgery, his deputy, Chris d’Entremont, was again in the big chair. Candice Bergen led off, script in front of her, and she railed about the “secret backroom deal” between the so-called new NDP-Liberal government, to which Trudeau calmly noted this was about stability in order to deliver the things that Canadians asked for in the election, instead of the toxicity we had seen. Bergen falsely stated that inflation was because of government spending, and that the “new NDP-Liberal government” would spend even more. Trudeau returns to the line about working across party lines to avoiding the toxic atmosphere that has developed. Bergen worried that natural resource and fisheries jobs were in danger because of this deal, for which Trudeau worried about how toxic partisanship slowed down delivery of help for Canadians, while this job would get good jobs for Canadians while respecting Parliament. Bergen insisted that the deal disrespected Parliament and voters—which is blatantly absurd—before railing about gas prices and demanding taxes on it be cut. Trudeau cautioned her about spreading misinformation and that they had plenty of room for debate and disagreement under the agreement like Parliament works. Luc Berthold took over in French and acted confused about who was in charge and trolled that Jagmeet Singh should be named deputy prime minister, and Trudeau repeated that this deal would allow the House to operate more constructively.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried that the basis of the agreement, with pharmacare and dental care, would trample over provincial jurisdiction, to which Trudeau insisted that they believe in working collaboratively with provinces, but they would ensure all Canadians get high-quality healthcare. Blanchet worried that the NDP were hostile toward Quebec’s Law 21, to which Trudeau gave a paean about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he demanded support for their Supply Day motion on higher wealth taxes, to which Trudeau reminded him of their previous actions, and the investments they are making, but did not signal support. Singh repeated the question in French and got the same answer. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: A confidence agreement in the works?

Posted on by

We are now on day twenty-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Ukraine has refused to surrender the strategic port city of Mariupol to the Russians. As well, Russian shelling destroyed a shopping centre in Kyiv killing eight, which is escalating the attacks facing the capital. Also of note was a possible leak of Russian casualty figures, citing 9,861 killed and 16,153 injured over the course of the invasion, which contradicts Russian propaganda figures to date, and which could turn up the pressure on Putin by the Russian people.

Back in Canada, news started spreading over the evening that the Liberals and NPD had reached a tentative agreement to a supply-and-confidence agreement that would see the NDP agree to support the next four Liberal budgets so that they can stay in power until 2025 in relative stability, and in return, the Liberals will make “real progress” on national pharmacare and dental care. I’m a little confused why those would be the conditions, given that they’re wholly dependent upon the provincial governments signing on, and while the current federal government put a framework in place for national pharmacare, thus far only PEI has signed on (and I haven’t seen the NDP publicly haranguing John Horgan to sign on either). And while people ask why they can’t do what they did with early learning and child care, part of that answer is that the reason why provincial governments are gun-shy about these programmes is they are concerned that if they set them up, a future federal government will cut funding and leave them holding the bag for very expensive programmes. While Quebec has shown that child care will pay for itself once more women are in the workforce and paying taxes, I’m not sure the calculation is quite the same for the other two, or will at least take much longer for the fiscal benefits to work their way through the system. So could the government come to the table with a lot more money—maybe. But that doesn’t eliminate the trepidation that once 2025 hits that their fears won’t come true. There are also reports that the deal could include more for housing, reconciliation, and some form of wealth taxes, so we’ll see what gets announced this morning.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, are touting this as evidence of a “coalition” and that it’s “backdoor socialism,” which doesn’t make sense. It’s not a coalition because there are no Cabinet seats for the NDP, and these kinds of confidence agreements are easily broken (see: British Columbia and the deal with the Greens, which Horgan’s NDP tore up when the polls looked good enough to get a majority, which he did). It’s not socialism because they’re not going around nationalising the means of production. They’re still going to wail and gnash their teeth, and pretend that this is somehow illegitimate when it’s one hundred percent within how hung parliaments work under our system, but I’m not going to say it will last the full four years. It will however alter the narrative of the Conservatives’ leadership contest, and could be read either as Trudeau giving himself enough runway to make a few more accomplishments before turning it over to a successor, or for him to try and build the case for re-election. Either way, it’s fairly unprecedented at the federal level in this country, and could make for interesting days ahead.

