Tag Archives: CSIS

Roundup: On MPs’ sanctimony

Posted on by

My patience for self-aggrandising bullshit is at an all-time low, so you can image just how hard my eyes rolled when I heard that Justin Trudeau was telling a school group that was touring Parliament that his side is “serious and respectful” and the other guys like to shout, and how it was because when a there isn’t a lot that they can go after the government on, they make noise instead. Trudeau’s capacity for sanctimony is practically legendary, but this was gilding the lily more than a little. Now, I will grant you that since he’s been in charge, the Liberals have been far better behaved in QP than they used to be, and the clapping ban has lowered the level of din in the chamber by a great deal (though said ban is not always honoured). And yes, the Conservatives do yell and heckle a lot, but some of it is deserved when you have ministers or parliamentary secretaries who read non sequitur talking points rather than doing something that resembles answering a question. (They also yell and heckle to be childish and disruptive as well, but it bears pointing out that it’s not entirely undeserved). It’s also cheap theatre, and there is a time and a place for that in politics, and if we didn’t have it during QP, then I daresay that there might be an outbreak of narcolepsy on the Hill. But as with anything, it should be done judiciously and cleverly, and that’s not something that these guys are any good at, and so we return to the sounds of jeering, hooting baboons no more days than not, but that’s no excuse for sanctimony. There are no saints in that chamber.

With that in mind, my tolerance for the whinging and crying foul over the removal of Leona Alleslev as chair of the NATO Parliamentary Association is also mighty thin, for the sheer fact that when she crossed the floor, she wouldn’t be able to chair a parliamentary association. The way these things work is that a government MP chairs, and an opposition MP vice-chairs, and lo, the Conservatives already had a vice-chair on said association. Her removal was not retaliation, but it is a consequence. Now, there are definite questions that can be asked about the timing of said removal – two weeks before a NATO meeting that she has worked toward, and weeks after she crossed the floor (but I don’t know how often this association meets, so this may have been the first opportunity) – but that is far different from the caterwauling from the Conservatives about how the “supposedly feminist” prime minister was being mean to a woman and a veteran. (As an aside, could we please stop with this policing of the PM’s feminism? 99 percent of attacks attached to said policing have nothing to do with feminism). This attempt to claim the moral high ground is exasperating.

To add to all of this, the meeting where the removal happened was met with a bunch of disruptive, juvenile behaviour by Conservative MPs and staffers that included butchered singing, and *gasp!* drinking! Oh noes! Nobody behaved admirably in this situation, and nobody has any high ground to claim, so maybe we should all behave like adults around this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Populist myths and the lies they tell themselves

Posted on by

The Nobel prize has been awarded to economists working on issues of climate change, who point to the need for carbon pricing to get markets to come to a consensus about finding solutions, and what do we get in Canada? Doug Ford going on tour to see Scott Moe and Jason Kenney to decry carbon taxation, and to lie to people about the efficacy of carbon taxes. They work, despite what Ford, Kenney, Scheer, et al. say, and we have the data to prove this.

The Ford/Kenney rally was apparently quite something, a demonstration of partisanship over politics, and a demonstration about what how this all relates to our recent discussions over populism, with the carbon tax as a wedge issue. But while this is being put against this notion that Stephen Harper is trying to put forward in his new book about how “conservative populism” is somehow trying to weed out the worst instincts of populists, but that can’t actually be true if the dog-whistling still goes on. In her piece about the Ford/Kenney rally, Jen Gerson relayed the anecdote about people attending the rally being asked to cover up their MAGA hats with oil sands stickers – but the MAGA hats are still there, even if they’re being literally papered over. Kenney and Ford still play semantic games around the same terminology that the xenophobes use (such as the use of “illegals”), and it’s still a dog-whistle. And it can’t be any surprise that because of all the dog-whistling that the Soldiers of Odin have started posing with UCP candidates in Alberta while wearing their badges and vests. You can’t simply say “Oh, it’s unacceptable these people show up to our events” when you keep inviting them with the dog-whistle language. (There’s a lesson in here for Maxime Bernier as well).

