Tag Archives: Peacekeeping

Roundup: At long last, the mandate letters

Posted on by

On what turned out to be the final sitting day of 2021 for the House of Commons, the prime minister finally released the mandate letters for his ministers, nearly three months after the election, and two after they were sworn in to their new jobs. I’m not sure how well I can articulate the utter absurdity of the situation, because there is really no excuse why it took this long (let along why it took him as long as it did to swear in his Cabinet or to summon Parliament). The fact that they were released after the House agreed to rise at the end of the sitting day means that there can be no interrogation of these letters by the opposition until January 31st, which is way too long.

As for the letters themselves, there is a theme among them about building a more inclusive and fair country, and for tangible results to be better communicated to Canadians (you think?). Some of the highlights include:

  • Ordering several ministers to take a harder line on trade tensions with the US
  • Resurrecting legislation on CanCon requirements for the internet and having web giants pay news outlets, as well as modernising the CBC
  • Renewed action to fighting systemic racism, along with a number of initiatives directed toward the Black community
  • Implementing UNDRIP in all decisions
  • Developing a new cyber-security strategy

No doubt more attention will be paid to these letters over the coming days, and we’ll see how much misunderstanding comes from them (recall the line about not creating new permanent spending programmes from Chrystia Freeland’s previous letter which people took to mean all rather than in the context of COVID supports). It also looks like we’re getting talking heads grousing about inclusivity as though it were somehow a distraction from economic growth when inclusive growth is where the country needs to be headed to head off economic challenges plaguing us since before the pandemic.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1471544703212404736

Continue reading →

Roundup: Swift passage, but not for the better

Posted on by

In another surprising move, the Senate passed the bill to ban conversion therapy at all stages yesterday, with no committee study, meaning that it only needs royal assent now, which can happen at any time. But while this is a relief to many, it’s also a tad irresponsible.

The lack of study of the current bill in the House of Commons was a political gambit designed to keep the Conservatives from being trapped by their own social conservative members, and to avoid giving any more media clips about people supposedly overcoming “lesbian activity” and so on. The fact that this version of the bill is different from the one that passed the Commons in the previous parliament is relevant, and there are changes that deserved some actual scrutiny because there were live constitutional questions around them (and yes, I asked the minister about it during the press conference, and I asked other questions about the bill during the not-for-attribution technical briefing, but those are not on the parliamentary record). And yes, this matters because the Senate should have done the work that MPs opted not to do out of political expediency. That’s one of the reasons why the Senate is the chamber of “sober second though”—because they don’t have to deal with the political repercussions and ramifications when the politics wins out in the Commons.

Unfortunately, politics also won out in the Senate (which should be an indictment of its supposed more “independent” existence these days). Acting Conservative leader in the Senate, Senator Leo Housakos, in his speech to give the bill swift passage, said that this issue shouldn’t be made into a political wedge like the Liberals were doing. Which is ironic because it wasn’t the Liberals who were holding up the bill previously by slow-walking it, refusing to let debate collapse, and by putting up speaker after speaker to offer the same concern trolling. That wasn’t the Liberals being political—it was 100 percent on the Conservatives for that, and now they’re trying to shift that blame. Yes, passing this bill at all stages was the expedient thing to do, but from a process and a parliamentary perspective, it was not the right thing to do, and it’s going to make the courts’ jobs that much harder when this inevitably gets challenged and they have little on the record to go by.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Who they gave succour to

Posted on by

Cast your minds back to summer of 2018, when prime minister Justin Trudeau attended a Liberal rally in rural Quebec and encountered a woman heckling him about refugees crossing the border at irregular points of entry. As part of this, she demanded to know when Trudeau would support “Québécois de souche,” a term tinged with racism as it applies only to those who descended from the early French settlers, essentially considering anyone without those particular roots to be some kind of contagion upon the state. Trudeau called out her intolerance, and she tried to sue for defamation.

