Tag Archives: Bombardier

Roundup: Defunding the Police

Posted on by

A lot of the discussion over the weekend has been taken up by the “defund/abolish” police narratives that have been part of the Black Lives Matter protests, both in the US and Canada, and while it’s not literally abolish or defunding police (thread here, also a good op-ed by Calumn Marsh here) – which doesn’t actually help their cause when it simply invites kneejerk reactions – I just wanted to offer a word of caution that a lot of these goals with this movement are things that cannot happen overnight. Building the kind of capacity for other social service agencies to take over the work that we have foisted upon police because we didn’t want to pay for them elsewhere will mean that it will take years before any kind of shift can possibly happen, it also makes other assumptions about the state of the current mental healthcare system (thread here), for example, that may not reflect reality. Another bit of context here is that American police are often poorly educated and trained, which is less often the case in Canada, so calls for reductions in salaries as part of this radically reformed force make me wonder if we may be doing more of a disservice to the ultimate goals, where you would want people more likely to have some critical thinking skills and able to better execute judgment. So while it’s a noble idea, we should be cautious about putting carts before horses.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1269643795286687744

Meanwhile, here’s a look at how the RCMP has not been responding to reports or investigations made by its Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, and how at least one has been waiting for responses since 2013. And yes, this is the same complaints commission that the government wants to add CBSA to its mandate (which I will remind you will only mean that CBSA will continue to investigate itself and simply report to this body).

With this in mind, here is Philippe Lagassé with some thoughts on what “civilian control” of the police could or possibly should look like.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1269268004325507073

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1269289824869126147

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1269292825000148993

Continue reading →

Roundup: Call in the Incident Response Group

Posted on by

Given the ongoing protests and rail blockades, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has opted to skip the Caribbean leaders’ summit next week, and will instead be remaining in Ottawa to convene with his Cabinet ministers and the Incident Response Group over the ongoing situation. Layoffs have already begun, and there are concerns about shortages along the supply chains as the blockades continue. On Saturday, minister Marc Miller met with Mohawk leaders in Ontario, responsible for the blockade there, and after a day-long meeting reported “modest progress” and items that he would have to discuss with his Cabinet colleagues as a result. Minister Carolyn Bennett, meanwhile, is holding conversations with chiefs in BC, and is awaiting a meeting between them and the province’s Indigenous affairs minister, but it all may be for naught as the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs insist that they won’t allow the pipeline regardless.

Meanwhile, when it comes to that pipeline route, here is a look at some of the backstory involved – particularly why the alternate routes that those hereditary chiefs proposed were deemed unsuitable by the company (and there is a lengthy thread here where the journalists shows his work). This will be an interesting question around duty to consult, attempts at offering accommodations, and what the legal paths are in light of the police actions to enforce court orders (which led to the sympathetic protests and blockades).

At the same time, the calls continue by certain voices that the police need to step in and enforce the “rule of law.” Except that the government can’t actually order them to do anything. Here’s Jennifer Robson with an explanation as to why not.

https://twitter.com/JenniferRobson8/status/1228805396179116033

Continue reading →

Roundup: Checking Scheer’s privilege

Posted on by

The solidarity protests with the Coastal GasLink protesters continue across the country, and police continue to hold off on enforcement while dialogue continues – Carolyn Bennett is slated to meet with chiefs in BC, while Marc Miller will be meeting with the Mohawk protesters in Ontario today using the protocols of the covenant chain. And amidst this, Andrew Scheer decided he needed to get involved. It didn’t go well.

Scheer’s tone deafness over the “privilege” remarks likely stem from the belief that the Conservatives have convinced themselves of, that it’s just rich, foreign-funded radicals who are protesting while the First Nations want the projects to proceed because jobs – which some do, but it delegitimizes the legitimate grievances and differences of opinion within Indigenous communities (even if all of the protesters aren’t themselves Indigenous). Add to that, Scheer’s insistence that ministers should be directing the operations of the police is wrong-headed (and dangerous – this is how police states happen), which forgets that even if Bill Blair could get on the phone and direct RCMP to enforce injunctions, the ones in Ontario that have shut down the rail network are squarely within the jurisdiction of the OPP. Oops. There may be some debate over how much authority that governments have to direct enforcement in cases like these, but Scheer (and Scott Moe, who has also been echoing his comments) should know better. That they don’t is a bad sign for the governance of this country.

