Tag Archives: Ukraine

QP: Putting words in Boris Johnson’s mouth

Posted on by

In the wake of yesterday’s nudity brouhaha and the subsequent calls for an investigation, the prime minister was away and there were but two Liberals in the Chamber — Mark Gerretsen and Marc Serré. Candice Bergen led off by video, and she recited a hyperbolic litany of ills that lockdowns have imposed upon the population and lamented the government’s failures, before demanding to know why the finance minister was treating the situation as a political opportunity. Sean Fraser noted that they were looking to reform the system for those who were disadvantaged by the status quo. Bergen then switched to delays in Moderna shipments, and using it to blame the government for the third wave of the pandemic. Patty Hajdu reminded her that the government has been there for the provinces all through the pandemic. Bergen then raised the Daily Mail’s coverage of vaccines in Canada, falsely attributing comments to Boris Johnson around vaccinations when Johnson has in fact credited the lockdowns in Britain for halting the spread of the virus and not vaccinations, which is a pretty important thing to realize. In response, Hajdu again repeated that they were supporting provinces and encouraged people to get vaccinated when it’s their turn. Gérard Deltell got up next and in French, slammed the Bloc for joining the Liberals in ending the defence committee study on the General Vance allegations, to which Harjit Sajjan dismissed the attacks and patted himself on the back for his six hours at committee. Deltell then tried to police the government’s feminism, and Sajjan said that they were waiting for the committee’s report.

For the Bloc, Yves Perron led off to decry delays in getting temporary foreign workers out of quarantine and into fields, for which Carla Qualtrough assured him they were working as fast as they can to resolve the situation. Perron blasted that the contractor doing the testing didn’t have capacity in French, and Qualtrough assured him they were working to ensure people in Quebec could get their services in French.

Jagmeet Singh led off for the NDP, and in French, asked to extend the tax filing deadline, and Diane Lebouthillier listed tax relief measures they have offered. Singh switched to English to blame slow vaccine rollout on the federal government, apparently believing that vaccines can be produced form thin air, and wanted an admission of failure on domestic production. Anita Anand recited vaccine arrivals and that Canada is third in the G20 for vaccinations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Armed intruder at Rideau Hall

Posted on by

The big excitement for the day was that there was an Incident at Rideau Hall first thing in the morning, as a Canadian Forces member, who was armed, crashed his truck through the gates of the compound and headed over to Rideau Hall on foot, where he was then apprehended by RCMP in what sounds like a two-hour “dialogue.” Apparently he wanted to “send a message” to the prime minister – who wasn’t at home at nearby Rideau Cottage at the time, nor was the Governor General in Rideau Hall (but if you recall, she has consistently refused to move into the residence there, preferring to stay at Rideau Gate). He was arrested without incident, and has apparently made online posts about a supposed COVID-19 conspiracy theory – and it comes just a day after anti-lockdown protests were happening on Parliament Hill, featuring a former has-been wannabe party leader who shall not be named, and some of the images seen on the Hill included those of Trudeau being hanged, while others touted these kinds of COVID conspiracies. So that’s fun.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1278788951885721602

Meanwhile, over in Alberta, the rhetoric about the plan to hold a referendum on equalization rolls along, so here is political scientist Melanee Thomas to spill some tea about just exactly what they are talking about, and why the arguments aren’t as clever as they think they are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another shooting, another investigation

Posted on by

The conversation about systemic racism in policing continued over the weekend with news of another fatal shooting by policing of an Indigenous man, again in New Brunswick for the second time in a week. Both incidents seem to involve a mental health crisis situation (and a knife appears to have been involved in both cases), but it continues to point to the fact that the police are not the right people to call in such a situation because they don’t have adequate training to deal with these cases. There is a question as to why the crisis intervention units that are available in the province weren’t called in to deal with the situation – whether there is a lack of training or awareness, or if this becomes a situation where the police culture of trying to seek dominance in a situation kicks in rather than thinking it through (with especially fatal consequences for Black and Indigenous people). Nevertheless, the fact that there were two incidents in a single week should be proof enough for anyone who remains unconvinced by the scope and magnitude of the problem that this is something that needs to be addressed.