Continue reading →

QP: Another rail disruption sets the narrative

Posted on by

Monday back from March Break, and none of the party leaders were present, nor was the Speaker, leaving his deputy, Chris d’Entremont, in the big chair instead. Luc Berthold led off in French, a script in front of him, demanding a resolution to the CP Rail strike/lockout, given how much economic damage it could cause. Seamus O’Regan insisted that they had confidence that the parties could reach a negotiated solution. Berthold tried again, got the same answer, and on a third question, Berthold raised inflation and wanted agreement on their “solution” on a GST break on gasoline and diesel, but O’Regan repeated his answer. Marilyn Gladu took over in English to demand a resolution to the CP Rail dispute, and O’Regan gave his same response about a negotiated solution in English. On another round of the same, O’Regan noted that he was in Calgary and both sides were still at the table, and they were counting on a negotiated solution. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and asked about federally-chartered flights for Ukrainian refugees, for which Sean Fraser said they were prioritising Ukrainian applications, and they were working to facilitate faster arrivals. Therrien insisted this was not fast enough, and Fraser insisted he was working on getting as many people here as fast as possible.

Daniel Blaikie rose for the NDP, and after raising them CP Rail dispute, went into some party bromides about reducing the cost of living and making the wealthy pay. Randy Boissonnault listed some of the government’s affordability measures. Niki Ashton took over to demand that the rich be taxed to “provide relief” for Canadians (without any particular follow-through on that logic), and Boissonnault reminded her that they voted against the government’s bill to raise taxes on the one percent.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Three new entrants for the Conservatives

Posted on by

I believe we are now on day twenty-six of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia’s list of alleged war crimes continues to add up as the shelling of Mariupol continues, and it sounds like there is no immediate military solution to the crisis in that part of the country. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is calling on members including Canada to increase spending, which we’re doing, but it’s not going to happen overnight. Indeed, as my weekend column points out, we literally can’t spend any more right now until we fix the structural problems inhibiting it. And sure, Greece is spending 3.2 percent of its GDP on the military, but how much are the contributing to NATO operations right now? Very, very little. Closer to home, HMCS Halifax departed for a six-month tour in the North Atlantic as part of NATO operations in the Baltic region.

Back in Canada, the Conservative leadership race got three new entrants—Scott Aitchison, Marc Dalton, and Joseph Bourgault. Aitchison, whose video announcing his intention to run was indistinguishable from a truck commercial, is giving the tired line that “Ottawa isn’t working” but has the self-awareness to know that his party has played a part in the divisive nature of the rhetoric. Oh, and he opposes carbon prices but doesn’t think that should be a “purity test” for the party. Dalton wants to launch a national inquiry into the pandemic response, including the supposed contracts to benefit “Liberal friends” (which has been repeatedly disproven) and on the so-called Charter breaches and apparent cover-up of vaccine injuries and deaths. *sigh* And Bourgault is a nobody businessman from rural Saskatchewan who is part of an organisation claiming the government and “globalists” are using the pandemic to “justify the great reset.” This is what the party has to offer?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Joly on a charm offensive?

Posted on by

We are now in day twenty-four of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and things continue to be in the same holding pattern—though there are continued air strikes, some now hitting Kyiv, one hitting an aircraft repair facility outside of Lviv. Some 6.5 million Ukrainians are internally displaced, and considering how many have headed to Lviv, the air strikes there are all the more concerning. In the meantime, negotiations with Russia continue, and there seems to be a bit of a shift in some of the tone. Meanwhile, President Biden had a two-hour video call with Chinese president Xi Jinping to sound out where China stands on this conflict, and to essentially warn the Chinese that there will be consequences if they side with Russia in this. As well, Russian and NATO commanders appear to be in constant communication to ensure that any mistakes made don’t wind up touching off a larger conflict by accident.

