Tag Archives: Cuba

Roundup: Trudeau weighs in—sort of

Posted on by

It was another big day on the foreign interference/NSICOP file today, with Elizabeth May holding another press conference to clarify her previous remarks and to assure everyone that she doesn’t think there’s nothing to see here, and that like Jagmeet Singh, she’s alarmed by what she read, but no, there is nothing to indicate that any sitting MP has committed treason (the only possible exception of course being the one former MP), but a few MPs may have compromised themselves by accepting favours from certain embassies in order to secure their nominations, which was stupid and possibly unethical, but certainly not treason (which has a strict Criminal Code definition).

Shortly after this, Justice Marie-Josée Hogue sent a letter saying that her commission can look into these issues, that she has access to all of the documents that went into the NSICOP report, and that she’s going to try to include this assessment as part of the final report by the end of the year, which isn’t the October 1st that MPs wanted when they voted on this stupid motion in the first place, but hey, she didn’t tell them to go drop on their heads (like she should have), and this pushes the ability for the party leaders to put on their grown-up pants and actually deal with this political problem even further into the future, which is a problem. This should not have happened, she should have told them to deal with their political problems on their own and not fob them off onto a judge, but she didn’t, and so nothing gets solved.

But then, Justin Trudeau himself appeared on Power & Politics, and kept up his evasive talking points on the issue and the report, wouldn’t really clarify what exactly it is that he disagrees with NSICOP about, and kept pointing to how great it was that we have an independent commission that’s looking into all of this, so people can rest assured. Which doesn’t actually help, especially when the biggest accusation is that he has done nothing with this information for months. About the biggest thing to come from that interview was Trudeau saying that there are a range of issues with foreign interference in all parties, and that false accusations may well be a goal of some foreign regimes. He also threw a bit of a bomb at Singh by implying that maybe the NDP isn’t as clean as Singh insisted after he read the classified report, so this is going to extend the media circus tomorrow, particularly when Singh has his usual media availability tomorrow before Question Period.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile struck dwellings and power lines in the Poltava region, injuring twenty-two and knocking out electricity in the area. Ukrainian troops have been massing in the Kharkiv region, pushing out the Russian incursions. Ukraine is having difficulty restructuring their bonds, and might fall into default.

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau and Mélanie Joly are expected to meet with the widow of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny in Ottawa today.
  • Bill Blair, being far too diplomatic, suggests his critics were “confused” about the purpose of Canada sending a warship to Havana (when they spread disinformation).
  • Blair also made it clear that he is not contemplating sending trainers back to Ukrainian soil. (Current training is happening in the UK, Poland and Latvia).
  • Patty Hajdu committed $1.2 billion for a hospital near James Bay, which will flow to the province, who is doing the actual construction (as it’s their jurisdiction).
  • The government is prevaricating on the question of whether Canadian news outlets should be compensated when “AI” chatbots train on them as copyrighted sources.
  • Here is an explainer of the stupid fight happening at the Canadian heritage committee over the CBC not airing certain hockey games.
  • At committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer now says the government hasn’t gagged him, it was all a misunderstanding of translation. Convenient!
  • Liberal MP Rachel Bendayan talks about her severe concussion and how that has sparked advocacy for how concussions affect women differently.
  • Liberal MP Andy Fillmore is resigning his seat in order to make a run for the mayor of Halifax.
  • While former Supreme Court chief justice says she’s stepping down from the Hong Kong court to spend time with family, she renewed her tenure on Singapore’s court.
  • New Brunswick’s government site about the carbon levy overestimates the costs and doesn’t mention the rebates, because why tell the truth?
  • Paul Wells spent a day on the Hill to see the current state of the place, and well, it’s not great. (And thanks for the shoutout!)

Odds and ends:

My Loonie Politics Quick Take looks at the PBO’s big mess, and the spin over the “secret report” which wasn’t a secret or a report.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

Roundup: Disagreeing with NSICOP’s interpretations

Posted on by

From the G7 summit, Trudeau wouldn’t confirm or deny whether any current Liberal MPs are implicated in the NSICOP report, but also mentioned that there was some disagreement with the conclusions that the committee drew in their report, but again, wouldn’t point to what those disagreements are. His foreign minister, Mélanie Joly, said that if there were “traitors” in the Liberal caucus, they would have been booted by now. So there’s that.

More to the point, if you listen to some of the Elder Pundits chirping away over the Twitter Machine, it’s like they’re allowed to have disagreements. “Oh, Trudeau said that he thinks NSICOP is the right place to do a review but then he disagrees with them! Hmm!” I’m not sure why disagreements are such a scary prospect for these people. CSIS isn’t a magical arbiter of what is true and what isn’t. They get wrong or misinterpret things too. That’s why we need more holistic views, but certain politicians and the Elder Pundits demand absolute clarity, and an authoritative voice that can never be wrong (so long as it confirms their priors, because if it goes against what they believe, in which case all bets are off). But also, NSICOP hasn’t done itself any favours by not really defending their work in public, or by the chair being cute about the conclusions (when he has a record of being overly dramatic in some of his conclusions in order to get attention).