Meanwhile, Chris Selley decries the ongoing blockades but makes some interesting points about the way in which the male hereditary Wet’suwet’en chiefs displaced the female hereditary chiefs who were in support of the project. Colby Cosh is bemused at how threatening commuters in Central Canada is the kind of leverage that Alberta could only dream of having. Matt Gurney recalls Christie Blatchford’s book on the Caledonia crisis, and how the Ontario Progressive Conservatives apparently didn’t learn anything from what happened then, given their absolute silence over what is happening under their jurisdiction.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Downed planes and disembarking royals

Posted on by

The big news yesterday was obviously the crash of Flight PS752 outside of Tehran, with some 63 Canadians aboard (about half of those from Edmonton) – a large number owing to the limited travel options to go to Iran because of the loss of diplomatic relations with Canada, as well as US sanctions. Canada is hoping for a role in the investigation, but without any diplomatic relations or consular access, it limits our ability to do so (thanks to the belief of the Harper Conservatives that diplomacy is a cookie for good behaviour and not how countries communicate even when relations are strained). That lack of access will also make repatriating bodies more difficult, especially as Iran doesn’t recognize dual-citizens. In a press conference yesterday, Justin Trudeau would not categorically state that it was or was not a stray missile that brought the aircraft down – it’s still too early and the investigation has only just begun – but there is already talk that it may have been some kind of engine fire. Trudeau also mentioned his call with Donald Trump, but would not offer much in the way of specifics as to whether or not he agreed with the American plan to kill the Iranian general that touched off the attacks on Tuesday night.

Meanwhile, Justin Ling suggests that NATO take Trump’s suggestion and do more heavy-lifting in Iraq. Colby Cosh is reminded of when the Americans accidentally shot down an Iranian plane in 1988. Paul Wells notes how minimally this government seems to have acted in this crisis – and the weeks post-election – and suggests it’s time they get back to work.

Prince Harry and Megan

The other big news, in a day full of news, was the announcement that Prince Harry and Megan, Duchess of Sussex, plan to step down as “senior royals” and split their time with “North America” (which most are reading as Canada) and the UK, and focus more on certain patronages and charitable endeavours while looking to be more financially independent from the royal family (even though that could mean independent from the Sovereign Grant while still getting funded by the Duchy of Cornwall). And then Buckingham Palace said that this was “early days” and they were still discussing things – because it’s going to be a lot of details to work out.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1214992623942983680

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1214996433587331072

It has been noted that if Harry in particular wants to go through the Canadian citizenship process, he may have some difficulty given that he doesn’t have a university degree, so that could limit his points – even if they do have connections to Canada. My own half-joking suggestion is that we could set them up in Rideau Hall, because it’s not like anyone is living there currently.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1214998671420469249

Continue reading →

Roundup: A carbon reality check

Posted on by

A couple of weeks ago, Paul Wells did one of his CPAC interviews with Elizabeth May, the transcript of which is now available, and she talked a lot about how she thinks Canada can transition to a cleaner economy, and said a bunch of things about the oil and gas industry as part of that. The problem, of course, was that she was wrong about pretty much all of it, as energy economist Andrew Leach demonstrates.

Leach, meanwhile, also takes Jason Kenney’s rhetoric about carbon pricing to task in this Policy Options piece, and lays out the danger of that rhetoric, which has a high probability of blowing up in Kenney’s face. And as a bonus, he proposed a tool for conservatives to check their policy instincts against.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Weasel words on conversion therapy

Posted on by

In the wake of the Liberals announcing that they were looking at what measures they could take at a federal level to ban “conversion therapy,” the question was put to Andrew Scheer if he opposed it. Scheer responded that while he opposes “forced” conversion therapy, he will wait to see what the government proposes around banning it before if he’ll support it. The Conservatives quickly cried foul that the Global news headline was that “Andrew Scheer will ‘wait and see’ before taking a stance on conversion therapy ban” was just clickbait that didn’t reflect his actual quotes (and Global did update their headline), but not one of them pointed out the fact that Scheer’s own words were, to be frank, weaselly.

