Tag Archives: Kevin Vickers

Roundup: Another vice-regal safeguard?

Posted on by

As the security clearance discourse carries on, we remain confronted by the false notions that Pierre Poilievre is unable to receive a clearance, rather than the fact that he is unwilling, using the false claim that it’s somehow a “trap” to keep him from criticising the government. It’s not, there’s plenty of opportunity for him to criticise the government while being fully briefed, but as is the tradition with Canadian politicians, they have long preferred not to know because then they would have to be responsible in their commentary rather than bombastic, or as the Beaverton aptly put it, he would have to lie just slightly less than he already does.

Nevertheless, this turns to the question of what would happen if someone were to become prime minister, or at least win an election, where there are genuine security concerns about them? Well, Philippe Lagassé has an answer for that, and it lies in the reserve powers of the Governor General.

He makes a crucial point that it would be beyond the pale for CSIS and the RCMP to somehow have the veto over the appointment of a prime minister, but the discretion of the Governor General could conceivably be the constitutional fire extinguisher in such a case. It’s extremely unlikely to ever happen, but nevertheless, it’s a good thought exercise to consider given the times we live in.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile struck a residential district in Odesa on Friday, but there were no casualties. Residents in Kupiansk are fleeing ahead of a Russian advance in the area. Both Russia and Ukraine swapped 95 prisoners each in a deal brokered by the UAE. South Korean intelligence is corroborating Ukrainian intelligence’s claim that North Korea is now sending troops to right for Russia. Here’s a look at how far-right influencers openly used Russian money to make “documentary” hit-jobs on Ukraine and president Zelenskyy.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1847257217424113736

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving Legault the farm

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole paid a visit to Quebec premier François Legault yesterday, and immediately promised to give away the farm to Legault if he were to become prime minister – capitulating on Bill 21 and letting Legault expand it (in spite of the Conservatives insisting that they are all about religious freedom), signing over the language rights of federal industries in the province, and promising more provincial transfers with no strings attached, all in the name of “provincial autonomy.” At the same time, O’Toole danced around the question of pipelines, which Legault opposes and O’Toole is in favour of shoving down the throat of a province in spite of his talk of “autonomy,” so his record of policy incoherence continues unabated. (As an aside, it seems to me that giving Quebec everything it demands wouldn’t actually win O’Toole Bloc votes, but rather empower the Bloc to say that they were so effective that they got everything the demanded).

This exchange with Legault made some waves in Alberta, where the visions of Energy East continue to evade reality. So while Rachel Notley tries to score points against O’Toole, and her UCP opponents try to score their own points, here’s energy economist Andrew Leach calling out both sides on how wrong they are.

On the subject of Alberta’s oil patch, here is Leach laying out why the province over its past six premiers have engaged in a $26.4 billion boondoggle around building a refinery in the province and assuming all of the risk from their private sector partner, and will almost certainly wind up losing a hell of a lot of taxpayers’ money in the process. For everyone who insists that the province doesn’t subsidize the oil and gas sector, this is proof enough that such a claim is false, and it should enrage everyone in the province that their trust has been betrayed in such a way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney’s a federalist, but…

Posted on by

Jason Kenney made his triumphant return to Ottawa yesterday, now bearing the title of premier of Alberta, and he went before a Senate committee to a) bluster, and b) warn that if he didn’t get his way that separatist sentiment would rise in Alberta, even though he insisted that he’s a federalist, but this was somehow beyond his control. Erm, except an actual federalist wouldn’t give oxygen to these swivel-eyed loons, nor would someone who was actually concerned about the state of the federation feed them a diet of lies and snake oil to keep them angry for the sake of electoral gain.

Part of Kenney’s bluster was his threatening to launch court challenges against Bill C-69 if it gets passed in its current form, because he claims it intrudes on provincial jurisdiction – but he’s also said a lot of bogus things about the constitutionality of his promises (up to and including his threat about holding a referendum on equalisation, which he is also now equivocating on in the media), so I’m not sure he’s got a lot of credibility to spare in this legal analysis. But these kinds of threats also put me in mind a certain sense of contagion with the court cases around the carbon tax, and according to one environmental lawyer that I interviewed recently for an upcoming article, there is a sense that the provinces are trying to lay out markers in the area of shared jurisdiction, and this may be more of that – provinces trying to grab more power for their own sake.