The fact that members of the government aren’t really spelling out the disagreement is frustrating. Is it the murky line between diplomacy and foreign interference? It sounds like it, reading through the lines, but maybe actually saying so would be helpful (and no, unlike what certain Elder Pundits have tried to assert, the difference between the two is not actually a bright line). And deflecting questions on this by trying to change the channel to the “good economic news” has not helped their credibility or the ability of the public to find a shred of reassurance hasn’t helped either. We’re talking about other party leaders needing to be gown ups, but the Liberals have a little work to do on this space as well, and that means stop trying to feed the public pabulum on this issue, and to be as frank as security concerns allow.

Summer sitting?

The Conservatives are once again putting on the dog and pony show to claim that they want to sit through the summer, and are trying to call out the NDP to join them, even though that’s not how this works, they know it’s not how this works, and this move would only advantage the government. This didn’t work at Christmas, it won’t work over the summer, and if they want to run committees through the summer, more power to them, but that doesn’t actually change anything.

Ukraine Dispatch

The 78 of the countries at the peace summit in Switzerland agreed that peace must include the territorial integrity of Ukraine, though not every country attending did sign on. (Full text here). LGBTQ+ soldiers in Ukraine marched in Kyiv’s Pride parade over the weekend, calling for the kinds of partnership rights that would allow couples to make medical decisions or claim bodies killed in the conflict (and also further differentiate Ukraine from Russia).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford’s eagerness to please

Posted on by

The Star had a very interesting, if very infuriating, longread out yesterday, which charted the ways in which Conservative-affiliated lobbyists impacted on the decisions that Doug Ford made over the course of the pandemic – the laundry list of exemptions that kept growing by the day, the fact that the long-term care industry has insulated itself from any and all accountability and is getting their licenses renewed as if the deaths of thousands of seniors aren’t on their hands, the illogical restrictions for small retail but not box store, right up to the illogical closure of playgrounds.

The piece was illuminating not because of the look at lobbying – all of which is legal, above-board, and not the same as we’d understand from an American context of the cartoonish Hollywood portrayals – but rather because of what it shows us about Ford himself. He’s someone out of his depth – his sole experience was a single term as a junior city councillor while he brother was mayor – who was not only struggling to understand his job, but who also has a pathological need to be liked, and to be seen to be doing favours for people he knows. People like these former Conservative staffers and operatives who are now in lobbying firms. It less that these lobbyists are cozy with the provincial Progressive Conservatives – it’s that Ford wants to please them and do them favours because he knows them. That’s why the pandemic in this province turned into such a clusterfuck – because Ford needed to please the people he felt close to.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1415672572574715909

Continue reading →

Roundup: Self-harm by way of platitude

Posted on by

I try not to make a habit of re-litigating my Twitter disputes in this space, but in this particular case, I find it’s a perfect illustration of how this government’s inability to communicate its way out of a wet paper bag, and why that harms them. To wit: A Global News piece declares that Trudeau won’t commit to ending boil-water advisories on First Nations by 2021 as is the current promise. It uses the recent evacuation at Neskatanga First Nation as an illustration of problems with boil-water advisories. It quotes Trudeau giving a bland talking point about “more work to do,” and way down at the bottom of the story is reference to the fact that in Neskatanga, not only has money been approved and delivered, but the new water treatment facility is nearly completed construction.

So why is this a problem for the government? Because if they had the slightest bit of candour, they could have explained that capital projects like these take time, particularly in the kinds of remote and fly-in communities like these particular First Nations. Twitter is filled with people who are seriously asking why the government hasn’t solved these issues if they’re showering money around, without having the slightest clue about what he actual problems with these boil water advisories are, and accustomed to situations where they can simply throw money at a problem and it will go away. That’s not the case, and not understanding the logistical and capacity issues at play means that we get this ongoing confusion. For example, many of these reserves are only accessible to bring equipment up with ice roads for a couple of months of the year, which slows the ability to make timely solutions. (This is also an issue with housing on many reserves – small windows by which to bring in building supplies, and those windows are getting ever shorter because of climate change). This has been made even worse in the pandemic, because many communities won’t let the people who are building these new facilities into the community in an attempt to keep COVID out (which Trudeau made vague reference to, but folded it into his platitude so it gets lost). In some communities, it’s not a question of the equipment but of maintenance – as soon as they find and train someone local to do the work, they get headhunted and given a better offer, and the community has to start over again, as the equipment once again breaks down. And it would be great if Trudeau or one of his ministers could actually articulate these challenges, but they won’t. Instead, they fall back on their platitudes about “doing better,” and not giving people a clue about what the actual challenges are.