Meanwhile, it looks like Bill Blair had a conversation with RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki before she changed her tune about systemic racism in the ranks, but that changed tune and the damage control that flowed from it has now angered the association of RCMP veterans, which is falling back on the same lines about good people being tarred, because they apparently haven’t kept up with the pace of the conversation and what everyone has been pointing out to them the whole time. And while AFN National Chief says that we need to move beyond questioning whether systemic racism exists and act on eliminating it, I think we need to recognize that it’s important that we are finally calling it what it is – and this as we have pundits muttering about how we shouldn’t spend so much time on labelling it than on combatting it, but if we can’t call it what it is, then we can’t do what needs to be done to actually fix it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Expanded help, pending the provinces

Posted on by

For his daily presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau opened by talking about his meeting with G7 leaders, talking about the need for a global response to a global pandemic, and the need to help more vulnerable nations – leaving it unspoken that it will be harder to do that if the WHOs funding takes a big hit thanks to Trump’s conspiracy theorism around it. He mentioned his upcoming meeting with the premiers, and noted that Quebec had made an official request for assistance with its long-term care workers – and while many reporters wanted details on what exactly the ask was, the response through the day was that it came late the night before and they were still talking with the province about how best to support them (though the theme seems to be that they want the army to help with these long-term care facilities – something they may have some ability to help with). Trudeau also noted that when things weren’t going as well as hoped, “we make changes,” and then announced that they were expanding the eligibility for the Canada Emergency Business Accounts, as well as gave a few more details about the planned Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance, which would provide loans (some of them forgivable) to commercial property owners on the condition that they provide rent reductions to commercial tenants in May and June – though the coordination of this is still happening with the provinces.

One thing that did emerge, both in the Q&A with Trudeau and during the ministerial one that followed, were questions relating to the modelling of the pandemic, and how we’ve had nearly twice as many deaths as projected by this point, prompting questions about what went wrong with the models. And my head exploded. These models were not predictions or forecasts – they’re an exercise to help with resource planning, which has been stated over and over again, and yet we had more than one journalist try and treat these models as credible data. And because these reporters been told time and again that they’re not data, they’re not forecasts, they’re planning tools, and the fact that this doesn’t sink in, is crazy-making.

Meanwhile, here’s economist Kevin Milligan’s evaluation of the Conservative demand for a GST rebate, which is harder than it looks, and probably not as helpful as the Conservatives think it would be.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1250802992565022720

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1250804375259246592

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1250805682078543873

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1250807414795849728

Continue reading →

Roundup: Framing for controversy

Posted on by

I try to give my brethren in the media the benefit of the doubt as often as possible, but yesterday there were two egregious examples of places where they framed a quote in a way that gave it a particular perception, and then went and tried to make news about that perception. The first example was to take a quote from Trudeau from the Global News interview from the night before, and tried very hard to make it look like Trudeau was blaming Trump for the deaths on Flight PS752.

“If there were no tensions, if there was no escalation recently in the region, those Canadians would be right now home with their families,” said Trudeau. “This is something that happens when you have conflict and war. Innocents bear the brunt of it and it is a reminder why all of us need to work so hard on de-escalation, moving forward to reduce tensions and find a pathway that doesn’t involve further conflict and killing.”

If you notice, the focus was – quite rightly – on the fact that civilians get caught in the crossfire of war. But the various outlets in this country (and the US – Fox News in particular) tried to frame this as Trudeau blaming Trump, which he didn’t actually do. And then, CBC had their Washington correspondents getting reaction to the “perception” that Trudeau was blaming Trump, even when he wasn’t, and in interviews, kept aggressively going after the perception of the comments, without actually acknowledging that they were trying to create that very perception with the very frame they put around those comments. The lack of self-awareness and self-reflection was entirely galling.

The second incident in a single day was taking a comment that Stephen Harper made, where he called for “change in the nature of the government” in Iran, and headlined it “calling for regime change” which has a very specific meaning, and got their reaction quotes based on the notion that he called for regime change – again, putting a frame around comments which were so bland as to be not worth reporting. (Note: CBC was not the only offender here, and they had to issue a “clarification,” which was really a correction, as a result; the CTV piece eventually changed their headline and lede, but didn’t note that they had made the correction).

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1217233046908416000

Two instances of torqueing quotes and placing dubious framing devices around fairly innocuous quotes to spark controversy in a single day. Not good, guys, and like Robert Hiltz said, this is the kidnd of thing that erodes trust. Let’s be better than this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A cover-up leads to an admission

Posted on by

The day was largely spent fretting over the state of the investigation into downed flight PS752 – particularly given the news that Iranian officials had already bulldozed the site before international investigators could arrive, ensuring a cover-up was underway. The Ukrainian government was insisting to the Iranians that Canadians be involved, and we got word that a mere two visas had been issued for Canadian consular officials so far (though François-Philippe Champagne did say that he was expecting more to be approved soon). Champagne later announced the creation of an international working group, comprised of the countries whose citizens were all killed aboard the flight, to press Iran for answers, while in the back channels, there is talk that Canadian officials are telling the Americans that they should have been informed of their plans to kill the Iranian general, given that we’re coalition partners. Amidst all of this, mourning continued across the country. (The National Post compiles profiles of the victims here).