A Quebec Superior Court judge dismissed her case, and pointed out the fact that she had tried to use the incident to make a name for herself among far-right circles, all while claiming that she has empathy because she’s a nurse, and will treat anyone. More to the point, the judge pointed out that she was deliberately trying to provoke the prime minister, and was thus the author of her own misfortune, and in dismissing the case, ordered her to pay legal fees.

So why bring this up? Because if you also think back to when the House of Commons returned shortly after this incident, the Conservatives all rushed to give succour to this woman, and tried to frame her aggressive questions and demands as though she was “just asking about the budget.” No, seriously. Conservative after Conservative stood up in the House of Commons to whine that “if Trudeau doesn’t like your questions, he calls you a racist.” Because in their minds, being called a racist is a worse crime than the actual racism that the woman was displaying. And it goes to show what the party is willing to stand up for, and who they are willing to protect if they think they can score points from it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Nail-biter by-elections

Posted on by

The Liberals won the two Toronto-area by-elections last night, but with far less comfortable margins than before. While Marci Ien won Toronto Centre, Green Party leader Annamie Paul came in a not-too-distant second place, which was a surprise showing for her considering she was a far-distant fourth in the previous election. In York Centre, Liberal Ya’ara Saks pulled ahead at the very end, but it was a constant dance with the Conservatives most of the evening, and very close (and close enough there may yet be a recount). While it’s not good to read too much into by-elections, one supposes that this should be a bit of a warning to Justin Trudeau about going to a snap election, given how close it was. There should also be a warning for Trudeau in here about engaging his own party membership – one suspects that there are a lot of angry Liberals who are incredibly unhappy about the way that Trudeau short-circuited the nomination process and simply appointed candidates in both ridings, cutting out the grassroots membership to the detriment of democracy as a whole. Erin O’Toole will crow that he made progress in the GTA with nearly winning York Centre (though the Conservative candidate was almost a non-entity in Toronto Centre), though Maxime Bernier’s entry into the race in that riding ostensibly took enough votes away from O’Toole to lose the race. Hopefully O’Toole won’t take that as a cue to go even more extreme to try to attract those voters.

Fiscal anchor

At a talk for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, prime minister Justin Trudeau said that the government wouldn’t be setting a new fiscal anchor while the pandemic was still ongoing – but that there would soon be a “robust” fiscal update presented. This immediately gave the whole it’s-1995-and-will-always-be-1995 crowd the vapours, but there is credible economic thought that this isn’t the time for a fiscal anchor because it would simply be a signal to cut spending at a time when that spending is building resilience into the economy and is giving us a leg-up on recovery over other countries. Erin O’Toole followed up and handwaved that if his party was in charge, they would have done everything better, offering no evidence to that end.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1320794340747194369

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding an answer on provincial measures

Posted on by

With the prime minister in town but not in the Chamber, his deputy was, which tends to be better in any case. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he decried that the government announced the appointment of a special representative for the fisheries dispute in Nova Scotia. Chrystia Freeland assured him that they want a peaceful, constructive solution, and that everyone wants to assure the rights of First Nations people as well as conservation, O’Toole then pivoted to boil water advisories on First Nations and Neskatanga in particular, to which Freeland noted that they are working hard to solve the advisories, but there was shared responsibility as the Conservatives didn’t solve the issues either – but she didn’t offer anything in the way of candour about the particularities of the situation. O’Toole then decided to thump his chest on China and their dubious numbers early in the pandemic, to which Freeland reminded him not to lecture her on authoritarian regimes because she lived in one and reported on them extensively, and she listed concerns Canada has with China’s actions and human rights abuses. O’Toole went again in French, got the same answer, and for his final question, he went on a paean about democracy and transparency versus Chinese dictatorship, and in a very slow and calm tone, Freeland cautioned O’Toole that they draw very careful lines about what is permissible in democracies, and that he is engaging in the most base partisanship. Alain Therrien got up for the Bloc to decry businesses suffering in “red zones” in Quebec, to which Freeland assured him a bill was coming in days. Therrien stated this was too little too late, to which Freeland listed measures they have provided to businesses so far. Jagmeet Singh was up next by video, and in French, decried the Neskatanga situation, and insisted that Trudeau had no intention of keeping his promise on boil-water advisories. Freeland disagreed, and stated they we working to address it and had made progress. Singh switched to English to repeat the question, and got much the same answer. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Looking for the path forward

