Tag Archives: RCMP

QP: Mendacious privacy concerns

Posted on by

For the first time this week, all of the leaders were present for QP, and Andrew Scheer led off, and he decried the “intrusions” of StatsCan collecting financial transaction data. Justin Trudeau, as he did the last two days, read a script to assure Canadians that the data is anonymised, and that they are working with the Privacy Commissioner. Scheer insisted that this was an extraordinary, and Trudeau dropped the script, and insisted that privacy was being protected. Scheer tried again, ignoring that the data was anonymised, and Trudeau hit back by decrying the Conservatives’ quest to eliminate data and evidence that they find to be inconvenient. Scheer went yet again, and this time Trudeau called it an attempt to sow fear and division. Scheer raised the number of government privacy breaches that resulted in a class-action lawsuit, to which Trudeau paid had his respect for the work of the Privacy Commissioner while the Conservatives continued to play politics over it. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, demanding web giants be taxed like is happening in the UK and Spain. Trudeau read a script about how they were reviewing the Broadcasting Act and to point out how much they have invested in the cultural sector. Caron switched tracks to complain that CRA was only after going the little guys and not major tax evaders, to which Trudeau read about the investments they’ve made in CRA to combat tax evasion. Nathan Cullen was up next to demand that outstanding by-elections be called, and Trudeau assured him that he would call those by-elections soon. Cullen tried again, and this time, Trudeau praised their new elections legislation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Proposing a debate commissioner

Posted on by

Yesterday the government unveiled their plan to establish an election debate commissioner, who would set about coordinating leaders’ debates during the next election, along with proposed around which party leaders could participate – rules that would give Elizabeth May an in, but could exclude Maxime Bernier unless he gets an awful lot of candidates in place, and his polling numbers start to rise. The proposed Commissioner is to be former Governor General, His Excellency the Rt. Hon. David Johnston, who is a choice that nobody is going to want to dispute.

Of course, that hasn’t eliminating the grumbling and complaints. The NDP are complaining that they weren’t consulted before Johnston was nominated (not that they’re complaining it’s him), and the Conservatives are calling this a giant affront to democracy and add this onto their pile of complaints that Justin Trudeau is trying to rig the election in his favour. (Not sure how this does that, and it seems pretty cheeky to make these claims when their own unilateral changes to election rules in the previous parliament were panned by pretty much everyone). And Elizabeth May is overjoyed because the proposed rules would include her. Of course, Johnston still needs to be approved by Parliament, and he will appear before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, but all of this having been said and done, there remain questions as to why this is all necessary. Gould went around saying that this was because Harper didn’t want to do debates in 2015, except that he did debates – he simply didn’t want to do the same “consortium” debates that are usually done and decided by the TV broadcasters, and he most certainly didn’t want to have anything to do with the CBC. The key point they seem to be making is that the 2015 formats saw far fewer viewers than the consortium debates typically attract, for what it’s worth. Is this a reason to implement a new system, that neither compels leaders to participate or broadcasters to air? Maybe, and people will point to the debate commission in the United States.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1057344603861397506

To that end, here’s Chris Selley asking some of those very questions, looking at some of the problematic behaviour from broadcasters in response to the changed formats from the 2015 debates, and offering some suggestions as to how this all could be avoided.

Continue reading →

QP: No answers about “Jihadi Jack”

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau back in town, all of the leaders were present for QP, and most of the benches were pretty full. Andrew Scheer led off, concerned that “Jihadi Jack” was approached by Canadian officials to patriate him here. Trudeau took up a script to read that they they took terrorism seriously, and were collecting evidence to bring people to justice. Scheer asked again, more slowly, and Trudeau read the another script about travelling abroad for terrorist activity being a Criminal Code offence, but didn’t answer the question. Scheer tried a third time, and Trudeau put down the script this time to praise the work of intelligence agencies and security officials, and said they wouldn’t play politics with keeping Canadians safe. Scheer tried a fourth time, and this time Trudeau accused him of distorting events to create division. Scheer tried one last time, and Scheer accused him of grasping at straws to make Canadians feel unsafe. Guy Caron was up next, and he demanded more action on climate targets, and Trudeau read a script about all the good work they’ve done to date, taking a shot at the Conservatives and the NDP along the way. After another round of the same, Nathan Cullen took over in English, and cranked up the sanctimony as he repeated the question, and Trudeau said that while they have to do more, they are on track to meet their targets. Cullen railed again about Harper’s targets, and this time Trudeau noted that pricing pollution is part of the solution, as was investing in clean technology, citing the LNG agreement as an example of being good for both the environment and the economy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Secret document demands