The government also assumes that these reporters will do the work to find out what the challenges are, but they won’t. Pressed for time, and under the constant pressure to produce, most of them will only both-sides the quotes and move on (as happened in this particular case). Most don’t understand the background or the actual challenges, so it doesn’t get reported – only the platitudes in face of the complaints. Actual candour from Trudeau and the Cabinet would fix this – easily! But they won’t do it. It’s maddening, and they’re just shooting themselves in the foot, over, and over, and over again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Frivolous lawsuits that help no one

Posted on by

Because climate lawsuits on behalf of youths are apparently all the rage, another one has been launched, this time against the Ford government in Ontario, because of their cancellation of the cap-and-trade system and their challenging of the federal carbon price. I can barely even.

So, to recap: Lawsuits are about getting individual remedies, and these actions are not designed to do so. They are using “novel” Charter arguments, which are an abuse of process. It’s also trying to use the courts to impose public policy solutions, which is not the job of the courts. That’s not their function, and trying to use the courts because you lost at politics is not how things work. And further to that point, the courts are already overburdened, and these kind of frivolous suits – and that’s exactly what they are – waste everyone’s time and court resources, and I would fully expect the courts to impose costs on those who brought forward these complaints that waste everyone’s time.

I spent an afternoon on the Twitter machine of being accused of not taking climate action seriously because I made these points about this lawsuit, which is not the case at all. My point – as exemplified by the (very good) lawyer who joined in the fight over Twitter, is that this is a political problem, not a legal one. You don’t use a saw to hammer a nail, which is what this lawsuit is attempting to do. The courts are not the place for this because they can’t force a government to come up with a climate change plan that meets the expectations of scientists – that’s not how life works, and it’s not how democracy works. And sure, young people are frustrated with the slow action so far, but democracy depends on people organising, and that means doing the hard work of getting involved in riding associations, changing party policy though conventions, and agitating internally to do something. And it means organising. I can’t stress this enough – organise, organise, organise. Protest votes won’t get you anywhere – and let’s face it, that’s what Green votes are. That’s how you make change in politics, and the sooner that young people realise this – and you can join parties as young as sixteen and start volunteering and voting on nominations and resolutions – the more you will be effecting meaningful change. (Want to learn more about how that works? Read my book).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Importing the culture war

Posted on by

We’re not even in the writ period, and the imported culture war bullshit is already at a fever pitch. In order to capitalize on it being Ottawa Pride this weekend, the Liberals started passing around a video of Andrew Scheer’s 2005 speech denouncing same-sex marriage, under the rubric of Ralph Goodale calling on Scheer to attend his hometown Pride in Ottawa this weekend. (Note: We’ll see if Trudeau makes it to Ottawa Pride this year, as he may not be back from the G7 meeting in France. Trudeau has only ever appeared at Ottawa’s Pride parade once). And off they were to the races. Scheer’s director of communications said that Scheer “supports same-sex marriage as defined in law,” and would uphold it as prime minister – and then proceeded to name Liberals who previously voted against it.

What’s particularly cute about this defence of Scheer is that it does not say that Scheer’s views have evolved, and the use of “as defined in law” is that the law was a result of a Supreme Court of Canada reference, so there is no way that any government could try to repeal it without invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to escape a Charter challenge. But beyond that, Scheer’s people have not offered any kind of defence that he voted against the trans rights bill in 2016, which is more current and pressing of a rights issue than where we are with same-sex marriage. But it’s not really about same-sex marriage at all – it’s all about our political class being high on the fumes of the American culture war that they’ve been inhaling, and are trying desperately to recreate here because they all think it’ll be a political winner for them, rather than the fact that it will simply burn the house down around them.

In amidst this, Jagmeet Singh decided that he wanted to get in on the culture war action and declared that he wouldn’t prop up a Conservative government in a hung parliament based on this (fourteen-year-old) homophobia – which essentially means that he’s conceded that he’s not running to be the prime minister in the election, but is content to stay as the third party. There’s realism, and then there’s bad strategy. Singh then went on to list all of the Liberal failures on the LGBT file – except most of the ones he listed are in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Oops. This election is already so, so very stupid.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sticking with the date

Posted on by

You may recall that last week, the Federal Court granted judicial review to the Conservative candidate looking to change the election date because it clashes with a particular orthodox Jewish holiday, and lo, the Chief Electoral Officer set about to review his decision. Yesterday he announced that he’d reviewed it, and he was still confident that there wasn’t sufficient reason to change it – moving it back a week would put it in conflict with a bunch of PD days in schools that they needed to use for polling stations, and it would collide with municipal elections in Nunavut, and there were still plenty of options, be they advance polls or special ballots, for those affected by the orthodox Jewish holidays. That decision goes to Cabinet, who will make the final call later this week.