Elsewhere, in the wake of her comments about Canada being a middle power who was good at convening others, Mélanie Joly had a conversation with Janice Stein of the Munk School of Global Affairs yesterday that generated a number of pieces. In it, Joly acknowledged that the Canadian Forces need to be better-equipped, which tends to spiral into the trap of taking the NATO two-percent goal seriously (when it’s a terrible measure). But she’s not wrong about the equipment, as the pivot from Cold War tactics to fighting the Taliban has left the Canadian Forces largely under-equipped for the kind of situation facing Ukraine right now. As well, she praised the role American intelligence has played in helping Ukraine to thwart the Russian advance, and in uniting the West. Joly also says that she wants to position Canada as a leader in combatting propaganda and disinformation starting with social media, which is going to be a very big fight if the way that the conversations around amending the Broadcasting Act last year were any indication.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mary May Simon’s tea with the Queen

Posted on by

As we carry on through day twenty-three of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we had a glimmer of good news yesterday in that the bomb shelter under that theatre in Mariupol held, and it sounds like a lot of people survived and are being dug out of the rubble. Unfortunately, it sounds like about 80 percent of Mariupol is now rubble, but Ukrainians and allies are vowing to rebuild.

Meanwhile, Canada’s mission at the UN sent out a tweet yesterday marking up and annotating a Russian resolution before the UN about the invasion that doesn’t mention the invasion, only the need for protection of civilians in “vulnerable situation.” The tweet attracted a lot of mixed reviews, but most of them fairly negative because it seems to betray a particular lack of seriousness in how we conduct our foreign affairs (and that it looks like they’re aiming for Twitter dunks).

On a different note, Her Excellency Mary May Simon told CBC that she and the Queen discussed reconciliation and the need to better teach history so that Canadians get a true history of the relationship with Indigenous people. She also said they spoke about the grifter occupation in Ottawa (which the Queen was already briefed about, because the Queen of Canada knows what is going on in her realm), and the situation in Ukraine. It was also revealed that May Simon had requested briefings from officials about the Indian Act and efforts to reform it—which is fine and not a sign that she is overstepping her role. If she wants to make reconciliation a theme of her time in office, then it’s good to have a knowledge base about the intricacies of the history of it (as an Inuk, she was under a different government system than the Indian Act). And frankly, given the expectations that were being heaped upon her to be activist when she was nominated to the position, I think that implied tone of the story of these briefings was some kind of activist move is perhaps as much of a problem as those expectations. May Simon is now on a state visit to three countries in the Middle East, starting with Dubai.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A middle power and a convenor

Posted on by

We are on day twenty-two of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the shelling and air strikes against civilian targets continue—an apartment building in Kyiv, a theatre where children were sheltering in Mariupol. Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the US Congress yesterday, invoking Pearl Harbour and 9/11 as part of his demand to close the sky” (which isn’t going to happen), and added that if America can’t do that, then to at least give Ukraine the planes so they can do it themselves. That was obviously a demand he couldn’t make of Canada (no, seriously—third-hand CF-18s would not be of much use to them), so we’ll see if that gets him any further aid from the US—hours after his address, Joe Biden signed an order authorising another $800 million worth of lethal aid, including anti-aircraft systems, so that presentation may have done its job.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1504186533791870984

Meanwhile, closer to home, Mélanie Joly’s comments that Canada isn’t a military power, but a middle power whose strength is convening to make sure diplomacy happens and convincing other countries to do more is rubbing a bunch of former military leaders the wrong way. We do contribute militarily, oftentimes more so than other allies who meet the stated NATO spending targets (which is one more reason why those targets are not a great measurement of anything), though our ability to do more is being constrained. That’s one reason why I’m getting mighty tired of the number of articles and op-eds over the last few days calling for more spending, while none of them address the current capacity constraints, particularly around recruiting.

Continue reading →