Posted on by

The day in protests and rail blockades did not improve much, with more temporary layoffs announced, and new blockades were erected across the country, one of them near Edmonton, which sparked locals going in to try and dismantle it themselves – the kind of escalating behaviour that could get out of hand very quickly, and yet several prominent Conservative voices were either cheering on that kind of behaviour, or “warning” that more of this would happen because people were “frustrated.” Meanwhile, in Parliament, Andrew Scheer threatened to move a vote of non-confidence as part of the Conservatives’ Supply Day today, but decided to withdraw it late in the day, planning instead on a motion to condemn the current handling of the blockades. One suspects he may have overplayed his hand by threatening non-confidence, but the performative outrage continues to roll along. The premiers are also agitating for a teleconference with Trudeau, which could also happen today, for what it’s worth. As for Jody Wilson-Raybould, she continues to insert herself into this discussion, as though anyone would trust her.

As for the underlying situation, here is look over the history of the consultations with the Wet’suwet’en, and how the company appeared to have cut some corners when it came to the hereditary chiefs and their concerns. Here is a look over some of the issues with the different types of chiefs, and what is known about the agreements with the elected chiefs, as well as some additional context on how Indigenous law interacts with Canadian law. As for the RCMP presence, the hereditary chiefs want them and any company personnel gone from the work site before they hold any negotiations, citing that their presence acts as duress otherwise, and no, replacing the RCMP with some kind of Indigenous police force would not change that situation. What could also complicate things further is that four of the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have arrived in Ontario to meet with the Mohawks leading the blockades here (while the one Mohawk grand chief who counselled them to dismantle the blockades has now publicly walked back his comments).

So where to from here? It seems to me that given that the government cannot order the RCMP or other police forces to clear the blockades – particularly without escalating the situation and creating a series of Oka or Ipperwash crises across the country – nor can they order the RCMP to withdraw from Wet’suwet’en territory, it means that it’s up to Coastal GasLink to swallow the losses and go to the court to withdraw the court order that the RCMP went in to enforce that touched off this whole mess. One has to wonder whether anyone is counselling them to that very effect, but if that’s the way out of this situation, then they may have to take their lumps and do their part to walk the country back from the brink, because there don’t appear to be any clear paths out of this particular mess otherwise. It should also be a warning to other developers that they can’t keep cutting corners, particularly with regards to Indigenous peoples. CGL should have consulted the hereditary chiefs as well as the elected ones, provided proper reassurances that no, this was not a stealthy way to put a bitumen pipeline through their territory (because yes, that conspiracy theory is floating around), and done that work ahead of time. The days of cutting these corners has to stop, or we’ll keep going through this exercise time and again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Waiting – or not – for a Cabinet call

Posted on by

One of the more interesting stories that was out first thing Friday morning was that of new NDP MP Heather McPherson, the party’s only Alberta MP, who mused openly to the CBC that she would be willing to take on a Cabinet position if prime minister Justin Trudeau offered it – but she wouldn’t cross the floor for it. Hours later, she backtracked on Twitter, saying that she obviously wouldn’t take a Cabinet position – likely because it was pointed out to her what that would entail. While this is obviously a rookie mistake, it might be worth delving into a bit more for the sake of everyone’s edification.

First of all, having an opposition MP in Cabinet – who remains an opposition MP and who hasn’t crossed the floor – is pretty much a coalition, even if you don’t want to call it that. Being in Cabinet, she would be bound to Cabinet confidentiality and solidarity, meaning that she would have to vote with the rest of the Cabinet, even if the rest of the NDP were opposed; and confidentiality could be a very sticky issue if they want to ensure that she’s not going to divulge Cabinet secrets to her caucus colleagues behind the closed doors of the caucus room (which in and of itself has its own confidentiality convention that, like Cabinet confidentiality, is intended to let the members have free discussions without then being picked off by media when their views are off-side from the rest of the Cabinet or caucus, as the case may be). Now, there are exceptions to how this can work, such as in New Zealand where they have developed a system where they could swear her in as a member of the Privy Council and bring her into Cabinet discussion where appropriate by not make her a full member of Cabinet (as they do with Green MPs in that government), but I’m not sure what the utility would be in this case, when there are better options available to Trudeau (such as appointing a Senator, which is more in keeping with our own traditions and one of the reasons why our Senate exists in the way it does). Regardless, the point is moot, and that’s as far as the thought exercise extends.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1190232873477058562

