Tag Archives: Foreign Policy

QP: The Mark Norman conspiracy theories get airtime

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in town, he was not in QP today for some reason, while every other leader was. That also meant no proto-PMQs today, so take that for what you will. Andrew Scheer led off, wondering why anyone who says no to the prime minister winds up with a target on his back. David Lametti knew exactly what this referred to — the stay of prosecution in the Mark Norman case — and stated that the Public Prosecution Service made its own decisions to prosecute and stay the proceedings. Scheer spun a wild conspiracy theory and wondered what was so damaging in the documents, while Lametti assured him that all documents were disclosed and the Public Prosecution Service was independent. Scheer switched to French to accuse the government of scapegoating Norman, and Lametti repeated his assurances in French. Scheer switched to English to say it was too bad that Trudeau didn’t have the fortitude to answer the questions himself, and Lametti repeated his response in French. Scheer repeated that Trudeau didn’t have the backbone or fortitude to answer for this, and accused them of trying to interfere in the case. Lametti kept up his response in French to assure him that there was no role for the Privy Council in this affair. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and he worried about the loss of biodiversity and the apparent lack of action. Catherine McKenna assured him that they were engaged, not only domestically by protecting more areas, but also internationally. Singh switched to French to lament the plan to go ahead with Trans Mountain, to which Patty Hajdu assured him that they were carrying forward with meaningful Indigenous consultations. Singh then raised the Norman trial, alleging PMO interference, and Lametti repeated that the government played no role in the prosecution. Singh repeated the allegation in English and demanded an independent investigation into the matter. Lametti repeated that there was no interference, and that the Director of Public Prosecutions stated so herself.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Beating one’s chest over China

Posted on by

The current dispute with China doesn’t seem to be getting better, as the canola issue is apparently about to be compounded with things like soybeans and peas, and word has it that the Chinese government has been compiling a list of Canadian targets within the country that could face further retaliation, because we all know that this is about the arrest and extradition of Meng Wanzhou. While Trudeau says that more help for canola farmers is coming “in a few days,” China is taking its time in visa approvals for the scientific delegation Canada is trying to send in order to get answers from them on the supposed pests they found in our canola shipments.

Enter Andrew Scheer, who has declared that Justin Trudeau hasn’t done enough, and he demanded that a new ambassador be appointed (because that can happen at the drop of a hat), that the government launch a trade complaint against China at the WTO, and that the government pull its investment from the Asian Infrastructure Bank (never mind that Canadian companies are starting to win bids through it). Because beating one’s chest is obviously the way to deal with China, and there would be no possible consequences for doing so.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1123023732610613249

One gets the impression from watching this that Scheer – or whoever is advising him – has no serious ideas for how to deal with complex situations like this. I mean, Scheer has also insisted that he somehow could have gotten a better New NAFTA deal and that he could have somehow gotten the steel and aluminium tariffs lifted by now, which is ridiculous, and yet here he is, demonstrating how “serious” he is about foreign policy, this time with China. Even more risible is the way in which he characterises the current government’s position as “appeasement.” Erm, except appeasement would have meant that they would have freed Meng by now, or did that “crafty” thing about warning her before she could have been arrested so that she could have avoided the trip altogether (as certain former political players in this town later told the media that the government should have done). You would think that the person who wants to lead the country would try to be a bit more serious about his foreign policy, but this is where we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A trio of justice issues

Posted on by

There were three major law-related stories in the news yesterday, starting with the announcement that Supreme Court of Canada Justice Clement Gascon has opted to retire early, citing “personal and family reasons.” This was quickly followed by Justin Trudeau announcing that a replacement process would be launched, and would again be headed by Kim Campbell, while the Conservatives followed a few hours later with a demand that this process not go ahead until the leak from the previous process was investigated (though the Privacy Commissioner is already on that case). The thing to remember of course is that there is something of a deadline here, being the election, and it’s more than possible that the Conservatives want this delayed so that they have the possibility of naming the next judge if they should happen to form government in October. For what it’s worth.