Posted on by

The saga of Vice Admiral Mark Norman’s trial is making its way to the floor of the House of Commons, as Norman’s defence team has been trying to suggest that Brison tried to play a part in delaying the Davie Shipyard contract on behalf of his friends in the Irving family. Brison, meanwhile, tried to fend off the attacks in QP by suggesting that he did his due diligence as Treasury Board president to question the sole-source contract that the previous government entered into on the eve of the election.

Where this gets even more interesting, however, is with the suggestions in the documents that Norman’s team filed, was that senior bureaucrats tried to scuttle the deal because it could interfere with the established National Shipbuilding Programme, which everyone was so enormously proud of, and from there, Norman tipped off Davie officials, which was eventually leaked to the CBC. Added to that, Norman’s team are demanding a number of documents that have been deemed to be Cabinet confidence, which creates added complications because those are secret and could demand all new levels of safeguards for the court process if they are to be turned over. Trying to make political hay out of the government turning over the documents or not could be fraught with future consequences, however, for any future government that wants to protect secret materials from a court process, and given the growing propensity for people to turn to the courts when they lose at politics, that possibility could come sooner than one might expect. Nevertheless, this is an interesting case to keep an eye on, if only to shine a light on how broken our country’s procurement processes really are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Shifting the blame upstream

Posted on by

Have you seen that Internet meme going around about 100 corporations being responsible for 71 percent of the world’s GHG emissions? Congratulations, you’re fooling yourself as to what this really means! There’s an interesting piece in the National Postright now that breaks down what that study actually shows, and it’s not what you may think. The problem with the report that shows this statistic is that it shifts the blame for the emissions upstream to producers rather than downstream to consumers – so Exxon is being blamed for emissions from cars, when it’s consumers who are driving demand for their gasoline by, well, driving. And when you sort out upstream and downstream emissions, it turns out that those 100 corporations are really only responsible for about seven percent of those emissions – the rest are really the responsibility of consumers.

Why is this important? Because by presenting the problem as being driven by those 100 companies, it gives the impression that they can be dealt with as corporate bad apples who can be regulated into reducing that tremendous chunk of emissions. More importantly, it tells consumers that they’re not the ones responsible, it’s the fault of evil corporations – never mind that they’re responding to consumer demand. And this takes us back to the conversation around carbon pricing. When hucksters like Jason Kenney and Andrew Scheer insist that they can meaningfully reduce carbon emissions without carbon taxes (note: Kenney’s carbon tax plans only target large emitters that pay into a “technology fund”), it once again leaves consumers off the hook, which defeats the purpose.

Consumers drive demand, which drive emissions. If you target consumer behaviour by putting a price on the emissions they’re causing, you’re working to change demand, whether it’s through better fuel economy, insulation in housing, or making different choices about what it is they’re consuming and how carbon intensive their consumption is, you’re dealing with the problem where it starts. Carbon taxes are a transparent way for consumers to see what it is they’re using, and allows them to make choices. When you target companies instead, you’re simply passing along the costs to them in the form of higher prices in a non-transparent way, and in a costlier way because regulation is a far less cost-effective way of driving emissions reductions. So indeed, rather than trying to ensure that consumers aren’t being hit by the costs of carbon pricing, you’re actually ensuring that they’re hit even more (particularly because the costs of doing nothing will be even greater still). You can’t pretend that this problem can’t be solved without a focus on consumers, and that starts with recognizing that consumers are the problem, not corporations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Populist myths and the lies they tell themselves

Posted on by

The Nobel prize has been awarded to economists working on issues of climate change, who point to the need for carbon pricing to get markets to come to a consensus about finding solutions, and what do we get in Canada? Doug Ford going on tour to see Scott Moe and Jason Kenney to decry carbon taxation, and to lie to people about the efficacy of carbon taxes. They work, despite what Ford, Kenney, Scheer, et al. say, and we have the data to prove this.

