Tag Archives: Afghanistan

Roundup: Limited federal options on Bill 21

Posted on by

So, the fight over Bill 21 in Quebec is gaining some traction now that there have been real-world consequences, and a bunch of MPs (mostly Conservatives) who previously said nothing about it—and who previously supported odious things like “barbaric cultural practices tip lines” and “Canadian values tests”—are now speaking up and recanting previous positions. Which is good, but while everyone is hoping for some kind of federal response or action on the legislation, I’m not sure there is an actual avenue. Consider this from constitutional law professor Carissima Mathen:

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1469013986142298114

This is essentially what Justin Trudeau has been saying—he’s opposed to it, but this isn’t the time for the federal government to step in. That time will be when the fight reaches the Supreme Court of Canada, because then they have a legitimate avenue to be an intervenor in the case. Until then, they can say they oppose it—and they have much more so than other parties—but they’re also not making wild symbolic actions that won’t mean anything. And while both Erin O’Toole and Jagmeet Singh say they are personally opposed (and Singh has a legitimate dog in this fight), Singh has been somewhat blank on actions a federal government could take, while O’Toole made it clear he wouldn’t interfere in any way because a) provincial jurisdiction, and b) he’s spent his entire leadership trying to suck up to François Legault and out-Bloc the Bloc, for all of the good it did him in the election. And there are demographic considerations that play into the political calculations as well:

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert, lays out the political calculations and options for Trudeau and O’Toole when it comes to challenging Bill 21. Paul Wells adds a boatload of more context to the situation both federally and in Quebec, and gives some sharper thoughts as to why the federal government has vanishingly few levers but nevertheless has options.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rejecting the compromise for more theatre

Posted on by

In spite of the Liberals proposing a compromise on the release of the Winnipeg Lab documents last week, the Conservatives have rejected the offer, citing that it was “months late,” and that the “will of parliament has not changed.” But this is wholly disingenuous—they did offer another compromise in June before Parliament rose for the summer, and Parliament dissolved before the challenge to the order could reach Federal Court, which may have settled the outstanding question of whether the Security of Information Act fettered parliamentary privilege or not.

This rejection makes it clear that this is not about the information—it’s about political theatre. If it was about the information, they would have let NSICOP review the documents and report back. But no—they first came up with the fiction that they didn’t trust security-trained public servants to properly redact the documents, and then they came up with the fiction that the prime minister redacts NSICOP reports, which he does not and never did, and handwaved about only trusting the Commons’ Law Clerk—who doesn’t have the training or context around national security to know what is a necessary redaction or not—to do redactions. (They also piled onto the same law clerk the redactions from pandemic documents for the health committee in the previous parliament, overloading his office and ensuring that they would never see all of the requested documents). The government provided avenues for the documents to be released, but the Conservatives have consistently decided that theatre was more important (particularly as they fed the “mystery” of these documents into conspiracy theories).

We’ll see how much patience the other parties have for this nonsense—and at this point, it is most definitely nonsense. They were happy enough to embarrass the government pre-election, so we’ll see if they still have the appetite to do so now. But at this point, this no longer has any bearing on accountability or being serious about national security. This is one hundred percent about political theatre, and it would be great if the pundit class of this country could call it out for what it is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Swift passage, but not for the better

Posted on by

In another surprising move, the Senate passed the bill to ban conversion therapy at all stages yesterday, with no committee study, meaning that it only needs royal assent now, which can happen at any time. But while this is a relief to many, it’s also a tad irresponsible.

The lack of study of the current bill in the House of Commons was a political gambit designed to keep the Conservatives from being trapped by their own social conservative members, and to avoid giving any more media clips about people supposedly overcoming “lesbian activity” and so on. The fact that this version of the bill is different from the one that passed the Commons in the previous parliament is relevant, and there are changes that deserved some actual scrutiny because there were live constitutional questions around them (and yes, I asked the minister about it during the press conference, and I asked other questions about the bill during the not-for-attribution technical briefing, but those are not on the parliamentary record). And yes, this matters because the Senate should have done the work that MPs opted not to do out of political expediency. That’s one of the reasons why the Senate is the chamber of “sober second though”—because they don’t have to deal with the political repercussions and ramifications when the politics wins out in the Commons.