Meanwhile, John Geddes went through that excerpt of Harper’s book and deconstructed his arguments and his analysis about populism, and his nonsense construction of “Somewheres” and “Anywheres.” Aside from the fact that it’s deeply ironic that Stephen Harper, strong friend of Israel, is using the same “rootles cosmopolitan” argument used in Soviet propaganda to vilify Jews, it’s just trading on baseless mythology and trying to build an argument around it that doesn’t actually hold any water. But it also goes back to what Ford, Kenney and others are pandering to – they’re denying that problems exist, and then undermining the institutions that can help solve them. Such as with the looming climate crisis. We need a wake-up call.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A (likely) electoral false alarm

Posted on by

There were a few eyebrows raised in the Parliamentary Precinct yesterday when news came from the Procedure and House Affairs committee that the Chief Electoral Officer said that they intend to be ready for an election by the end of April, never mind that the fixed election date is October, and suddenly there was a renewed (but brief) round of election speculation fever (which was then suffocated by the Kavanagh hearings south of the border). Stéphane Perrault noted that they can basically run an election anytime under the previous contest’s rules, but they need lead time for future changes, which puts a clock on the current bill at committee if they want to have a chance for any of the changes to be implemented by next year’s election – and that assumes fairly swift passage in the Senate, which they may not get (particularly if the Conservatives are determined to slow passage of the bill down in committee as it stands).

Of course, I’m pretty sure that a spring election is not going to happen, simply because Trudeau’s agenda still has too many boxes without checkmarks – which is also why I suspect that we haven’t had a prorogation. And looking at how Trudeau has organised his agenda, so much of it has been backloaded to the final year, with plenty of spillover for him to ask for re-election in order to keep it going. (Things are also delayed, one suspects, because NAFTA talks have derailed things in the PMO, and sucked up much of the talent and brainpower. Suffice to say, I’m not taking any talk about an early election with any seriousness.

Meanwhile, more eyebrows were raised when Conservative MP Michelle Rempel claimed that she was being told to prepare for a fall election, which we’re 99 percent sure is just a new fundraising ploy, for what that’s worth.

Continue reading →

QP: Medium-security condos

Posted on by

Nearly a full day after Donald Trump’s rambling press conference in which he made threats to NAFTA, and both Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were present to face off. Scheer led off in French, and asked why Trudeau didn’t ask for a meeting with Trump in New York. Trudeau took up a script and stated that they were looking for a good deal and not any deal. Schemer switched to English to ask for assurances that there would be no new tariffs next week. Trudeau, still with a script, reiterated that they were looking for a good deal and that the Conservatives would sign any deal put in front of them. Scheer switched topics, and returned to the issue of Tori Stafford’s killer, and Scheer reminded him that she was moved from maximum to medium security under the Conservatives in 2014, and that the Conservatives themselves said that they don’t have the power to affect the security classification of prisoners. Scheer insisted that Stafford’s killer was being moved from behind razor wire and bars to a “condo,” and that the Act gives the government the power to Act. Trudeau accused Scheer of playing word games of his own, and when Scheer tried again, Trudeau reminded him that she remains in medium security. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and worried about Energy East being revived, and Trudeau reminded him that the company withdrew their proposal because of market conditions. Caron switched to English to worry about CSIS spying on environmtal activists, and Trudeau reached for a script to say that they respect the right to protest but that the complaints about CSIS were looked into by SIRC and dismissed. Romeo Saganash wanted the entire Cabinet to meet with Indigenous knowledge keepers to understand the meaning of free prior and informed consent, and Trudeau said that they were working forward reconciliation and meeting with First Nations who both supported and opposed projects. Saganash asked again in French, and Trudeau reminded him that not all Indigenous communities oppose projects.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “positive vision” full of falsehoods