Scheer said that he opposed “forced” conversion therapy, and that he’s opposed to “any type of practice that would forcibly attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation against their will or things like that.” And you note the weasel words in there – about only being opposed to “forced” therapy, or to change it “against their will.” The giant implication that not one conservative rushing to defend Scheer is that there are types of “voluntary” conversion therapy that he is okay with, and that is alarming because any kind of so-called “conversion therapy” is torture, whether entered into voluntarily or not – and it ignores that when people enter into it voluntarily, it’s because they have such a degree of self-loathing that they have deluded themselves into believing that they can change their sexual orientation in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and a lot of that self-loathing comes from the sorts of violence, whether physical, mental or spiritual, that has been inflicted upon them. And it does look entirely like Scheer is being too cute by leaving a giant loophole in the window for his religious, social conservative flank to not feel threatened by his position, because it lets them carry on with the mythology that there is such a thing as “voluntary” conversion therapy, and that this is all about their “love the sinner, hate the sin” bullshit that asserts that homosexuality is just a learned behaviour and not an intrinsic characteristic. So no, I don’t think Scheer has been at all unequivocal.

Meanwhile, Scheer’s apologists will demand to know why the government refused to act on a “conversion therapy” ban when presented with a petition about it in March, but again, this is an issue where there is a great deal of nuance that should be applied. The government response was that these practices tend to fall under healthcare or be practiced by health professionals, which makes it provincial jurisdiction, and that while there can be some applications of the Criminal Code with some practices, it required coordination with the provinces to address, which they have been doing. What the Liberals announced this week was that they were seeing if there were any other measures they could take federally, which might involve the Criminal Code. Again, it’s an issue where it’s hard for them to take a particular line, so they’re trying to see what it is possible to do – that’s not a refusal, it’s an acknowledgement that it’s a complicated issue.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A policy reviewed and changed

Posted on by

The government announced that their review of the transfer of inmates to Indigenous healing lodges is complete, and they made some changes to the policy to tighten the conditions. While they wouldn’t say directly, it was confirmed that Tori Stafford’s killer was reassigned from the healing lodge she had been transferred to back to an institution. Cue the self-congratulation from the Conservatives, who assert that the killer is back “behind bars.” But there are a few things we need to unpack here because some of this back-patting is disingenuous.

First of all, these healing lodges are still prisons. Said killer went from one medium-security facility to another medium-security facility. While Andrew Scheer kept insisting that she was moved to a “condo,” he is not only lying about what a healing lodge is, he is also misconstruing what conditions in women’s institutions in this country are like. There are no longer any of the kinds of cells and bars or high walls that you see on television – women’s institutions largely feature campus-like atmospheres, with apartment-like dwellings. Indeed, the facility she’s been transferred to post lodge is described as “a minimum security residential-style apartment unit and residential-style small group accommodation houses for minimum and medium-security inmates in an open campus design model.” So much for the crowing that she’s back behind bars.

There is also the self-congratulation in saying that they embarrassed the government into taking this action, and that this somehow disproves what the government said about not being able to act to transfer her. This is again disingenuous – when it came to light, the government ordered a review, and the policy writ-large was changed. They didn’t order an individual transfer, because that would be abusing their authority to do so. Now, there are some genuine questions as to how appropriate it is to change policies based on a single case, but insisting that they did what the Conservatives asked is not exactly true. Worse, however, is the unmitigated gall of the Conservatives demanding apologies and insisting that it was the Liberals who politicised the issue when they were the ones who decided to start reading the graphic details of Stafford’s murder into the record in the House of Commons. They’re still sore that they’ve been called ambulance chasers, which they insist is some kind of grievous insult, however their behaviour in the Commons around this issue was hardly decorous. An issue was raised, the policy was reviewed and changed, and the process worked. But trying to play victim over it is taking things a little too far.

https://twitter.com/journo_dale/status/1060641966776475648

Continue reading →

QP: A bizarre question to Trump

Posted on by

The prime minister was present today, the third day this week, but Andrew Scheer was elsewhere. That left Gérard Deltell to lead off, asking about the announced job losses at Bombardier, and he worried about the federal loan extended to the company. Justin Trudeau took up a script to say that their thoughts were with those affected, before reading praise about the Canadian aerospace sector. Deltell moved onto Di Iorio’s planned resignation, and worried it would be too late for a by-election. Trudeau read that the member intended to resign. Deltell asked about Di Iorio’s “special mission,” and Trudeau read a similar script about how MPs are expected to work on behalf of there constituents. Mark Strahl got up next to rail about Tori Stafford’s killer, and demanded an apology to Stafford’s family for forcing them to fight the government. Trudeau read that they reviewed the medium security transfer policies and they made improvements. Strahl railed about how that was an admission that they had the power to transfer her beforehand, and Trudeau didn’t use a script this time to reiterate the same response, with added empathy to the family. Guy Caron was up next, returning to the topic of Bombardier, but was particularly concerned about its executive bonuses. Trudeau picked his script back up to read about their thoughts with the workers and yay aerospace. Caron switched to English to Rae the question again, and Trudeau responded by reading the English version of his own script. Tracey Ramsey was incredulous that the prime minister said he wouldn’t have his photo taken signing the new NAFTA so long as the steel and aluminium tariffs were in place. Trudeau quipped that Ramsey’s region was in favour of the agreement before reading about his support for the industries affected. Alexandre Boulerice got up to repeat the question in French, to which Trudeau read Boulerice’s praise for the agreement.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On leaders, interim or “parliamentary”

