Tag Archives: RCMP

Roundup: A likely missile strike

Posted on by

It was another day of shocking revelations as Justin Trudeau held another press conference yesterday to confirm that intelligence from many sources – including Canada’s own – gave a strong indication that it was indeed a missile that brought down flight 752 outside of Tehran, though it may not have been intentional. He struck a very somber tone, and continued to call for Canada’s participation in the investigation – while Iran’s spokespeople are denying that it was a missile, and so far only limited access is being offered to Canadians (though they are apparently approving the necessary visas for consular access). It’s also important to note that Trudeau specifically referenced Canadian intelligence sources, because it’s less likely (historically speaking) that it would be manipulated for political purposes, than if we simply relied on American intelligence.

Another term cropped up several times yesterday, which was the call for a “credible” investigation – another important consideration as it is likely that Iran may be trying to obfuscate and obscure part of the investigation in order to ensure that they can avoid the culpability for the incident, though we are hearing that lessons learned from crashes like MH17 over Ukraine has helped investigators learn more when one side (Russia, in that case) is not cooperative – and Trudeau did note that he reached out to the prime minister of the Netherlands to learn more about how they dealt with the crash of MH17, as they were the lead investigators there. Maclean’s has a bit more here about investigations and what it may look like.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne glumly notes that there is little that Canada can actually do it if is proved that Iran shot down the plane (presumably deliberately as opposed to accidentally), in particular because we have outsourced our defence to the Americans for so long. Likewise, Matt Gurney goes into more detail about just how limited Canada’s options are when it comes to responding to the worst-case situation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland on tour

Posted on by

For the past two days, Chrystia Freeland has been in Alberta to talk to the mayors of Edmonton and Calgary, as well as premier Jason Kenney, and she is continuing her tour there today, heading to the north of the province, where she grew up. There have been a couple of themes emerging from her tour from those she’s visited – from the mayors, it’s a sense that it’s great that she’s there to listen and hear their concerns, and from Kenney, it’s a bit of a sense of impatience that there haven’t been enough “concrete” actions yet.

I was struck after the meeting with Edmonton’s mayor on Monday about the talk of his trepidation that Kenney’s “Fair Deal” plans would make it harder for cities to deal with the federal government to address their priorities, and that he was looking for some particular assurances – and indeed, we’ve heard for the past couple of years that cities were frustrated that federal dollars weren’t flowing because the provinces were holding things up in what appeared to be some partisan pique (given that most of those provinces now have conservative governments). The federal government has been looking at more ways to deal with cities directly, and this appears to be more confirmation of the need to do just that.

This having been said, I am curious as to when Freeland is going to start further calling Kenney’s bluffs with regard to his “demands” and his threats around them. Justin Trudeau fairly effectively cut the legs out from under Scott Moe’s equalization fairy tales, and one imagines that it’s a matter of time before Freeland starts to – very diplomatically – do much the same with Kenney and some of his utter nonsense. Those “concrete actions” Kenney wants – retroactive fiscal stabilization funds, unrealistic demands related to the former Bills C-48 and C-69 (which are now law) – will eventually need to come to a head and Kenney will huff and puff and claim separatist sentiments will explode, but he doesn’t have too much room to manoeuvre himself – his cuts have proven very unpopular, and the patience of his constituents is going to run out, no matter how much he tries to distract them by fomenting anger at Ottawa. Freeland knows this, and I’ll be curious to see how she manages it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Convention confusion

Posted on by

The Conservatives announced over the weekend that their policy had convention had been postponed to November in order to give more time to their leadership contest – but then had to spend the rest of the day explaining that no, this didn’t mean that the leadership was going to be held in November, and no, they hadn’t made any final decisions on the leadership, and so on. Because it would have been great if they’d actually said that in their press release.

With this in mind, I figured I would do my best to clarify what part of the problem is here, which is that they don’t actually have leadership conventions anymore, but “leadership events” where all of the mailed in ranked ballots get counted up in a dramatic way to try and replicate the fun and excitement of a delegated convention. One might assume that they might try to kill two birds with one stone and have both events at the same time, but we’ll see if that is actually the case.

This having been said, we also need to remember that so long as we have a system where there is direct election of party leaders by their membership, and that those leadership candidates are running on policy slates as though this were an American presidential primary, it starts making party policy conventions into a bit of a farce. Why? Because so long as leaders feel empowered to move ahead with the policies that they have a “democratic legitimacy” to enact, then what does the grassroots policy preferences matters? We’ve seen this erosion across parties for years, and it will continue apace under this Conservative system just as it has with everyone else so long as we keep up this bastardized system of membership votes for leaders.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lethal overwatch?