The thing that really bothers me about Kenney’s “I’m a federalist, but…” line is that he doesn’t seem to care how dangerous it is, and how very antithetical it runs to his so-called “open for business” shtick. Do you know what drives away business investment (beyond destroying certainty by promising to tear up the environmental regime that they were partners in developing and increasing the political risk by constantly threatening lawsuits)? Separatist sentiment. Ask Quebec what it did for them, when all of those national headquarters fled Montreal for Toronto (remember when Montreal used to be the financial capital of Canada?) and their housing market plummeted? Yeah, not sure that’s something that Kenney should be trying to repeat, even if he’s using it as a threat. Beyond that, he can’t just say “I’m a federalist, but…” and not take some responsibility for the anger he’s stoked knowing full well that he can’t deliver on those promises, which will just cause that anger to fester. I know some people are trying to claim that he’s simply trying to channel that separatist sentiment into more harmless paths, but he’s courted it rather than smacked it down. “I’m a federalist, but…” just winks to them, and it’s beyond irresponsible.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney changes his tone

Posted on by

In the wake of Jason Kenney’s win in the Alberta election, he took to the microphones yesterday to try and sound statesmanlike, immediately ratcheting down his rhetoric on a number of files including his “turn off the taps” pledge (which never made any business sense) and his demand that the Trans Mountain Expansion construction get underway – acknowledging realities that he never did on the campaign trail. Of course, he still plans to kill the province’s carbon tax (and lift their emissions cap) which sets up for constitutional battles that they are doomed to lose. As for Rachel Notley, she becomes yet another woman first minister who has failed to win a second election, keeping that established pattern going. And I would encourage you all to read Jen Gerson’s roundup of the whole election, and the lessons in the end – that you can’t hope to paint your opponents as bigots and win, and that you can’t run a campaign about lashing out against the world without consequences.

This having been said, a narrative started emerging over social media as soon as it became clear that Kenney was winning last night, which was conservatives across the country were insisting that the NDP’s campaign as solely “nasty” and full of “personal attacks” which was why they lost. Kenney himself, during his press conference yesterday, insisted that he had a “positive campaign” that the media somehow missed. I’m not sure what part of lies and snake oil promises are “positive,” nor am I convinced that pointing out racism, misogyny and homophobia/transphobia is a “personal attack.” In fact, it seems to point to this aggrieved sense that I’ve seen where the Conservatives in Ottawa will go to bat for avowed racists because their racism was being pointed out – that being called a racist is somehow worse than the actual racism being espoused. That’s a fairly troubling mindset, and yet we’re no doubt going to be seeing a lot more of it as Justin Trudeau makes a concerted effort to point out the winking and nudging to white nationalists that Andrew Scheer has engaged in.

And now the hot takes – because everyone’s got one. Colby Cosh points out that this really wasn’t the Lougheed vs Klein fight that some people portrayed, and that the broader climate fight is in the works. Stephen Maher advises that Trudeau abandon his “sunny ways” (more than he already has) and start bare-knuckle brawling, adding that if Kenney lets his social conservatives loose, that could work to Trudeau’s advantage. Andrew Coyne notes Kenney’s adoption of a statesman-like tone in victory following “campaign exuberance,” and that Trudeau would be in a tough spot to not approve Trans Mountain if Kenney repeals the province’s environmental plan. David Moscrop wonders if the trends in Alberta are changing and whether its conservatism will hold for Kenney’s benefit. Tristin Hopper makes the salient point that the increasingly uncompromising nature of the environmental movement hardened Albertans against the NDP.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An important first report

Posted on by

While everyone was focused on Jane Philpott’s attempt to claim that the provisions in the garbage Reform Act weren’t met as it regards her expulsion from caucus, a much more important event was taking place, which was the release of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians’ first public report. This is the first time that Canada has seen any kind of public oversight into our national security and intelligence services, and it was important to see. One of the things that they focused in on was the oversight of military intelligence operations, for which the military thanked them for their suggestions on improving governance, but balked at the proposal for a legislative framework.