Unfortunately, politics also won out in the Senate (which should be an indictment of its supposed more “independent” existence these days). Acting Conservative leader in the Senate, Senator Leo Housakos, in his speech to give the bill swift passage, said that this issue shouldn’t be made into a political wedge like the Liberals were doing. Which is ironic because it wasn’t the Liberals who were holding up the bill previously by slow-walking it, refusing to let debate collapse, and by putting up speaker after speaker to offer the same concern trolling. That wasn’t the Liberals being political—it was 100 percent on the Conservatives for that, and now they’re trying to shift that blame. Yes, passing this bill at all stages was the expedient thing to do, but from a process and a parliamentary perspective, it was not the right thing to do, and it’s going to make the courts’ jobs that much harder when this inevitably gets challenged and they have little on the record to go by.

Continue reading →

QP: Litigating the Kabul evacuation

Posted on by

The Liberal benches were a little over two-thirds full, the opposition benches a little more full than that, and both Trudeau and his deputy were present (Freeland having previously being scheduled to only attend virtually but she was present in the flesh). Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he insisted that the government had two years to evacuate our interpreters and workers in Afghanistan, quoted a CSIS report, and railed at the government’s failure. Trudeau insisted that they stood by Afghanistan, and noted their commitment to resettle 40,000 Afghans. O’Toole noted that 1,215 Canadians left in Afghanistan when evacuation operations ended, and Trudeau praised the work to get as many Afghans and Canadians out of the country as possible in August. O’Toole read scoffing remarks from script, and complained that the election was called, while Trudeau reminded him of the speed at which things happened in Afghanistan before once again praising the work of officials on the ground at the time. O’Toole switched to French, and he repeated his first question on the alleged two-year timeline, and Trudeau repeated about the work to get people out, and work with the international community to resettle 40,000 Afghans. O’Toole then read the scripted scoffing remarks in French, and Trudeau repeated his same answer.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he worried about a potential rule change that would see oil sands tailing ponds being dumped into the Athabasca River. Trudeau read a script about consultations on regulatory changes to ensure safeguards. Blanchet accused the government of being so much in the pockets of the oil and gas industry that it would cause the Conservatives an identity crisis, and a Trudeau read again that they were putting in strict water quality measures in the region.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, raised the coming fiscal update and the scourge of inflation, and then demanded the puzzling tools of immediate housing supply and lowering cellphone bills—a very curious notion that ignores the causes of this current bout of inflation. Trudeau read a script about what they planned to talk about in the fiscal update. Singh repeated the question in French, and got the French version of the same script.

Continue reading →

QP: From solemn moment to clown show

Posted on by

Following every party’s statements and a moment of silence for the anniversary of the massacre at École Polytechnique, things got underway in earnest. While the prime minister was absent, Chrystia Freeland was present. Candice Bergen led off, script on her mini-lectern, and she asked for an update on the government’s programmes to combat violence against women. Freeland highlighted the importance of the day, and spoke about the “unprecedented” investments in the budget, and then called on all women in the a House to rise for a moment to remember those women. Bergen then pivoted to the topic of inflation and wanted to know what was happening with the Bank of Canada’s inflation target, and Freeland assured her the decision was coming in due course. Bergen was not satisfied, and demanded action on rising prices—though she did not call for price controls. Freeland assured her that they understand the difference between fiscal and monetary policy, and have confidence in the Bank, and that they don’t disparage them like the Conservatives do. Alain Rayes took over in French, and demanded a “concrete plan” to tackle inflation. (Like price controls?) Freeland listed off global inflation figures in response. Rayes repeated his demand for a “concrete plan,” and Freeland responded with praise for the GDP growth and job numbers.