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1190247532246556672

Continue reading →

Roundup: Childcare and competing mistruths

Posted on by

It was a crazy-pants day on the campaign, so here we go. Justin Trudeau was out the door first today in Kitchener–Waterloo, with a pledge to create more before-and-after school care spaces for children, which will also involve the creation of a secretariat to do the negotiating with the provinces and lay the groundwork for a pan-Canadian childcare system (which won’t need to include Quebec, given that they already have their system). The pledge was also to reduce the fees parents are currently paying for before-and-after school care by ten percent, so we’ll see how that works out logistically and procedurally. There is an argument to be made here that ensuring this kind of care means more parents – and especially women (and Trudeau made this point in his announcement, showcasing that gender-based analysis was part of it) can re-enter and remain in the workforce. Given the state of our labour pool in this country – essentially at full employment – it is incumbent to ensure that we have the maximum rate of participation by women and minorities so that they can fill those labour shortages. (More thoughts on the announcement in this thread from Lindsay Tedds).

Jagmeet Singh’s big announcement in Longueuil, Quebec, was a “star candidate” – very loosely defined – who was a one-time provincial Green leader in Quebec who is now running for the NDP, against Pierre Nantel, the NDP MP who crossed to the Greens (and the riding is that the “star” very badly lost in many years ago). Apparently, there is now a tit-for-tat battle with the Greens as to who crossed the floor to whom, because that’s helpful.

Elizabeth May launched her party’s full platform, which they claim is “fully costed” – err, except that costing won’t be released for several days. Economists are already picking holes in the promises, particularly the promise for a guaranteed livable income (thread here).

Andrew Scheer was in Kelowna, BC, framing the election as the life you want being in reach or getting further out of reach, and after his tirades about Justin Trudeau and his laundry list of mistruths about the state of the deficit and the carbon price and he announced his plan to restore yet more tax credits, this time for children’s sports and arts programmes, and unlike under Harper, these tax credits would be refundable, so that even low-income families who don’t pay taxes will be able to benefit. When asked about how he could afford these plans, he said that his path to balance was over a five-year time period, and then he proffered a fantasy version of Energy East (who cares about economics), and claimed his climate plan was the only “real” one (verifiably untrue). Most unbelievable was that, when pressed about false statements that he and his candidates were making about Liberal plans, he went on a tirade about how Justin Trudeau lied, so it was fair for him to keep promulgating these false statements.

And then, suddenly, Scheer drops an allegation that Justin Trudeau had drinks with Faith Goldy and he wanted answers on that. The Liberals responded shortly thereafter with a blanket denial, but if this election is going to be fought over who was in the same room as Faith Goldy, it’s going to be a long five weeks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flashbacks about prorogation

Posted on by

It was a day of flashbacks to 2008, as Boris Johnson asked the Queen to prorogue the Parliament in Westminster, and social media had erupted with cries of “coups,” “dictatorships,” and wannabe constitutional scholars ignoring nearly two centuries of Responsible Government as they tried to implicate the Queen in granting Johnson’s request. Of course, there are some fundamental differences between now and the 2008 prorogation, such as the fact that there will still be a “washing up period” of a few days, as is traditional with UK prorogations, and time where the opposition can still try to move some kind of motion to try and stop a no-deal Brexit, though I’m not sure what mechanism they would use. A private member’s motion would be non-binding (and would carry only the symbolic weight of the Chamber), while a private members’ bill would try to impose some kind of negative obligation on the government – even if it could be sped through in those final days – and if there is no no-deal option on the table, it would then impose the necessity to have some kind of deal, which the Commons has already rejected. There is also the option of moving a non-confidence motion in those remaining days, which could topple Johnson’s government, ostensibly. The prorogation is also for a couple of weeks, and will return Parliament by October 14th, which still leaves it time to do something about Brexit before the October 31stdeadline. Johnson’s move may be dubious – and a dick move – but it could have been much worse. It’s not a coup. It’s not demolishing democracy. And it’s not eliminating parliament as an obstacle to Johnson – in fact, it may have only made it worse, as the move signals his desperation.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166695661108105216