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer gave his first major speech to the party faithful at the Conservative convention in Halifax on Friday, and it was, in a word, meh. After telling the tale of his grandparents and parents struggling to get by, and establishing his “regular guy” credentials (despite the fact that his career suggests he’s been anything but), but from there, it was his usual litany of lies and nonsense talking points. “Conservatives would never leave a credit card bill to our children and grandchildren,” says the party that racked up hundreds of billions in debt during their term; vague assurances about the environment that would actually do nothing to address emissions while also maligning carbon taxes while claiming to understand them and yet demonstrating he doesn’t – or that if he does, he’ll simply lie about them. He went on a whole tangent about Sir John A Macdonald, and this whole bit about how activists were only targeting him because he’s a Conservative and not Liberal prime ministers who arguably did worse (and another lie was about how they weren’t going after Mackenzie King on the $50 banknote – he is being phased out in the next series, as Viola Desmond on the $10 banknote pushes the established prime ministers to higher denominations). He claimed he got to work with UK prime minister Theresa May on a post-Brexit trade deal – something that Trudeau actually did, given that he has no standing to do anything, and claimed that he would be the “adult in the room” in his planned trip to India (which, again, he has no diplomatic standing to do anything on, and that there is no “damage” for him to “repair.”) And his “positive vision” for Conservatives? That he won’t look back at history with shame, and he would have space for debate with viewpoints he disagreed with (this after being astonished that Trudeau would call an avowed racist a racist, characterizing it as a “smear.”) So…yeah. If your positive vision is to simply keep lying about issues, I’m having a hard time squaring that circle.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1033106952245731328

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1033110282405588993

Also at the convention, the party will send the resolution around abortion regulation to the full membership, while they voted down the attempt to make repealing gender identity legislation part of the policy book. Not debated was the resolution around ending supply management, which infuriated a number of delegates – some saying they felt that the debate was deliberately stifled, others that it’s emblematic of a party that doesn’t actually care about free market conservative ideas – and that this may drive them to Bernier’s camp.

Meanwhile, the Bernier fallout continues apace at the convention. While he appears to have zero caucus support, there is talk that he can theoretically get the bare minimum he needs to register a party with Elections Canada, and good news, Kevin O’Leary is thinking of supporting him, and he’s got an ally in Stephen Fletcher, whose nomination Scheer blocked. So there’s that. In the interim, Conservatives at the convention continue to mean girl him (to which Bernier says that’s typical of losers), and the anonymous sources with the behind-the-scenes drama have started spilling the tea, for what it’s worth.

In yet more reaction to events, Andrew Coyne notes that while Bernier’s criticism of the Conservative Party under Scheer rings true, Bernier’s planned party nevertheless still smacks of a vanity project. Colby Cosh notes that Bernier’s lack of intellectual hygiene in his veering into talk of diversity and immigration has corrupted his chance to attract concerned with economic issues to his nascent party. Chantal Hébert looks at the history of the Reform Party and it doesn’t compare favourably to Bernier’s record. Former Reform MP Monte Solberg has been there and done that, and he evaluates Bernier’s behaviour and performance in light of it. Terry Glavin thinks that Bernier did Scheer a favour, assuming he takes some of the swivel-eyed loons with him away from the Conservatives. Also, I was on Canada 2020’s /Thread podcast, talking Bernier and his ability to pull it off.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Neither a minor nor a major shuffle

Posted on by

So there was a Cabinet shuffle, and while not major, it was a little bigger than some may have anticipated. Five new ministers have entered the fray, which expands things somewhat, but still isn’t into later Harper territory. Some of the changes are not unexpected – Joly being moved to tourism while still keeping official languages is a bit of a demotion from the Heritage file that she garnered so much criticism from, particularly in Quebec, on things like the Netflix file. Some of the changes are pretty political – moving Sohi from infrastructure to natural resources in order to have the Alberta minister on the pipeline file is pretty naked on its face. Bill Blair to border security (plus organized crime reduction) are two files that the government wants a stern face on to make it look like they’re taking action. Some of the additions, however, are a bit mystifying, like a minister for seniors? Really? Is this not just a pandering exercise to a voting demographic rather than a file with particular challenges that need addressing? And some of these questions won’t be answered right away, because the mandate letters won’t be available until later in the summer. Here is the updated Cabinet list including the existing ministers whose titles got modified, and here are profiles of the five new additions.