Nevertheless, the expert in this stuff is Stephanie Carvin, so I will turn over the reactions to her (full thread starts here):

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115716056247676929

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115717071185301504

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115717072657502210

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115678714291871746

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115683292928299008

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115688317452935168

Continue reading →

Roundup: Conspicuous silences

Posted on by

While responses from Canadian politicians and civil society was swift to the mass murder in New Zealand by an alleged white nationalist, Andrew Scheer’s initial tweets didn’t mention the fact that the victims were Muslims, or that they were killed in a mosque. He later put out an official statement that mentioned these things, but didn’t recant any of his winking to white nationalists with “globalist” conspiracy theories, giving succour to racists in order to “own the Libs,” or his wilful blindness of the racist and xenophobic elements of the “yellow vest” protesters that he recently addressed on the Hill (alongside other famous white nationalists, without denouncing them).

Ahmed Hussen said that people who are silent about hateful online comments feed into the narratives that lead to violence, which had Scheer’s office sniping that he was trying to score political points off of a tragedy, but it’s notable that Lisa Raitt and Michelle Rempel were calling out people posting racist responses to the news of the tragedy. (Notably, only Michael Chong called out the white nationalist problem in Canada). Here’s Carleton University professor Stephanie Carvin providing some national security and intelligence context, along with some analysis of how social media feeds this problem.

Andrew Coyne points out Scheer’s continued inability to do the right thing, not only with his poor first statement this time, but his inability to confront racists and for buying into populist conspiracy theories (and he even missed a few other examples).

Jody Wilson-Raybould

As the next Liberal caucus meeting draws closer, and a decision as to whether Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott should be allowed to remain in caucus becomes more immediate, Wilson-Raybould published an open letter to her constituents to reiterate her commitment to being a Liberal, but it was more than that. Rather than just a simple statement about serving her constituents, or some feel-good language, she went on about being new to party politics and wanting to bring change to reject the culture of conflict, empty partisanship, and cynical games. Except this reads a lot like a cynical game in and of itself because it’s both a dare to the prime minister to keep her (and Jane Philpott) in caucus – Justin Trudeau saying he hasn’t spoken to either of them, and that he had no comment on this letter – and it sounds a lot like a challenge to Trudeau and his authority. You know, like she did with her refusal to turn over relevant information about recommendations for judicial appointments, and her refusal to be given a different Cabinet post. It remains to be seen what her endgame is, but this seems to be looking more like a future leadership bid, albeit in a way that hasn’t been done by those who have done so in the past. But that said, I think it’s pretty hard to ignore that Wilson-Raybould has an endgame in mind.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1106587109429641216

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have decided that they’re going to begin a new round of procedural warfare over the demands to get Wilson-Raybould to testify again at the Justice committee, and they’re going to demand all-night line-by-line votes on the Supplemental Estimates. But…we’ve seen this show already. It’s a poor procedural protest because these votes have zero to do with the Wilson-Raybould situation, and when they vote against line items, it opens them up to attack from the government – just like the last time they attempted this and voted against things like veteran benefits allocations. It’s not smart strategy, and it’s premature because the committee hasn’t decided if they’re going to hear from Wilson-Raybould again or not. And then they’ll cry foul, like “You’re making us inconvenience everyone!” when no, nobody is making you do anything. Try again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Predictable committee stunts

Posted on by

As expected, the justice committee meeting yesterday was short and went nowhere, as the Liberals on the committee (most of whom are not regular members of said committee) voted to respect the original schedule, which is to consider next steps on Tuesday, like the plan was all along. And predictably, there was much performative outrage and the pundit class all shook their fists in outrage that the Liberals would dare to shut down the inquiry (which they didn’t), and lo, why doesn’t the PMO get it right on this whole sordid affair, woe is us, woe is us. If you need any clues that this “emergency meeting” was anything other than a stunt, let’s consider the fact that despite the fact that the committee was going to deal with next steps when Parliament returned next week, they nevertheless demanded said “emergency meeting” in the middle of March Break to denote how seriousthey were about it. (Meanwhile, if any of these MPs complain about how hard parliamentary life is on their families and children, we need only remind them that they pulled stunts like this). But when most of the actual committee members are unavailable, it’s not exactly like the bodies they’re filling the seats with are in a position to do the work of the regular members of the committee for them and to evaluate what they’ve heard. Oh, and putting Pierre Poilievre in the lead seat for the Conservatives is a flashing red light with accompanying klaxon that this is a stunt. The opposition also wanted this debate on inviting Jody Wilson-Raybould back to be in public, despite the fact that committee deliberations on witnesses and timetables happen behind closed doors for a reason. I cannot stress this enough. This kind of meeting to demand a vote in public is showmanship designed for the cameras. The feigned outrage and unctuous sanctimony when the Liberals voted the way everyone expected them to is also indicative that this was entirely a stunt. And We The Media bought it all, and nobody I saw bothered to challenge them on any part of it. Well done us.