And then, something surprising happened – Iranian officials, including their president, admitted publicly that it was indeed one of their missiles that shot down the aircraft accidentally, and that it was human error that they plan to prosecute those responsible, as well as profound apologies and expressions of regret (while taking a swipe at American “adventurism” in the process). It was a marked change of tone after days of denial, insisting that it was “impossible” that they could have shot it down, and what looked to be a cover-up in the making. One suspects that this will have a profound shift in the narrative in the days ahead, and that Iran will be prepared to pay some kind of compensation, just as what happened in 1988 when the Americans admitted they accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner.

Meanwhile, Adnan R. Khan walks through how the accidental missile strike could have happened, while Colby Cosh offers more parallels and reminders to the 1988 incident of the Americans shooting down the Iranian plane then, how it is remembered differently in the West than it is in Iran, and how our amnesia to is affects the reactions – particularly from those who are howling about “murder” and demanding the prime minister be angry about it. As if to prove the point, Heather Scoffield demands some righteous indignation from Trudeau, and for some of that to be directed to Trump for what his recklessness has cost us – as though that would help the situation or not cause even more problems for Canada down the road.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Waiting – or not – for a Cabinet call

Posted on by

One of the more interesting stories that was out first thing Friday morning was that of new NDP MP Heather McPherson, the party’s only Alberta MP, who mused openly to the CBC that she would be willing to take on a Cabinet position if prime minister Justin Trudeau offered it – but she wouldn’t cross the floor for it. Hours later, she backtracked on Twitter, saying that she obviously wouldn’t take a Cabinet position – likely because it was pointed out to her what that would entail. While this is obviously a rookie mistake, it might be worth delving into a bit more for the sake of everyone’s edification.

First of all, having an opposition MP in Cabinet – who remains an opposition MP and who hasn’t crossed the floor – is pretty much a coalition, even if you don’t want to call it that. Being in Cabinet, she would be bound to Cabinet confidentiality and solidarity, meaning that she would have to vote with the rest of the Cabinet, even if the rest of the NDP were opposed; and confidentiality could be a very sticky issue if they want to ensure that she’s not going to divulge Cabinet secrets to her caucus colleagues behind the closed doors of the caucus room (which in and of itself has its own confidentiality convention that, like Cabinet confidentiality, is intended to let the members have free discussions without then being picked off by media when their views are off-side from the rest of the Cabinet or caucus, as the case may be). Now, there are exceptions to how this can work, such as in New Zealand where they have developed a system where they could swear her in as a member of the Privy Council and bring her into Cabinet discussion where appropriate by not make her a full member of Cabinet (as they do with Green MPs in that government), but I’m not sure what the utility would be in this case, when there are better options available to Trudeau (such as appointing a Senator, which is more in keeping with our own traditions and one of the reasons why our Senate exists in the way it does). Regardless, the point is moot, and that’s as far as the thought exercise extends.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1190232873477058562

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1190247532246556672

Continue reading →

Roundup: Proving the SCC’s point

Posted on by

It was only a matter of time after Alberta premier Jason Kenney announced that he was reviving his province’s sham Senate “election” laws that the two so-called “elected” senators from the province started chiming in, and lo, Senator Tannas did just that on the Alberta Primetime politics show on Alberta’s CTV affiliates this week. During the hugely uncritical interview, Tannas proclaimed that getting an “endorsement” from the public gives him the right to speak up “more forcefully,” and that he and fellow “elected” Senator Black are “listened to differently” because they of their special status.

Let me remind you what the Supreme Court of Canada said when it comes to consultative elections – that it would give the Senate a popular mandate, which would change the constitutional architecture of the institution, and you can’t do that without a formal constitutional amendment. In other words, Tannas is proving the Supreme Court’s point – that his “election” (which was a sham, let’s be clear) confers upon him some kind of special authority, which is whole point. Now, Tannas did try to couch some of his criticisms for his nominally appointed colleagues from Alberta because he has to work with them, but amidst the myths about Bills C-48 and C-69 and the complete self-aggrandisement, there was virtually no pushback at Tannas about what the Supreme Court said, or the fact that the process that got him “elected” was a sham worthy of a People’s Republic.