Claude DeBellefeuille also raised the anniversary of École Polytechnique and the current spate of gun violence in Montreal and demanded tougher gun control. Marco Mendicino assured her the are working together with different governments to ensure that everyone can live safely. DeBellefeuille accused the federal government of doing nothing, and Mendicino repeated his assurances and brought up his meetings last week with gun control advocates.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he raised the scourge of opioid deaths, and demanded decriminalisation of simple possession of drugs. Jean-Yves Duclos noted that they are working at several levels around things like safe supply and support for users, with more to be announced shortly. Gord Johns repeated the demand in English, and Carolyn Bennett repeated Duclos’ answer in English.

Continue reading →

QP: A rose-coloured paean to the Harper era

Posted on by

There were a few more absences in the benches, but the leaders were all present, so that was something. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he loudly worried about the real housing crisis, and somehow blamed it on government spending. Justin Trudeau assured him that housing was a priority for the government, and that they would work with partners to get more housing built, while listing some of their proposed measures. O’Toole was unconvinced, and continued the specious correlation between government spending and housing prices, and Trudeau reminded him that the Conservatives plan would have raised prices further. O’Toole gave a rose-coloured revisionist paean to the halcyon days of Stephen Harper, and Trudeau batted it away. O’Toole switched to French to lament that the government wasn’t helping Canadians, and Trudeau repeated his assurances that they are there for Canadians and the way to get out of the economic situation is to end the pandemic. O’Toole then raised the labour shortage, accusing the government of doing nothing, and Trudeau listed measures the government is taking such as higher immigration targets and more money for training.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and raised the situation of French-speaking students from Africa being unable to get student visas to Quebec, and Trudeau assured him it was a problem and they were conducting a systemic review of the situation. Blanchet insisted that was meaningless, and wondered if the government was admitting it was racist, and Trudeau said that unlike the Bloc, they recognised that systemic racism exists and once identified they are working to eliminate it.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and demanded Canadian support to ensure that other countries can make vaccines in their own country, and Trudeau listed Canada’s leadership actions, including COVAX and working at the WTO to address the various restrictions, beyond just patents. Singh switched to French to repeat the question, and Trudeau chided Singh for using “literally” when he meant metaphorically, before repeated his answer in French.

Continue reading →

QP: Trying to make “Justinflation” happen

Posted on by

The Liberal benches were again about two-thirds full, and the prime minister was in attendance, so that was something? While Erin O’Toole gave a lengthy speech in the Chamber earlier, he was nowhere to be seen. That left it up to Gérard Deltell to lead off, and he moaned about inflation and worries in the US about persistent inflation—which is not Canada’s situation. Justin Trudeau said the biggest thing that they could do was end the pandemic, which would end the supply chain disruptions that were increasing costs. Deltell cited the “not thinking about monetary policy” quip and demanded limited spending—erm, which is fiscal policy—and Trudeau repeated that they needed to end the pandemic. Deltell selectively quoted a  countries with lower inflation than us, and Trudeau noted that this was a global issue because of supply chains. Michael Barrett got up after and took a page from Pierre Poilievre’s playbook in confusing land and housing stock to rail about inflation, and Trudeau noted that the question ignored the pandemic, and the way to end it was by vaccination, which Conservatives didn’t seem to get. Barrett countered that his riding has one the highest vaccination rates in the country and gave more wrong talking points about inflation, and Trudeau suggested that Barrett’s constituents help convince his Conservative colleagues to get vaccinated).

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried that they softwood lumber tariffs were doubled after the Three Amigos summit and wondered what they talked about. Trudeau listed off items discussed including softwood and PEI potatoes. Blanchet made a jab at the potatoes, and mused that Quebec would be better able to negotiate on their own, but Trudeau insisted that they were defending the sector like they did aluminium (another Quebec export).