And then the reaction. Blair’s promotion may send the signal that they’re taking the border situation seriously, but it also can look like they’re a) caving to critics, b) admitting that this is a security and not a humanitarian situation, c) putting border security alongside fighting organized crime in the same portfolio risks conflating the two in the eyes of those who are convinced that these irregular migrants are really all criminals and terrorists. Trudeau apparently lured Blair into politics on the promise of fighting the number one enemy of public security – fear. I’m not sure that putting him in this new role fights fear or reinforces it.

In terms of analysis, Paul Wells notes both that putting Blair into Cabinet is a bit of a poke in the eye to Doug Ford, given that they were nemeses during the Fords’ years in Toronto City Hall, and that this new Cabinet is one built to survive the coming storms until the next election (along with the observation that Trudeau seems to have demoted himself by stripping away the intergovernmental affairs responsibility and giving it to Dominic LeBlanc). Kady O’Malley makes five observations about the shuffle, while Susan Delacourt looks at the shuffle from the perspective of reacting to the recent Ontario election.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Judging Question Period the Toronto Star way

Posted on by

The Toronto Star released a package of stories yesterday on Question Period, and because this is the way we do journalism these days, it was full of data analysis that looks shiny, and hey, they got some investigative reporters to count questions and responses. Absent from that? A hell of a lot of context. So while you got some backbenchers who don’t participate to gripe about it being scripted (which it is), and some counting up of the talking points (without any context as to why these developed), or a surface-level look at the political theatre of it all (again, absent a lot of context or history, or bigger-picture look at the ways in which the messaging has changed and how it is currently being used to gather social media clips). It’s inch-deep stuff that, for someone who covers QP every single day, is mighty disappointing. (Additional point – most of the writers of these pieces have not attended QP, which is a problem because watching it from your desk in Toronto is not the same thing as being there in person. At all).

What is the most disappointing of all, however, is their “Question Period fact check” piece, which takes a sampling of questions and answers, and assesses the veracity of the questions being posited and the responses. Why it’s a problem is because they fell into the problem of how questions are framed – surface truths that are stripped of context to say something that it doesn’t. An example is when the Conservatives railed that the PBO said that carbon taxes would take $10 billion out of the economy. Which isn’t actually what he said – he said that it would take $10 billion out of the economy if the revenues weren’t recycled through tax cuts or other measures but were just given directly back to taxpayers. That’s a whopping difference in the message, because using only the $10 billion figure is a disingenuous attack line. And what did the “fact checkers” rate it? “True!” even though it wasn’t actually. And the piece was full of problematic fact-checks like that, which makes it infuriating for someone who actually pays attention to what is being said and how. So while everyone pats themselves on the back for the piece, I’m really unimpressed with the package as a whole.

Equalisation reform

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe released his plan to reform equalisation yesterday and it’s…not equalisation. It’s like he doesn’t get the concept at all. Which at this point should not surprise anyone, because it’s been so badly reported on for decades and has been the tool of demagogues to bash Quebec rather than understanding how the system actually works – paid for by federal income tax out of general revenues to a province that doesn’t have the fiscal capacity to offer comparable services. It’s not one province writing a cheque to another one. For provinces that pay into it more than they get out, it’s because they have high incomes, thus they pay more income tax. It’s not that mysterious (and yet most reporters simply write “it’s complicated” and leave it at that). And Quebec has structural issues related to their fiscal capacity (and yes, their tax rates are already high relative to other provinces) but the per capita equalization they receive is actually low, not that the shock-and-awe figure of the total amount isn’t constantly being weaponized.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1009498701151158272