The Ford/Kenney rally was apparently quite something, a demonstration of partisanship over politics, and a demonstration about what how this all relates to our recent discussions over populism, with the carbon tax as a wedge issue. But while this is being put against this notion that Stephen Harper is trying to put forward in his new book about how “conservative populism” is somehow trying to weed out the worst instincts of populists, but that can’t actually be true if the dog-whistling still goes on. In her piece about the Ford/Kenney rally, Jen Gerson relayed the anecdote about people attending the rally being asked to cover up their MAGA hats with oil sands stickers – but the MAGA hats are still there, even if they’re being literally papered over. Kenney and Ford still play semantic games around the same terminology that the xenophobes use (such as the use of “illegals”), and it’s still a dog-whistle. And it can’t be any surprise that because of all the dog-whistling that the Soldiers of Odin have started posing with UCP candidates in Alberta while wearing their badges and vests. You can’t simply say “Oh, it’s unacceptable these people show up to our events” when you keep inviting them with the dog-whistle language. (There’s a lesson in here for Maxime Bernier as well).

Meanwhile, John Geddes went through that excerpt of Harper’s book and deconstructed his arguments and his analysis about populism, and his nonsense construction of “Somewheres” and “Anywheres.” Aside from the fact that it’s deeply ironic that Stephen Harper, strong friend of Israel, is using the same “rootles cosmopolitan” argument used in Soviet propaganda to vilify Jews, it’s just trading on baseless mythology and trying to build an argument around it that doesn’t actually hold any water. But it also goes back to what Ford, Kenney and others are pandering to – they’re denying that problems exist, and then undermining the institutions that can help solve them. Such as with the looming climate crisis. We need a wake-up call.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A quixotic UN quest

Posted on by

It’s time for the United Nations General Assembly, and while prime minister Justin Trudeau won’t be making an address at the Assembly this year, he did give a speech yesterday about Nelson Mandela, and how other should follow his legacy, and later in the day, announced a $20 million contribution to a global infrastructure hub.

The other thing that everyone is talking about is Canada’s (possibly quixotic) quest for that temporary Security Council seat in 2020, which means a lot of schmoozing and diplomatic niceties during the General Assembly – and it’s going to be an uphill battle, for which Canada has so far…deployed a logo. Add to that, the government hasn’t really articulated why exactly this is important to our foreign policy other than to stick it to the Harper years when they decided that they wouldn’t bother going for the seat again in a fit of pique.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044218706937696257

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044218710519623685

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044218714202214400

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044284604310478848

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044287893554946048

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044288949806481408

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044291455454404608

Meanwhile, this session of the General Assembly will see the adoption of the Global Compact on Refugees, which Canada had a hand in crafting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier still hanging on

Posted on by

Apparently we’re going to talk about Maxime Bernier again, because of course we are. Yesterday’s developments included a couple of new Twitter missives, and Andrew Scheer finally, finally, held a press availability to discuss the situation, in which he basically said nothing. While not condemning Bernier’s remarks yet again (thus tacitly endorsing them), Scheer said that Bernier doesn’t speak for the party, that they value diversity, and no, he won’t talk about “caucus dynamics” when it comes to whether her plans to turf Bernier from the party. But that particular dynamic may be slightly more complicated.

There are a couple of reasons why Scheer is gun-shy when it comes to flexing his leadership muscles when it comes to Bernier’s constant stream of eruptions. One of them is that Bernier has a base within the party that Scheer can’t afford to alienate. Or at least that’s the theory – Éric Grenier teases out the numbers of Bernier’s support a bit more, and he’s not really a top fundraiser, nor may his base be as big as it’s made out to be. Part of this is because a number of supporters flocked to him in the leadership because he looked like a winner, and he got frontrunner momentum. Remember that many of these people also supported Kevin O’Leary, because he looked like a winner. So there’s that. There’s also the theory that because the Conservatives have bound themselves to Michael Chong’s greatly flawed Reform Act that the leader can’t expel a caucus member, that they must do it in a vote. That’s of course more of a theoretical consideration than a realistic one, given that the Act is largely a paper tiger – there is nothing binding in it, there is no enforcement, and it was so watered down in the process of passing it that it’s less than useless (and indeed is actively harmful to how leadership politics works in this country). Not to mention, Scheer has the option of threatening not to sign Bernier’s nomination papers for the next election (something the Reform Act promised to solve then didn’t), so it’s not like Scheer is without actual levers to push Bernier out if he so chose, even if he was bound by the useless Act.