Posted on by

There’s been some chatter about a story in the Guardian that purports to show BC RCMP communications that would have allowed for “snipers” and “sterilizing” of Indigenous protests in the province over LNG pipelines – which the minister of Indigenous services wants some answers to, and which the RCMP denies is actually legitimate, citing that the terminology used isn’t consistent with their own, or that some of it is being misinterpreted (in particular “lethal overwatch). To that end, here’s Justin Ling with a bit of context and nuance to consider before you get agitated at what’s being reported, as it may not necessarily be correct.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Competing economic illiteracy

Posted on by

As someone who covers a fair bit of economic stories, the absolute inability of this government to come up with a definition of “middle class” is exhausting – and those of you who read me regularly will know that I will instead use Middle Class™ as a means of showcasing that it’s a meaningless branding exercise. And lo and behold, when challenged to offer up a definition during one of his year-ender interviews, Justin Trudeau said that “Canadians know who’s in the middle class and know what their families are facing and we focus more on the actual issues.” And I died a little bit inside. For a government that keeps insisting they’re all about data, and evidence-based policy, their refusal to offer a meaningful measure of what their core narrative is all about is entirely about branding. By not offering a definition, they don’t have to exclude anyone – because everyone believes they’re middle class (whether they had ponies or not). And more to the point, by not offering a metric, they can’t measure whether they’ve succeeded for failed – it’s only about feelings, which makes their talk of data and evidence all the more hollow.

And then there’s Pierre Poilievre, who, when challenged about the definition of a recession, makes up a bullshit response and thinks it makes him clever. It’s as economically illiterate as the Liberals’ Middle Class™ prevarication, but the fact that the Conservatives keep cheerleading a “made-in-Canada recession” that no economist sees on the horizon, and which they can’t even fit into the actual definition of what a recession is (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth) sets a dangerous path of spooking markets. It’s all so stupid, and reckless, but the party’s current path of pathological dishonesty makes them blind to the danger of it all.

On perhaps a related note, Trudeau’s director of communications, Kate Purchase, is leaving to become a senior director at Microsoft, and good luck to her – and she really is one of the nicest staffers and was actually helpful to media in stark contrast to the Harper crew. But I also hope that perhaps this means that her replacement can start ensuring that this government can start communicating its way out of a wet paper bag, because cripes, they have done themselves zero favours over the past four years.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Payette’s personal contributions

Posted on by

With some adjustments to the pomp and ceremony to accommodate Parliament’s new dual-building status, the Speech from the Throne went ahead yesterday, and the speech itself was not all that exciting. There was a big focus on the environment and climate change, a whole section on reconciliation with Indigenous people, and this government’s watch words of “middle class prosperity,” and the government sprinkled just enough hints that could mollify the other opposition parties if they were looking for something to justify their support, though both Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh came out to puff their chests out and declare that they weren’t happy with what was in the speech.

More concerning was the fact that the Governor General herself contributed to writing the speech, which is unusual, and dare I say a problem. Her role is to read the speech on behalf of the government, and there are centuries of parliamentary evolution as to why this is the case, but her having an active hand in writing the speech – even if it’s the introduction (and in particular the notions of everyone being in the same space-time continuum on our planetary spaceship), it’s highly irregular and problematic because it means that Payette is once again overreaching as to what her role in things actually is, and that she’s unhappy with it being ceremonial (a failure of this government doing their due diligence in appointing her when she is not suited to the task). While one of my fellow journalists speculated that this may have been what was offered in exchange for her having to read a prepared speech (something she does not like to do), it’s still a problem with lines being crossed.

And then there was the reporting afterward. When Andrew Scheer said that he was going to propose an amendment to the Speech during debate, Power & Politics in particular ran with it as though this was novel or unusual, and kept hammering on the fact that Scheer is going to propose an amendment! The problem? Amendments are how Speech from the Throne debates actually work. It’s part of the rules that over the course of the debate, the Official Opposition will move an amendment (usually something to effect of “delete everything after this point and let’s call this government garbage”) to the Address in Reply to the Speech, and the third party will propose their own sub-amendment, and most of the time, they all get voted on, and the government carries the day – because no government is going to fall on the Throne Speech. There is nothing novel or special about this, and yet “Ooh, he’s going to move an amendment!” Get. A. Grip.