But then something curious happened – a couple of Liberal MPs tweet their dismay at the CEO’s decision, which is a little odd because, well, it’s not really his call. He’s making a recommendation, and Cabinet makes the final decision because the dissolution of Parliament for an election is a Crown prerogative, meaning that it depends on the Governor-in-Counsel (i.e. Cabinet advising the governor general) that makes the decision, regardless of our garbage fixed election date legislation. So if they’re tweeting dismay, they should direct their pleas to their own government rather than to harass the CEO.

This having been said, I am forced to wonder if this isn’t part of the fallout from the aforementioned garbage fixed election date. One of the justifications for said garbage legislation is that it’s supposed to help Elections Canada plan, rather than scramble in the event of a snap election call – but it’s starting to feel like perhaps those plans are also getting a bit precious, which is a bad sign for an institution that is supposed to be adaptable in order to accommodate the election call, whenever it may be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Defence intelligence and their limits

Posted on by

Some of you may recall that recently, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians submitted a report to the prime minister, which was later made public, about how military intelligence in this country is large and vaster than most people anticipate. The Canadian Press recently obtained the August 2018 federal directive about what kinds of personal information that defence intelligence is able to collect and keep, and it turns out that they can indeed keep some of that information, even if obtained by chance, so long as it supports a legitimate investigation. You may recall that at the time of the NSICOP report that there were calls for its activities to be bound by statute instead of by Crown prerogative, as it is currently. With that in mind, here’s Philippe Lagassé with some context on why that may or may not be a good thing.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1137787804979748865

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1137789288127631361

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unusually partisan report

Posted on by

The saga of Bill C-48 continues its strange trek through the Senate with the release of the report from the transport committee that recommended that the bill not proceed. Or at least that’s what it should have stated – that based on the tie vote, that the committee could not recommend the bill proceed. What they got instead was a lengthy screed about how allegedly terrible and the bill was for national unity, and it cherry picked comments from witnesses to “prove” that case, and strangely omitted any witnesses that stated – with facts – that the bill would have almost no impact on the energy industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In fact, the report was so partisan that it raised eyebrows among my sources in the Senate, who could not recall the last time that they had seen such a blatantly political document.

Naturally, not everyone on the committee was in favour of this report, and there are accusations back-and-forth about conversations regarding whether those who disagreed could write a dissenting report, and the eventual reluctance to bother because it would likely have tied things up in committee for even longer, as the clock ticks down. (Things are so bad on the Senate’s Order Paper that the need to sit well into July is now pretty much guaranteed). Of course, delaying this bill to death is part of the Conservative game plan, and everyone knows it – in fact, they pretty much have set up a situation where the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, will have to invoke time allocation to get it passed.

The shenanigans with this bill aren’t done yet. There will be a great deal of debate when this report gets debated in the whole Senate, where it is doubtlessly going to be rejected, but not without a great deal of noise and accusations that the Independents are just Liberal stooges, and so on. And it’s going to be so annoying when it’s all over.

Continue reading →

QP: Fiction about carbon taxes

Posted on by

While the prime minster was on his way back to Ottawa (for a stopover before heading to London and then Normandy), Andrew Scheer was elsewhere, and Jagmeet Singh was the only major leader present. That left it up to Pierre Poilievre to lead off, and he spun a bunch of fiction about carbon prices impoverishing Canadians. Bill Morneau said that just because Poilievre says things, it doesn’t make it true, and he listed their Middle Class™ tax cuts and Canada Child Benefit as leaving Canadians better off. Poilievre whinged about the cancellation of boutique tax credits, and he raised the spectre of higher taxes because of the deficit — which is fiscally illiterate — and Morneau noted that they cancelled boutique tax credits because they only benefitted the wealthy. Poilievre again insisted there would be “massive tax increases,” and Morneau reiterated that the typical family of four was $2000 better off now than under the Conservatives. Gérard Deltell took over in French, and he worried about deficits,  and Morneau offered some pabulum on investing in Canadians. Deltell raised the canard that Morneau didn’t run deficits on Bay Street, and Morneau quoted the declining debt-to-GDP ratio. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in French, he worried about corporate tax rates, to which Morneau reminded him of the new tax brackets they put in for the wealthy. Singh tried again in English, and Morneau reminded him that the corporate rate is competitive with the US, and that they put in rules for transparency for offshore holdings as well as taxing the wealthy. Singh railed about the rich not paying their fair share, and Navdeep Bains listed off accomplishments under this government including a million new jobs. Singh tried again in French, and this time Jean-Yves Duclos listed the benefits of the government investing in the Middle Class™.

Continue reading →