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and demanded immediate action on the housing crisis, but Trudeau disputed his characterisation and listed measures in the Speech from the Throne. Singh switched to French to repeat the question, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

QP: You should read a book or two

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town, he was not in Question Period today, but his deputy was, so all was not lost. Candice Bergen led off, script in front of her, and she went off on inflation, accusing the finance minster of printing money so that she never runs out of bucks to pass. Chrystia Freeland read contradictory statements from different Conservative and wondered who was right. Bergen selectively quoted economists to assign blame for inflation. Freeland quoted former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz that government spending is not the problem. Bergen was apoplectic and demanded federal action on inflation, to which Freeland again quoted Poloz, and then suggested the Conservatives read a book or two. Alain Rayes took over, and asked about the labour shortage in Quebec. Marco Mendicino, even though it’s no longer his file, reminded him they have been working with Quebec and hit a record high of temporary foreign workers. Rayes went another round, and got the same.

Luc Therrien led off for the Bloc, and raised the Environment Commossioner’s report, and then demanded the government cap the production of fossil fuels. Stephen Guilbeault appeared by video, and reminded him that the Commissioner’s report didn’t capture several new programmes from the government. Therrien was not mollified, and in response, Guilbeault listed measures they have taken that no other government has taken.

Don Davies rose for the NDP, and demanded that the government support lifting patent restrictions on vaccines manufacturing to help the developing world avoid new variants. Harjit Sajjan read about the government’s vaccine donations. Niki Ashton repeated the question in French over video, and François-Philippe Champagne reminded her of Canada’s support for COVAX and other initiatives to deliver vaccines.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some more inflation fact-checking

Posted on by

Because you know it’s going to come up yet again during Question Period today and through the rest of the week, here are a couple of reality checks around inflation, first from former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz, who will give you all of the reasons why the pandemic spending and stimulus is not what is causing the current bout of transitory inflation.

Next, from economist Stephen Gordon:

So when Erin O’Toole and Pierre Poilievre start sounding off on inflation again, I know whose economic judgment I’ll be listening to (and it won’t be theirs).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Breakaway caucuses are more headaches for O’Toole

Posted on by

Things in the Conservative caucus seem to be getting increasingly precarious, as a “small number” of MPs continue to remain unvaccinated, and others refuse to disclose even if they are vaccinated, which is going to be a problem for Erin O’Toole in two weeks when they need to show proof of vaccination to enter the parliamentary precinct, their offices, or reach the House of Commons.

As if this weren’t enough, you have more unofficial “breakaway” caucus groups forming – one of them calling themselves the “civil liberties caucus,” apparently headed by Marilyn Gladu, who are concerned with the loss of “medical privacy” over vaccine status; the other is allegedly rallying around fiscal and deficit issues (and I would be tremendously surprised if this isn’t a faction led by Pierre Poilievre). And for context, particular “caucus” groups are fairly normal, but they tend to be around things like friendship groups with other countries, or other soft parliamentary diplomacy. This is not it, and while Gladu insists that this isn’t about O’Toole’s leadership, but it’s hard not to see it that way – especially as he should have been clamping down on the anti-vax contingent in his caucus and party more broadly because there is still a pandemic going on, and pandering to a group that is heavily influenced by conspiracy theories is frankly insane.

Nevertheless, this is where we find ourselves. O’Toole continues to try and play both sides of the fence, saying he’s encouraging vaccination but won’t enforce it when people refuse for no good reason at all. The fact that the party has made itself beholden to its social conservative and more fringe base because they’re the ones who both fundraise and volunteer is a problem for the party over the long term, as the need to keep appeasing this base isn’t going away. That makes it harder for the rational, moderate Conservatives from having influence (witness the savaging they gave to Michael Chong in 2017, and Peter MacKay last year, even though MacKay wasn’t even a real Red Tory). So long as O’Toole refuses to put his foot down in the face of a global pandemic, he’s enabling more of the decline and that bodes very poorly for the future of the party, and Canadian political discourse.

Continue reading →