And now, the hot takes on the Speech, starting with Heather Scoffield, who calls out that the Speech neglected anything around economic growth. Susan Delacourt makes note of how inward-focused this Speech is compared to its predecessor. Chris Selley lays out some of Trudeau’s improbable tasks in the Speech, as well as the one outside of it which is to play a supporting role to Freeland and her task at hand. Paul Wells clocks the vagueness in the Speech, but also the fact that they are setting up for games of political chicken in the months and years ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: That Video and worst instincts

Posted on by

For well over the past two days, the news cycle has been consumed with That Video, and the interpretations of what was said on it. And because so many members of our media act feel the need to be tattletales, narcs, and scolds, what was an interesting tableau turned into an international attempt to get someone – particularly Justin Trudeau – in trouble.

First, despite the fact that the scene was spotted by a CBC producer from the NATO pool feed, people started circulating that this was some kind of illegally obtained footage from Russian spies and circulated as disinformation on their Sputnik network. (Nope). Then came everyone interpreting it as some kind of mockery or high school gossip, when it turned out to simply be an animated recounting of the unscheduled press conference, and the surprise announcement that the G7 meeting was to be held at Camp David. And because everyone is a tattletale and a narc, they brought it up at Trump’s press conference with Angela Merkel, he responded by calling Trudeau “two-faced” and that he was just sore because he got called out for not spending enough on defence (that’s not how NATO works), and then he cancelled his closing press conference and went home – but not before remarking before reporters that the whole “two-faced” thing was a big joke to him. Meanwhile, all of the Canadian commentariat is having a meltdown, and all of them went on the air with fantasy versions of just what the conversation was in That Video, and everyone describing it as “disparaging” or “gossip,” when they simply didn’t have the context that Trudeau provided to them the next day when he was pressed about it in his own media availability. So, any serious conversation about the future of NATO was basically overshadowed because a bunch of excitable journalists watched a video, jumped to conclusions, and let their narc instincts get the better of them – and then wouldn’t shut up about it.

And then come the scolding pundits, as night follows day. Like Matt Gurney, who characterized Trudeau as “mocking” and “gossip” and who said that Trump was right about our not spending enough. (Reminder: DND can’t actually get all of the current spending out the door because they don’t have the capacity or manpower, and it will take years to get enough people trained up). Or Heather Scoffield, who is concerned that this could mean Trump will tear up the New NAFTA or start imposing new tariffs – as though he needed excuses anytime in the past. Much more sensible was Susan Delacourt who said that it was about time that world leaders didn’t walk on eggshells around Trump, and that world leaders should stop simply looking on silently as his constant rule-breaking goes on around them.

On top of this incident was the complete mischaracterization of a video of Princess Anne, the Queen, and the Trumps. While there was a longer video where Anne escorts the Trumps to the Queen’s receiving line, and at one point the Queen looks over to her and she shrugs – no one left in the line but me – and everyone carries on. But a shortened clip started circulating and certain journalists falsely characterised it as the Queen chastising Anne for not greeting the Trumps and Anne didn’t care. And yet the false version went viral.

We don’t need Russian disinformation bots. We’re perfectly capable of distributing all manner of breathless disinformation without them. Cripes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Contemplating compromised committees

Posted on by

As the summoning of the new Parliament draws ever closer, we’re seeing more stories about the procedural intricacies of the first few sitting days, and the coming confidence vote on or before the 10th because of the Supply cycle and the need to pass the Supplementary Estimates before that date. Fair enough – those can be expected to pass pretty handily because nobody is going to want to head right back to the polls (and I wouldn’t expect the Governor General to grant an immediate election either – the developing convention is waiting at least six months, providing there is another viable governing party, though that would be the real trick given the current seat maths).

This all having been said, there was something in this interview with Pablo Rodriguez, the new Government House Leader, which sticks in my craw, and that’s the talk about possibly undoing the rule changes that prevent parliamentary secretaries from being voting members on Commons committees, and I. Just. Cannot. Even.