And what does Moe suggest? Basically taking money from Quebec’s share and giving it to all provinces whether they need it or not. It’s bullshit that fortunately a number of economists called out – not that it’ll matter, because the audience that Moe is speaking to dismisses what economists have to say. Sigh.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier’s epiphany

Posted on by

All of the drama yesterday was the news that Maxime Bernier decided to spike his own planned book after his chapter blaming his loss on “fake Conservatives” supporting Andrew Scheer, particularly when the defenders of Supply Management took out memberships to stop Bernier. When he did release a statement late in the day, Bernier basically blamed the media for writing about the controversial stuff, which is kind of ridiculous given that he should have known that questioning the legitimacy of Scheer’s win, and putting in print that he planned to renege on his promise to shut up about Supply Management was going to be trouble no matter what else was in the book. (No word on whether he spent his advance already, as he now will have to refund it).

A couple of observations first: Of course the leadership contest was lousy with “fake Conservatives.” That’s what our leadership contests have become in Canada, given that it’s about trying to get as many new members as possible to bestow enough “democratic legitimacy” on a would-be leader so that they can turn the party into their own personal cult. Until we change the system and restore it to caucus selection, this will only get increasingly worse as time goes on. Part of his analysis that his problem was just defenders of Supply Management as the problem ignores the fact that there were a hell of a lot more people taking out party memberships in order to stop Kellie Leitch (and by extension, Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux, but mostly Leitch). They didn’t deliver the contest for Michael Chong, and it’s hard to say how many of those ballots wound up going toward Scheer instead of Bernier. Also, Scheer knew that Bernier was going to be mavericky when he made him a critic on an economic portfolio, so he can’t be surprised that this kind of eruption was going to happen. It’s who Bernier is, and it’s kind of surprising that it took this long for Bernier to realize that maybe it’s not a good thing for the image the party is trying to put forward. (On a side note, every time a leader insists that they’ve never been more united, I brace for a defection, because I’ve heard those insistences too many times).

Paul Wells wrote a very good piece about Bernier and the value of loyalty in politics, which most journalists don’t really grasp, which explains why politicians do the things they do, and compromise in the way that they do. It’s one of the things I do think about and probably don’t wrap my head around enough, but it goes back to the way in which people continue to blame the parties for “making” MPs do things they wouldn’t ordinarily do, right up to compromising their beliefs and whatnot. MPs have the choice to do whatever – parties don’t make them, MPs do these things of their own volition. Senators too, for that matter – even when it goes against their best interest, or the normal operations of that chamber. They do it out of loyalty to the leader or the party, take your pick, and while we could have a debate about the effect of method of selection on that loyalty, we need to think more about that lens when we’re having these discussions.

Good reads:

  • In London, Justin Trudeau met with the Queen, as well as Thresa May, New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Arden, as well as Five Eyes partners on a security briefing.
  • Chrystia Freeland is headed back to Washington for some crucial decisions on NAFTA talks.
  • While Kinder Morgan’s CEO says the political battles may mean the pipeline remains untenable, BC says that they will file their court reference within days.
  • The Commons health committee released their study on universal pharmacare, which the health minister says will be the basis of their consultations.
  • In advance of the Liberal convention, the health minister has already rejected the policy resolution to adopt a Portugal-style drug decriminalization scheme.
  • Speaking of the convention, Kent Hehr says he will attend, and attend one of the sexual harassment workshops being offered there.
  • UN climate data shows our GHG emission are decreasing – but not nearly fast enough to meet our Paris targets.
  • A report from the former Inspector General of CSIS was uncovered, showing problems with the way the agency conducts interviews with detainees abroad.
  • The agency that was supposed to create guidelines for service dogs for veterans with PTSD has pulled out of the project unexpectedly.
  • Two Catholic Bishops took to the Hill to defend the Pope’s refusal to apologise for residential schools. One Conservative MP blocked a motion to demand an apology.
  • The RCMP are set for their union certification vote.
  • Pierre Poilievre continues to snipe about the guaranteed minimum income report, and cites Ontario’s model as a bad starting point because of costs.
  • Andrew Coyne looks at the PBO report on guaranteed minimum income, and wonders if three points on the GST is a good deal for eliminating poverty.
  • Chantal Hébert reads the polls and wonders if the pipeline debate is really resonating with Canadians, and whether it will affect Trudeau in the next election.