The second story was that of the carbon tax reference at the Ontario Court of Appeal, which was live-streamed for the first time in its history. The province’s argument apparently is that if the federal government is allowed to impose a carbon tax, that they’ll start intruding into other areas of provincial jurisdiction, which is…dubious. And it sounds like the judges weren’t having much of that line of reasoning either.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1117808109802663938

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1117809485395816451

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1117811576940060673

The third law story of the day was the revelation that the directive around civil litigation involving Indigenous people that Jody Wilson-Raybould instituted as one of her last acts as justice minister has been fiercely contested within the department because it many cases, it amounts to litigating badly and not actually getting the courts to resolve the legal questions that are at issue, which they argue doesn’t actually help reconciliation because you’re not dealing with underlying issues that require resolution. The piece also noted the frequent and direct political interference that Wilson-Raybould exerted on civil litigation (which she can do as Attorney General, unlike the arm’s length nature of criminal prosecutions), sometimes undermining the arguments that Crown attorneys were trying to advance in the middle of cases. It’s fascinating reading and yet more insight into what was going on with Wilson-Raybould in the lead up to her being shuffled.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Foreign policy complacency

Posted on by

There has been some musing of late about Canada’s place in the world, and a couple of things jumped out at me. First is Paul Wells’ most recent column, which responds to a Globe and Mailop-ed from a former trade negotiator that wrings its hands at the way the current government is handling China. As Wells points out, said former negotiator is all over the map in terms of contradictory advice, but most gallingly, suggests that we break our extradition treaty with our largest and closest ally in order to appease China. And Wells quite properly boggles at this suggestion we break our treaty, while at the same time taking a moment to reflect on how there is a different way in which Ottawa seems to operate when it comes to these matters, particularly in an era where major corporations with investments in China are no longer calling the shots by way of political financing.

At the same time, Stephanie Carvin makes some particularly poignant observations about Canada’s foreign policy complacency in this era of the Americans retreating from their obligations on the world stage (never mind the Brexit-mired UK). We talk a good game, but have no follow-through, and in the past, she has quite rightly pointed to the fact that we won’t invest in the kinds of things we talk about the importance of globally (most especially “feminist” foreign aid). The government’s actions in Mali are another decent example – putting on a big song and dance about how important it is we go there, spend a few months there doing low-risk medevac, and then refuse to extend the mission for a few extra months so that our replacements can get properly established, meaning there will be a gap in services there.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1080853935328497665

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1080854398052564992

I do have to wonder about some of the crossover between what Wells and Carvin are talking about – that Wells points to the rise of crowd-pleasing populism freeing governments from the go-along-to-get-along complacency, but Carvin points to the fact that we are not actually free of that complacency, though perhaps there are different sorts of complacency that we are grappling with when it comes to our place on the world stage. Something to think about in any case.

Continue reading →

QP: Pointing out the line-item votes

Posted on by

In what is likely the final week of the sitting, all leaders were present for what is likely the final Monday QP, and Andrew Sheer led off, and in French, he whined that his party forced a vote-a-thon, and demanded the cost of the federal tax on families. Justin Trudeau reminded him that everything was transparent on their website, and they have consulted with experts to design it. Sheer tried again in English, and Trudeau listed the line items from the Estimates that the Conservatives voted against in their vote-a-thon, and called their lack of a plan the real environmental cover-up. Sheer then moved onto that ISIS returnee walking the streets of Toronto, to which Trudeau retorted with the cuts that the Conservatives made to CBSA, and said that their security agencies are protecting Canadians. Scheer insisted that they had enough information to lay terrorism charges, and to this, Trudeau took up a script to list tools that national security agencies have. Scheer insisted that the government was taking away tools from National Security Agencies, to which Trudeau countered that they are in fact investing in new tools. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, worrying about child poverty in Canada, to which Trudeau reminded him that the numbers being cited were from 2015, before the Canada Child Benefit was created, which was lowering child poverty. Caron then cited the child removals at the US Border and wondered if the US was still a Safe Third Country. Trudeau stated that he wouldn’t play politics with this, but that the UN still designated the US a safe country. Jenny Kwan tried again in English, with added sanctimony, to which Trudeau noted that he was going to remain focused on a constructive relationship with the United States, and that he was trying to build support for refugees globally. Kwan demanded the Safe Third Country Agreement be suspended, and Trudeau insisted that he wasn’t going to play politics with it.

Continue reading →

QP: A secret carbon tax plan

Posted on by

While it was Thursday and you would think that most MPs would be present for QP, but that was not the case. Both Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were off in Saguenay to help push for the by-election on Monday. Gérard Deltell led off, worrying about home cultivation of cannabis, and Quebec and Manitoba rejecting that plan. Ginette Petitpas Taylor got up to read that home cultivation will help curb the black market, and this followed the advice of the working group and US jurisdictions. Deltell tried again, and got some boilerplate from Petitpas Taylor. Lisa Raitt was up next, and asked about the decision to close the lobster fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and fishermen protesting at his office. LeBlanc reminded her that this was about protecting the North Atlantic right whale, and while this was difficult, he will meet with them tomorrow. Raitt then moved onto the demands to know the cost of carbon taxes on Canadians, raising the Ontario election as is their new line. Catherine McKenna said they published a report on April 30th, and that provinces are the best place to decide what to do with revenues, and it was better to ask those provinces what they’re going to do. Raitt demanded the answer from McKenna’s department officials, and raised the notion that Ford won in Ontario because people feel that costs are out of control. McKenna reiterated that all revenues remain in the provinces. Guy Caron was up for the NDP, decrying comments that former Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge that people die protesting the Trans Mountain pipeline, and he was fine with that. McKenna stood up to simply say that they believe in the right to protest. Caron tried again in French, and got the same succinct response. Alexandre Boulerice for up to decry the lack of adequate monitoring of pipeline spills, to which Marc Garneau said it was the duty of any government to get oil to market, and praised the polluter pay system in the Pipeline Safety Act. Sheila Malcolmson repeated the question in English, and Garneau repeated his response in the language of Shakespeare.