While the chances of this happening are fairly slim, given that it would require opposition support and they are unlikely to get it, it’s still crazy-making. This reflex to go super political in a hung parliament is understandable but deeply frustrating because it undermines the whole raison d’être of Parliament, which is to hold the government to account, and committees are one very big piece of the accountability puzzle. Parliamentary secretaries should have no business even being near committees because it undermines their independence. It’s bad enough that under the previous parliament, they were still on the committee in a non-voting capacity, but it still allowed ministers’ offices to attempt to stage manage what went on (to varying degrees, depending on which committee it was). Having the parliamentary secretaries as voting members simply turns committees into the branch plants of ministers’ offices, and we saw this play out for the better part of a decade under Stephen Harper. Committees are not there to simply take orders from the minister and waste everyone’s time, and it would be hugely disappointing if the Liberals returned to that way of thinking simply because it’s a hung parliament. If we think that the only time to let Parliament function properly is if there’s a majority for the government, then it’s a sad state of affairs for our democracy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Upcoming Speaker election

Posted on by

As you may be aware, the very first order of business in any new Parliament is the election of a Speaker, and today we have confirmation that the incumbent, Geoff Regan, is planning to run again for the role, as are the deputy and assistant deputy Speakers from the last parliament, Bruce Stanton, Carole Hughes and Anthony Rota, and one new face, Conservative MP Joël Godin. What is new in this Parliament is the plan to run the election by way of preferential ballot rather than successive rounds of voting, which is no doubt intended to speed up the process and reduce the use of hospitality suites between voting rounds as has happened in previous Parliaments. (ETA: Apparently I am mistaken and this is the second time they will have used a preferential ballot. My apologies). The speedier process will also allow them to have the Speech from the Throne on the same day, which is unusual in and of itself.

One of Regan’s main advantages in this race is experience, which is going to be a very important consideration in a hung parliament situation. And while many of us would love an assertive Speaker like the UK’s John Bercow (perhaps without the alleged bullying of House of Commons staff), who did a lot to protect the rights of MPs against the party leaders and the Cabinet, we have to remember that Canadian Speakers are hampered by the Standing Orders that limit their powers. Some of those rules may be changing – the Liberals pledged as part of their platform that they would like to see the Speaker do away with the speaking lists provided by the party whips and House leaders, which frees up the Speaker to pick MPs to speak and perhaps enforce some more discipline that way – but it’s only a half-measure so long as we still allow scripts and prepared speeches in the Commons. Nevertheless, if they go ahead with even the half-measure, that could be a bigger challenge for any Speaker to take on, so having one with some experience under his (or her) belt would be a beneficial thing.

Meanwhile, Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column offers the guidebook on how the Speaker election will be run, as well as just what the job entails should any other MPs be considering the job.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making demands with a smile

Posted on by

Manitoba premier Brian Pallister was in Ottawa yesterday to meet with prime minister Justin Trudeau, and to try and offer some “friendly advice” about dealing with the whole “Western anger” situation. Pallister also penned an op-ed for the Globe and Mail that was full of said “advice,” most of which was pretty dubious, but in the aftermath of his meeting, he said a bunch of things like the country can unite around climate action if they set their partisan differences aside – in other words, if the federal government abandons their plans and just lets the provinces do whatever, adding that a carbon price “isn’t the only way” to fight climate change – technically true, but it’s proven the most effective mechanism and the only one which deals with the demand-side of the problem. (In subsequent interviews, Pallister also ignored that the point of the national price is to avoid provinces from undercutting one another, which you would think might be a big deal). Pallister also made some hand-waving gestures around a municipal handgun ban given the province’s problem with violent crime, but that’s already being panned locally.

But back to Pallister’s op-ed, which was largely an exercise in blame-shifting and simple fiction. He blames the divisions on the federal government’s “economic, energy and environmental policies,” which is curious and convenient. Those policies? Bill C-69, which he blames for delays in a Manitoba flood mitigation project for which the new regime doesn’t apply. That project has been under the Harper 2012 assessment regime, which should be a clue as to why the federal government saw the need to make changes to it – not that it stops Pallister from repeating a bunch of the fictions that have been applied to the legislation by its opponents. He also counsels finishing the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is what the federal government is in the process of doing. Pipe is going in the ground. People beating their chests about it won’t make the process go any faster.

Pallister then goes on to complain about interprovincial trade barriers which is – wait for it – entirely in the hands of the provinces and not the federal government to lower. He makes mention of 34 exceptions which the federal government controls, but that’s 34 out of hundreds, and this government has set up a process to work with provinces to harmonize regulations that create barriers. They have been doing the heavy-lifting – more than the Harper government did – but it’s gone completely unacknowledged. That Pallister is shifting blame to the federal government is pretty rich when it’s the provinces who are the problem. His final “advice” for unity? Giving the provinces more money for healthcare. I’m not sure what that has to do with national unity or “healing the divisions,” but there you have it. It’s pretty clear that like Jason Kenney and Scott Moe, Pallister is trying to use the focus on this “anger” to try and leverage it to what he wants, and he won’t let the truth be a barrier for him. Just because he delivers the message with a smile doesn’t make the “advice” friendly.

Continue reading →