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166717156140244992

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166680410392289280

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166683151588057089

All of this being said, we need to also remember that some of the received wisdom of the 2008 prorogation crisis needs to be challenged. For example, people keep insisting that Michaëlle Jean was wrong to grant Harper the prorogation (ignoring that if she refused the advice of her prime minister, he would have been obligated to resign, which would have created a whole other constitutional crisis), that an opposition coalition would have been able to take over. The problem is that said coalition was never really viable, and pretty much everyone knew it. And this was proven correct by the fact that it did not survive the prorogation period. Had it done so, had they banded together and moved a motion of non-confidence, then formed a coalition, then sure, it would have proven that it was viable, and it would have reinforced that the system was working (as it did in when Sir John A Macdonald did not survive a prorogation to avoid a confidence vote around the Pacific Scandal). But the coalition fell apart, proving that Jean was right to simply grant the prorogation – making Harper stew about it for a few hours – and doing her job in acting on the advice of a first minister. But you’re going to hear a rehash of the coalition fanfic of the day, and we need to remember that it was only that – fiction.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt offers her thoughts on the prorogation, the disconnect between parliaments and the outside world, and the idle speculation about whether Stephen Harper’s 2008 prorogation may have inspired Johnson.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The inevitable committee bat-signal

Posted on by

And now, the hangover from Wednesday’s Ethics Commissioner’s report, starting with the inevitable demand from the opposition parties that the Commons Ethics Committee reconvene for an emergency meeting to hear from the Commissioner, plus a list of witnesses, to fully explore the whole thing in front of the cameras yet again. And while a meeting has been called for next Wednesday, it will inevitably be that the Liberals on the committee (or rather, those from nearby ridings who have come to the meeting to fill the seats) will say that with the report, we’ve heard everything we need to and Canadians can make a decision in October, and deny permission for the meeting, which will then be followed by the other parties bemoaning the cover-up and secrecy, and then we’ll move onto campaigning. As you do.

Elsewhere, we heard from Jody Wilson-Raybould who said that the revelations about how deeply SNC-Lavalin was working with the department of finance was a surprise to her. Jane Philpott said she felt sad by the whole affair, and troubled by the attempts to discredit Wilson-Raybould in the prime minister’s submissions to the Commissioner, and she thinks an apology is warranted. Trudeau, however, is steadfastly not doing so. Mario Dion thinks that his office needs the power to levy sanctions for breaches like this one, as there currently aren’t any. SNC-Lavalin will be carrying on with their Federal Court of Appeal bid to get judicial review for the Director of Public Prosecution’s decision not go discuss a DPA with them.

Another emerging theme from this whole sordid affair is the issue of the post-retirement careers of Supreme Court of Canada justices, several of whom became embroiled in the affair. Amid calls for new rules around what constitutes proper activities for these retired justices, there does seem to be a recognition by the current Chief Justice and the Canadian Judicial Council that there may be an issue, and they are having these discussions.

Meanwhile, Chris Selley notes that the Commissioner’s report seems to impugn the way that governments do business, especially when they make a big deal about investing in a company and showing up with a giant novelty cheque (though we’ve seen a lot fewer of those under this government than the previous one) – and he thinks it’s about time. Law professor Errol Mendes details how Dion has made a serious misinterpretation of his enabling legislation and jurisdiction in the creation of this report, which should be concerning (and We The Media need to be far less deferential to Officers of Parliament because they are not always right).

Continue reading →