Continue reading →

QP: Borders and pipeline taxes

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was present today after meeting with the prime minister of Estonia, Andrew Scheer was away. In his place, Lisa Raitt led off, worried about irregular border crossers, and the strain it was putting on housing. Trudeau stood to respond, script in hand, to say that they have robust processes, but the previous government left them backlogs that they were still cleaning up. When Raitt insisted that there were three separate problems as a result of his #WelcomeToCanada tweet, the lack of clarity from the immigration minister, and the international development minister welcoming those migrants because they helped with a labour shortage in her riding. Trudeau didn’t take up a script this time and reminded Raitt that they have a system that applies to everyone, and when Raitt tried a third time, Trudeau got more vociferous in his reiteration that there is a proper process, that they ensure that everyone goes through it, whether there are backlogs or not. Gérard Deltell took over in French, reiterating the previous question, to which Trudeau noted that while Canada welcomes people a from around the rule, the system is applied with integrity and that we are a country with a rule of law. On a second time around, Trudeau noted that they still had irregular migrants under their watch, and they cut their healthcare on top of resources to CBSA and the IRB. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, and accused Kinder Morgan of avoiding Canadian taxes, so why would the government give them a blank cheque. Trudeau started with the tired environment and the economy talking point before transitioning to the fact that without the pipeline, our economy is losing out of a $15 billion because of a lack of access to other markets. Caron tried again, and Trudeau doubled down on the need for a better price for our oil. Ruth Ellen Brosseau took over to ask the same again in English, and Trudeau reiterated his answer, and again on a second go around.

Continue reading →

QP: Elections, Hamas, and subsidies

Posted on by

On a pleasant Wednesday afternoon in the nation’s capital, the benches were full in the Commons as MPs gathered for what was not only Question Period, but the practice of proto-Prime Ministers Questions, something that has never quite worked out in practice. Andrew Scheer led off, concerned about the electoral reform bill, and the fact that it would allow for American-funded groups to campaign and that the government could make announcements on taxpayer’s funds. Trudeau reminded him that most of those changes were recommendations from Elections Canada, and the previous government tried to ruin our electoral system. Scheer then asked why the government didn’t choose their first candidate for Chief Electoral Officer, to which Trudeau took up a script to read about how great the chosen candidate is. Scheer then changed topics to demand that Trudeau walk back on his statement about the shootings in Gaza and blame Hamas, to which Trudeau said that he spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu about the incident and the fact that a Canadian civilian doctor was shot by an Israeli sniper, and that demanded an investigation. Scheer took exception to this, insisting that Israel goes out of its way to protect civilians, and Trudeau chastised Scheer for politicising the Israeli question. Scheer railed that Trudeau was not condemning Hamas and that they were the ones who politicised the situation, and Trudeau responded by regaling him with Conservative protesters picketing the home of a Toronto Jewish leader who openly supported the Liberal party in the last election. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, demanding an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and Trudeau took up a script to say that they were working on their plan to phase out emissions and that Trans Mountain was part of that plan. Caron demanded to know the ceiling for the “subsidy” to Kinder Morgan, and Trudeau responded off the cuff that they have strengthened measures to ensure that Kinder Morgan got their approval and that it sends a signal that projects could get built. Jenny Kwan took over in English to reiterate the same questions, and Trudeau took up his script to reminder that the G7 plan was by 2025. Kwan railed that the government had no intention to phase out the subsidies, and Trudeau reiterate their commitment to growing the economy while lowering emissions. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The problem with coalition speculation

Posted on by

We’re only a few days into the Ontario election campaign, and we’re already hearing far too much of the c-word for my liking. And by c-word, I mean “coalition” (though I have no doubt that the other c-word is being uttered by trolls over social media). And it’s so utterly frustrating because most of the time, the talk isn’t accompanied by any particular understanding of how Westminster governments work so you get a ham-fisted attempt to force coalition talks into the early days of a campaign, during which the polls could easily swing (and have in the past). And yet here we are.