Now, the Liberals have a choice next week, and if they don’t invite Wilson-Raybould back, it’ll be a black eye for them, deservedly. I suspect they know this. As for Wilson-Raybould, I’m not sure that anyone believes she can’t speak to her resignation, because it has nothing to do with solicitor-client privilege, Michael Wernick stated that none of this was discussed at Cabinet (hence essentially waiving any Cabinet confidence on the matter), and Gerald Butts has also spoken about this time period. If she insists she can’t, the credibility of that assertion needs to be questioned. But until the Liberals on the justice committee actually vote to shut it down and write their report, can we hold off on the pearl-clutching until then? Otherwise, we’re playing into stunts.

Speaking of predictable pundit outrage, here’s Andrew Coyne decrying that prime ministers can get away with anything in this country. Well, except for the resignations, the committee study, the Ethics Commissioner investigation, strongly worded letter from the OECD and intense media scrutiny. As for his shaking his fist at “our system,” I don’t exactly see the system south of the border any better at dealing with the blatant corruption of their president, so…yay?

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1106007982209294336

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1106012461910581255

Continue reading →

Roundup: The myth about the tweet

Posted on by

At a townhall event in Surrey, Andrew Scheer made a very big deal about the border and the “integrity” of our immigration system. At the centre of it is his invention is the mythology that the #WelcomeToCanada tweet two years ago somehow opened the floodgates. It’s ridiculous on its face, and it ignores the context during which that tweet happened – the recent election of Donald Trump, and the talk of the “Muslim ban” that was ramping up tensions and causing a spike of panic among asylum seekers and refugee claimants in the States, as well as a demonstrable rise in hate crimes. And we can’t forget that within days of this tweet, the Quebec City mosque shooting happened, from which there was a direct correlation drawn to the rhetoric of Trump and his surrogates around Muslims. Trudeau was attempting to take a different approach, and to highlight the decision to bring over Syrian refugees when Trump and his surrogates were insisting that it would be bringing in terrorists (recall the “poisoned Skittles” meme), but Scheer is choosing to ignore all of this.

And then there’s the entire mischaracterisation of the immigration and refugee determination systems, and the very deliberate conflation of the two. They’re separate, and are resourced separately, which makes the constant attempt to portray asylum seekers as somehow disadvantaging “legitimate” immigrants a deliberate attempt to turn immigrants against refugees and asylum seekers. Scheer will then insist that he’s not anti-refugee – that he’s met people in refugee camps who don’t understand why other people can cross the border and “jump the queue” – except of course that there isn’t an actual queue, but rather a process. In fact, those in the camps are usually chosen for resettlement by the UNHCR, and often done by private sponsorship – something that Scheer is a big fan of. In fact, during the Harper era, they reformed a lot of the refugee system to try and offload as much responsibility for resettlement onto the UNHCR, and to more heavily weight private sponsorship over government. (Note that Maxime Bernier is making a big deal about taking more responsibility for refugee determination away from the UN, which could create a wedge, or push Scheer to up his tinfoil hattery around the UN’s processes). Again, asylum seekers who cross the border are separate from those processes, and don’t have the same system impact, because it’s not Canadian officials doing most of the work. It’s another artificial dichotomy that ignores the context of the situation of these asylum seekers and seeks to again create divisions between people involved in those separate processes. Nothing about refugee claimants or asylum seekers is actually impacting the “integrity” of the immigration system – it’s a false dichotomy.