Odds and ends:

Liberal MP Neil Ellis was taken to hospital for an undisclosed condition.

https://twitter.com/AdamScotti/status/986641462380126208

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.

QP: Talking to elites

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in London, meeting with Her Majesty the Queen and prime minister Theresa May, Andrew Scheer was in fact present today, in the wake of the salacious news that Maxime Bernier had pulled his book that was critical of his leader. Scheer, mini-lectern on desk, led off by reading some concern about investor confidence in the energy sector, and he claimed that the previous government got Northern Gateway “built.” Jim Carr stood up and stated that it was news to him that Northern Gateway got built, and didn’t in fact get its permits revoked by the Federal Court of Appeal. Scheer then got up rue that Trudeau was in Europe with elites, talking down on the energy sector, and Carr reminded him that just days ago he was here talking up the sector and the Trans Mountain expansion. Scheer insisted that Trudeau told his European audience that he was disappointed that he couldn’t phase out the oil sector tomorrow, but Carr rebutted with his line about how incredulous it was that Scheer took to the microphones on Sunday to decry Trudeau’s announcement after the meeting with the two premiers before Trudeau even made it. Alain Rayes got up to decry Trudeau’s lack of leadership in French, to which Marc Garneau stood up to lay out the support the government had given. Rayes wondered how much of taxpayers’ money would be spent on the project, but Garneau merely reiterated that they considered the project to be in the national interest. Guy Caron was up for the NDP, noted that the Health Committee’s study on universal pharmacare would be tabled later, and demanded action on it. Ginette Petitpas Taylor thanked the committee for their work, and she would consider its finding. Caron demanded immediate action in French, and Petitpas Taylor noted the commitments in the budget toward national (but not universal) pharmacare. Charlie Angus was up next, and demanded to know if the government felt their Section 35 obligations were met with Kinder Morgan, and Carr reminded him of the Supreme Court decision around Northern Gateway around consultations, so they went and consulted further for Trans Mountain. Angus pressed, terming it a “Liberal pipeline,” and Carr reiterated his line about the fact that there may not be unanimity, but there are many Indigenous communities who are in support.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unconstitutional threats

Posted on by

Alberta’s Bill 12, that would give its energy minister the power to declare what can go in the pipelines that leaves the province, is almost certainly unconstitutional (and I think they’re being too cute by half in saying that it’s not because it doesn’t target BC specifically). It’s way overbroad in terms of the powers it gives the minister, and even if it somehow manages to pass constitutional muster, you can imagine that it would certainly be struck down by the courts for the sheer scope of how arbitrary it is. And in case you think that the pressure tactics of raising gas prices in BC are sound, it’ll likely do more damage to their own producers and refineries, whose supplies and production they are curtailing. So bravo for thinking that cutting off your nose to spite your face is good public policy, guys.

The premier of Saskatchewan, Scott Moe, says that he’s going to pass his own version to back up Alberta in their fight. Because that’s helpful. BC, meanwhile, says that because the bill is blatantly unconstitutional, it’s likely just a political bluff – but if it’s not, they’ll sue Alberta for it, as well they should. Alberta’s minister insists that it’s no bluff. So here we are, with few grown-ups in the room apparently, because they’re lighting their hair on fire to do something, anything, now, now, nowrather than coming up with a measured and reasoned response to the situation. And then there’s Michelle Rempel’s take. Oi.

Continue reading →