Meanwhile, I will turn your attention to something else that Paul Wells noticed over the past few days when these tweets started.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030207649168543744

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030214242023047169

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030215199809105920

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030247683389181952

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030230923885727744

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cluelessly disparaging parliamentary privilege

Posted on by

Sometimes you read an op-ed so clueless that it burns. This piece by lawyer and part-time law professor Daniel Tsai about the Mike Duffy lawsuit is one of those pieces. Tsai argues that the lawsuit is an opportunity for the courts to make changes to the Senate that, according to him, will make it “more accountable.” As his evidence, he cites statements from Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative” Senator Peter Harder darkly musing that some senators may want to protect their friends, and Senator Marilou McPhedran’s quest to root out harassment in the Senate as “proof” that the problem is the Senate’s parliamentary privilege. But he also cites former Senator Don Meredith as a case of harassment without also acknowledging that it was because the Senate has parliamentary privilege that they’re able to discipline their own, and that they had recommended expulsion for his breaching the Senate’s ethical code, and that forced his hand to resign. This is a feature, not a bug.

The whole piece demonstrates that, lawyer or not, Tsai doesn’t understand what privilege is, the importance of Parliament’s need to be self-governing (if it’s not, we might as well just turn power back over to the Queen), or the fact that the institutional independence of the Senate (which allows it to hold the government to account) requires it to have a robust set of privileges that can police its own members rather than subject the institution to threats of lawsuits from its various members when they’ve feeling sore by the fact that they’ve been disciplined. Weakening privilege won’t make the Senate more accountable – it will make it vulnerable to vexatious litigation, and along the way, weaken the House of Commons’ own parliamentary privileges as well (because the privileges of the Senate and the Commons are inextricably linked).

None of this is to suggest that the Senate is perfect – it’s not, and there have been bad apples that generally have been made to resign when the going gets tough. Tsai completely ignores the constitutional role of the Senate and the way in which it’s constructed with a defined purpose in mind in order to engage in some populist pandering to the myths that surround the institution. His “solution” about a judicially-imposed limitation on the privileges that are embedded in the constitution (seriously?!) would make things worse, not better.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Explaining the system to Ford

Posted on by

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had his first meeting with Ontario premier Doug Ford yesterday, and it went about as well as could be expected. While the expected topic was going to be carbon pricing, Ford’s people pre-emptively put out a release saying that they were going to wash their hands of the whole irregular border crossers issue, citing that it was the problem the federal government created and they would have to pay for it going forward. Which is a pretty interesting interpretation of areas of provincial responsibility. Trudeau took this in stride, apparently, and in the press conference after, said that he took the time to explain some of the confusion that the premier seemed to have around the issue and things like the difference between immigration and asylum, and Canada’s international obligations when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers. For what it’s worth.

Of course, Ford’s provincial immigration minister lashed out after this happened, but what I find particularly telling about all of this is how much it relies on the kinds of partisan talking points that the federal Conservatives have been putting out around how this is entirely the fault of Trudeau’s #WelcomeToCanada tweet (which would be predicated on ignoring the political situation in the United States), and that it misrepresents the number of migrants who have been since shuttled to Ontario as a result. Now, the federal government is not blameless, as they have been slow to ramp up the resources needed to process claims and were a bit slow off the mark to look at ways to communicate with the communities on the ground in the US – a tactic that ultimately has proved to be successful, but not before a wave of arrivals had already crossed the border. The other thing that is notable is that the predominantly American framing of “illegals” has been cropping up here too, which should be a warning sign about the kinds of populist rhetoric that is being repurposed for domestic effect.

The other thing that this highlights is the fact that we have a provincial government that got to where it is on the basis of simple slogans and unrealistic promises (no, you’re not going to get cheaper gasoline or buck-a-beer), so it should be no surprise when they start making noises that don’t reflect their obligations, both nationally and internationally. Yes, they can try to get more money out of the federal government – which they are providing – but trying to wash their hands of the issue (while subtly playing into the kinds of xenophobic populism that they have largely eschewed to date) is not going to fly.

Continue reading →