Posted on by

In the wake of the Patrick Brown resignation, the Ontario PC caucus gathered behind closed doors to name Vic Fedeli as their “parliamentary leader,” a term that irks me to no end. Fedeli came out and called himself “party leader” rather than “interim” or “parliamentary,” clearly signalling that he wanted this to be permanent going into the election, but within hours, the party insisted that they would indeed hold a full leadership contest to be concluded by March 31st, where the party membership would vote on a leader (and yes, Fedeli will be running while still acting as the interim/“parliamentary” leader).

The adoption of the term “parliamentary leader” is recent, and as far as I know was only first used by the NDP to give a name to what Guy Caron is doing as Jagmeet Singh’s proxy inside the Commons while Singh refuses to get his own seat, and generally avoids being in Ottawa as much as possible. Caron is left to be the de facto leader, even going so far as to make key decisions around staffing in the leader’s office in Ottawa, which would seem to make him de jure leader as well and Singh to be some kind of figurehead, wandering the land. But why it’s offensive as a concept is because it attempts to normalize this notion that the leader isn’t in the parliamentary caucus – something that is an affront to our Westminster system. The Ontario PC party using this term both affirms the use of this term, and opens up the notion of a similar arrangement where a new leader could be chosen by the membership while not having a seat, further taking us down this road to debasing our system.

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/956958255129006081

Mike Moffatt, meanwhile, has the right idea – all leaders should be considered “interim,” because they should be able to be removed at a moment’s notice by the caucus (given that the caucus should select the leader, and that the leader should live in fear of the caucus). What happens instead with electing leaders by the membership is that they feel they have a sense of “democratic legitimacy,” which they feel insulates them from accountability, and they wield their imagined authority over the caucus, meaning that it’s the caucus who has to fear the leader instead of the other way around – especially if the rules persist that the leader signs their nomination papers. That’s not the way our system was designed to function, and it’s caused great damage to our system, and it gets worse as time goes on, with each iteration trying to turn it more and more into a quasi-presidential primary. The way the Ontario PC party has had to deal with this Patrick Brown situation within the context of their bastardized rules (and fetishizing the 200,000 members signed up in their last leadership contest, the bulk of them by Brown and his team) is utterly debasing to Westminster parliaments. More than anything, the events of the past week should be an object lesson in why we should restore caucus selection, should anyone be listening.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hehr out of cabinet

Posted on by

In the hours that the drama around Patrick Brown was playing out, another accusation was levelled over Twitter, this time around Liberal cabinet minister Kent Hehr, which seems mostly to involve lewd suggestions he made to female staffers in private during his time as an MLA in Alberta. When news of that reached Davos, Justin Trudeau said he would follow-up and have an answer before they left the country. And just before the plane took off, we had our answer – Hehr had tendered his resignation from cabinet, and during his “leave of absence,” Kirsty Duncan would take over his responsibilities while an investigation was carried out. Hehr remains in caucus, no doubt pending the results of that investigation. Maclean’s spoke with Hehr’s accuser here.

Politically, it’s fraught for Trudeau given that both of his Calgary MPs – both of them veterans of the Alberta Liberal Party – have been taken down by allegations of sexual misconduct. And in a related story, the investigation promised into Kang’s actions has not contacted one of his accusers, however many months later, and that goes for both federal and provincial investigations.

Speaking of Brown, here’s a detailed look at how Wednesday night played out, and some further conversations with his accusers. One of Brown’s (former) deputy leaders called the incident a “hiccup,” and later had to apologize for it.

Meanwhile, Supriya Dwivedi talks about politics’ #metoo moment, and the fact that the Bro Code is breaking down, while Aaron Wherry talks about how #metoo has arrived on Parliament Hill. Chris Selley looks at the path ahead for the Ontario PC party in Brown’s demise, and it’s a messy path given the rules in the party’s constitution, with just four months to go before the election.

Continue reading →