Paul Wells did a great service by calling out this kind of talk in Maclean’syesterday, reminding everyone – and especially We The Media – that this kind of talk, especially on the back of torqued headlines, doesn’t really help anyone. Why? Because, aside from the fact that it’s just pure speculation, and that it distracts from actual issues at play, it also forces leaders to start ruling out hypotheticals that aren’t in play but one day might be. He also makes the salient point that post-election, things are not on a level playing field – the incumbent government is still the government, regardless of how many seats they won, and it sets up interesting scenarios if the seat counts are close, as what happened in BC last year. And time and again, media commentators seem to utterly forget that fact, which becomes extremely frustrating as they give authoritative commentary about things that are in contradiction to the realities of how the Westminster system operates.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/996229744285794304

Now, I sort of appreciate what Wherry is saying there, but the problem is that unless and until our media commentators bother to learn how the system operates, we will continue to trade in misinformation, that gets torqued for the sake of headlines, and it will exacerbate the situation and make it worse. Remember the prorogation crisis of 2008 that was precipitated by a potential coalition government willing to step in if they defeated the Harper government on a vote of non-confidence? And how the government’s talking heads were giving all kinds of nonsense answers about it being “anti-democratic,” or that they were going to “go over the head of the Governor General” and incite civil unrest if she let Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton form government? Don Newman was the only journalist who challenged these statements to their faces at the time, and, well, Don’s retired from the news business, and the rest of the pundit class hasn’t learned much since then, unfortunately, so I really am not confident that there would be pushback to wrong notions that will get promulgated if a coalition does become a reality in Ontario post-election. But as Wells pointed out, this kind of pointless speculation is the kind of empty calories and time-wasting that is irresistible to the media landscape. Meanwhile, I’ll be right here, head exploding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ethics committee theatre incoming

Posted on by

We can look forward to a heap of bad political theatre next week as the Commons’ ethics committee plans to sit on Tuesday and Wednesday in order to demand that the PM appear before them to answer questions in regards to the Ethics Commissioner’s report into his Xmas vacation with the Aga Khan, and to hear from the now-former Commissioner on the report the following day. And you can expect that it’s going to be nothing short of howls of sanctimonious indignation. Oh, and there may be legitimate procedural roadblocks to their plans given that the report hasn’t been presented to the Commons yet, according to a former Commons procedural clerk.

Regarding the demands that Trudeau appear, it would be highly unlikely that the Liberals on the committee will let that go ahead (and they have the votes to block it if necessary). And if the Conservatives cry foul, they can turn around and point to the fact that they blocked an attempt by the committee in the last Parliament to have Stephen Harper appear before them to answer questions related to the ClusterDuff Affair, and fair is fair, besides which, Trudeau has answered in Question Period and the media on this issue. And really, why would a PM expose himself to an hour of MPs trying to play Matlock, asking questions that are all traps designed to get him to incriminate himself, and then baying at the moon when he refuses to answer. It would be worse than the performances we see in Question Period these days (which are generally terrible), and we’d get the same quality of answers from Trudeau, which will be some fairly pat and trite lines unless they trip him up (which is the whole point).

Oh, one might say (and Althia Raj did on Power & Politics last night), if they want to show that this is really a new era of accountability and transparency, they it might be in their best interests to go ahead and have him go before the committee, to which I remind people what happened when Thomas Mulcair appeared before a committee to answer questions related to the satellite offices issue. Mulcair blustered, obfuscated, and then proffered a fiction that Conservatives did it too (they didn’t – the “evidence” was a riding office and a party office in the same mini-mall but several doors down from one another, but hey, they were on the same sign by the parking lot), and as he did so, all of his partisans flooded social media praising that “this is what accountability looks like.” I’m not really sure that this is the kind of thing we want to revisit.

As for Dawson’s appearance, it’s “as an individual” since she will be officially retired by then, and we can imagine that it will be much the same – each side fishing for a media clip that fits their established narrative, which they will then flood social media with – assuming that she can answer, given the procedural issue identified. And we can imagine how many questions about Bill Morneau will be asked, followed by the Liberals asking how many investigations she conducted on Conservative ministers, and on and on it will go. It won’t be a constructive use of anyone’s time, but why does that matter when you’ve got cheap political theatre to perform?

Speaking of Dawson, here’s her exit interview with the Globe and Mail in which she defends how much time she took to write that report, confirms that she didn’t discuss Bill C-27 with Morneau (never mind that doing so would violate cabinet confidence and cabinet secrecy – funny how the Globe continually ignores that fact), and defends the advice she gave to Morneau about a blind trust (“You know what the hell’s in there. That’s a defect on a blind trust”).

Continue reading →