But it’s a wedge, and one built on lies, which is what Scheer is hoping for. Is there a cost to asylum seekers? Yes, absolutely. But we also need to remember that Canada is getting off extremely lightly by sheer virtue of our geography, surrounded by ocean on three sides and the US border on the other, which filters out the vast majority. Scheer shouldn’t expect sympathy from anyone about the influx we’ve seen (which, I remind you, is not out of step with historic norms). In a world facing a migrant crisis, with more displaced people since the Second World War, there are far more who would argue that Canada isn’t doing enough, and telling lies to make it look like we’re under siege because of a single tweet is more dangerous than he realizes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mike Duffy, white knight

Posted on by

Oh, Senator Mike Duffy. For his suffering, he has decided to launch a $7.8 million lawsuit against the RCMP, the Government of Canada, and the Senate itself. It’s not just about the two years of suspension without pay, or the reimbursement or legal fees, or indeed about the further clawbacks of his salary that the Senate undertook for his abuse of expense claims, or about the lost income from speaking fees that he could have claimed had he not been dragged through the process. No, Duffy is so concerned about the lack of Charter rights for those who work on the Hill that he’s willing to take on this multi-million-dollar lawsuit for the principle of the matter.

Such a hero.

https://twitter.com/alisoncrawford5/status/900772376023113729

https://twitter.com/alisoncrawford5/status/900772544394997760

Now, I will be the first to admit that yes, the way in which Duffy’s suspension handled was hugely problematic, and that his rights to due process were trampled on because of political expediency, it cannot be argued that the Senate was illegitimate in the way it acted because as a self-governing parliamentary body, the Senate not only has the ability to police its own, it is in fact the only body that can police its members because of parliamentary privilege and institutional independence.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/900782489937084416

While Duffy’s lawyer was effusive in his characterisation of Duffy’s acquittal, I’m not sure that it completely passes the smell test – Duffy was found not to have met the criminal test for fraud and breach of trust, but you cannot say that no rules were broken. The Senate has pointed to numerous examples where this was the case and fined him appropriately, and while he claims that the rules were too loose and vague, that is certainly not the case with all of his rejected claims. And it will raise questions if this suit goes ahead because the judge’s ruling was indeed problematic (and I know for a fact that there are other judges on that same bench who were not keen on it), and without an appeal being raised, that could raise more questions with this trial – if it goes to trial.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/900796074029395971

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/900796765833756673

Of course, we can’t deny that perhaps Duffy is looking for a settlement of a couple of million dollars, but I’m not sure that of the parties involved, the Senate would bite and go for it. They are still pretty sore about the whole thing and are keen to continue to prove that they are taking a hard line to those who abuse it. I would wager that they are more likely to fight this to the bitter end on principle, come what may.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt sees an odd parallel between Duffy and Omar Khadr in that their rights were violated (which is a bit of a stretch, legally speaking), while Christie Blatchford suggests that perhaps Duffy is indeed owed something because his rights to due process were robbed.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/900915036637593600

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ontario’s “basic income” scheme a bit suspect

Posted on by

The province of Ontario decided that it was going ahead with a three-year pilot project around basic incomes in three municipalities around the province – Hamilton, Thunder Bay, and Lindsay, each testing different circumstances and local conditions. But there are problems with the way this is all designed, which Kevin Milligan (who has been studying this issue) outlines:

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/856631472920215553

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/856694725453139968

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/856632112035778560

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/856632918684311552

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/856633716961034240

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/856634821199527936

In other words, this isn’t really basic income, which makes it all that much harder to actually evaluate its efficacy, and if it’s not displacing existing welfare or benefit programmes, then it’s not really recouping those costs which makes this hideously expensive. And that’s really been the biggest problem with basic income proposals – the cost. While the idea is that they would displace current benefit programmes, there is less money to be had in cutting the red tape and bureaucracy than one might think, and I’m pretty sure that Bill Gates’ idea of taxing robots to pay for basic income for the workers they displace isn’t really feasible either.

Oh, and then there are the political considerations.

With an election not too far off in this province, we’ve seen a few moves by this government to try and out-left the NDP in places, hoping to cobble together the same sort of winning voter base that they managed to in their last election, and which their federal counterparts similarly managed in 2015. While I get the merits of basic income, I remain dubious of its feasibility, especially when this pilot project appears to be so poorly designed. But then again, I’m not an economist.

Continue reading →