There seems to be almost nobody pushing back against Kenney and his unconstitutional legislation and the sham that these “elections” really are. Why, here’s Don Braid with a lazy garbage take that lauds the farce that Kenney puts on because he’s swallowed the rhetoric about those bills whole, along with the fairytale nonsense about a “Triple E” senate and what it purports to do (never mind that the only thing it would do is create 105 new backbenchers with an overinflated sense of self). Repeat after me: Kenney is only doing this to invent a future grievance, while he lies about those two bills. It would be great if someone could be bothered to call him out on it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sensation over nuance

Posted on by

The big headline over CBC yesterday was that five of the six most recent federal judicial appointments in the province of New Brunswick all had some kind of ties to Dominic LeBlanc – never mind how tenuous those ties were. This of course led a bunch of Conservative apologists to compare this with the Dean French/Doug Ford situation in Ontario, which is absurd given that judicial appointments have a more rigorous merit-based system around them (more rigorous than it was under the Conservative era), and many of the French/Ford appointments had to do with whether someone was connected to French by family or lacrosse, many with no obvious competences in the roles they were appointed to. The Conservatives also declared that this was somehow related to both Loblaws winning a competition around fridge refits (no, seriously), and that this was reminiscent of the Arctic surf clam contract that LeBlanc was involved in wherein the definition of “family” used by the Ethics Commissioner differed from that in other statutes. (Not mentioned was the time when the Conservatives appointed most of Peter MacKay’s wedding party to the bench in Nova Scotia).

Reading deeper into this story, I found that some of the connections that were being highlighted were a bit dubious. The most dubious was the fact that one of the judges named was not actually someone that was recently named, but rather promoted to the Chief Justice of province’s Court of Appeal by Trudeau, though she was originally a Conservative donor and had been first named to the Bench by Harper. The fact that she bought a property from LeBlanc next to his summer cottage was deemed to be curious in this. Likewise the fact that two of them were part of a group that paid off LeBlanc’s leadership campaign debts a decade ago (each would have donated a few hundred dollars) is a pretty dubious link between them. The only one that might raise eyebrows is the fact that one of the five is married to LeBlanc’s brother-in-law…but even then, at what point do we start disqualifying someone whose relation is by marriage twice-removed?

The other bit of nuance that we can’t forget here is that New Brunswick is a very small province with a very small population, and legal circles in a province like that would be very tight – especially when you consider that the provincial political culture is far more nepotistic than the federal culture is. While the CBC piece cites a paper that says that people with political connections get judicial appointments at a rate double that in other parts of the country, but one has to remember that it can be harder to avoid, which is why fighting nepotism in those places can be much harder. And this is the point where people will bring up the fact that Jody Wilson-Raybould objected to the fact that names that were short-listed needed to be sent to PMO for vetting by the Liberals’ database, but again, it needs to be stressed that they need to go through all sources to check for red flags because the prime minister is politically accountable for those appointments. It’s called Responsible Government. Does that mean that these five appointments didn’t have some influence from LeBlanc tapping the justice minister and saying he wanted them appointed? Anything is possible, but it’s unlikely given the vetting process and the fact that most of these connections are tenuous at best. But it’s also regrettable that this kind of journalism strives for sensationalism and an attempt at being gotcha than it is with nuance.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Solidifying the “new” Senate

Posted on by

Another day, another badly executed wrap-up article on the Senate, this time courtesy of the CBC, which again, has a badly misleading lede in which it claims that “Legislative changes that would have made it harder for a future prime minister to reverse Senate reforms have fallen through.” This is wrong – any changes to the Parliament of Canada Act that the government was contemplating would have had zero effect on the selection process for future senators. Why? Because that’s not governed by that Act, or indeed any piece of legislation – it’s part of the constitution, and clearly spelled out as a prerogative of the Governor-in-Council, meaning the prime minister and Cabinet will advise the Governor General as to who gets appointed. There is nothing that Trudeau could do to bind that advice legislatively – recall the Senate reform reference to the Supreme Court of Canada – that would require a constitutional amendment requiring seven provinces with fifty percent of the population to do.

What would changes to the Parliament of Canada Act regarding the Senate do? The actual proposals were to ensure that leaders of any parliamentary group in the Senate would get commensurate salary increases and resources to put them on par with the what is nominally the government and official opposition in the Senate, and the ISG has been pushing for this pretty hard, but they also were demanding to be part of consideration for vote bells, though I’m not sure why it would matter (particularly given that they have demonstrated time and again that they’re not reliable negotiating partners). But I also suspect that part of the reason why these changes didn’t get proposed was because there is some legal opinion that it would require some kind of buy-in from provinces to make this kind of change, so there was likely little time for the government to add this ball to all of the other ones they were juggling that late in the parliamentary calendar (despite the cries of the ISG). Of course, this hasn’t stopped the media from falsely framing these changes as affecting the selection process, as this has been cited by more than one reporter from more than one outlet, and it’s false.

The rest of the story is again more of the same voices opining on how great the “new” Senate is working, but we fortunately got a bit of pushback from Liberal Senator Lillian Dyck, who did point out that the lack of organisation among the Independents has held up bills and slowed down the process – and she’s right. But nobody wants to talk about that as they’re busy patting themselves on the back for “not being whipped.” There’s more to the Senate than that, and they need to get off this self-congratulation because things aren’t working as well as they like to claim.

Continue reading →