Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Roundup: Judicial review and missing nuance

Posted on by

There was a development regarding a First Nations court challenge, which I’ll discuss in a moment, but first up, the campaign news. Jagmeet Singh was in Saskatoon to essentially re-announce his plans to “immediately” implement dental care – again, omitting that it’s provincial jurisdiction and he has no way of forcing provinces to do the heavy lifting – before he headed to Thunder Bay.

Justin Trudeau didn’t announce anything but met with voters at a restaurant in Quebec City, followed by a media availability where he assured everyone that his views have evolved from when, in 2011, he said he was personally against abortion but was pro-choice. He says he’s now totally pro-choice because his previous stance didn’t really make any sense – something he probably felt he needed to make clear when it was remarked that his position and Scheer’s were very similar in personally opposing abortion. Later on, he was at a tree planting with a candidate in Saint-Anaclet, Quebec, where he addressed the lawsuit issue (and again, more on that in a moment).

Andrew Scheer was in Etobicoke, where he re-announced the party’s platform as regards gun control and gangs – and much like his foreign aid announcement, this one was also based on a series of lies about bail and sentencing. More to the point, Scheer pledged more mandatory minimum sentences – which the courts keep striking down – and pledging to fight for them in court tooth and nail, so he wants to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to fight for unconstitutional laws for the sake of symbolism, apparently. But this was overshowed by yet more questions about his dual-citizenship, including his need to file US taxes, and being registered for “selective service,” meaning the draft.

But back to the court challenge, which was news that the government had applied to the Federal Court for judicial review of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision that would award compensation to every First Nations child who had been apprehended by child and family services. Immediately there was a hue and cry, and plenty of outrage (some of it performative), and a lot of hot takes from journalists who failed to understand the nuances in legal stories. And while I’m not a lawyer, I have been on the law beat for several years now, and I can say that oftentimes, these kinds of appeals are made on technical grounds because in the law, precise wording matters, particularly when one is concerned about the precedents it sets. Both Seamus O’Regan and Trudeau did address this in the media saying that they agree that the government failed these children and that they are owed compensation, but they need time to determine how to do it right, but they can’t do that during a writ period (which is appropriate, given the Caretaker convention, especially as this is worth billions of dollars). Ah, but these clever reporters said, the documents say that they are opposed to the compensation award. Now, I haven’t had a chance to read the application because it’s not online, but the CBC describes it thusly:

The application says Canada acknowledges the finding of systematic discrimination and does not oppose the general principle of compensating First Nations individuals affected by a discriminatory funding model — but it argues awarding compensation to individuals in this claim is inconsistent with the nature of the complaint, the evidence, past jurisprudence and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Now, there are clues in here as to what the government is arguing, primarily that the Tribunal exceeded its authority to make this kind of compensation order based on the kind of human rights complaint that was brought before it, including exceeding their statutory authority. So that’s not a small thing if that’s the case. And it’s a hell of a lot of nuance in the story that deserves to be explained. Any government is going to be concerned if a Tribunal exceeds its authority to make these kinds of orders, because that will impact future cases with future governments – no matter that they feel this case is deserving of compensation. But this very important detail has been completely glossed over in the search for outrage takes, which means that the reporting is doing a disservice to all parties involved.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Foreign aid announcement a house of lies

Posted on by

On what was supposed to have been the date of the Munk debate, Andrew Scheer was in Toronto to have a big press conference about his foreign policy plans, which were conveniently leaked to the Globe and Mail Monday night so that they could dominate the news cycle first thing in the morning – much to the ire of everyone on the campaign bus who pay for the privilege of being there. Scheer’s big headline was his plan to slash foreign aid spending – a blatant pander to the nativist sentiment that falsely has people claiming we should take care of our own before sending “so much money” abroad. After a lengthy diatribe that distorted, misconstrued and outright lied about the Liberal record on foreign policy, Scheer then laid out his four priorities – the slashing of legal aid (allegedly to focus on children in war-torn and poor countries while using more of the money to spend on their other domestic programmes); strengthening our alliances with our “traditional allies” (I’m guessing that means the UK, Australia, and New Zealand) and sending more military aid to Ukraine; targeting regimes like Iran with Magnitsky legislation; and “depoliticizing” military procurement. (Oh, and securing a UN Security Council seat isn’t going to be a priority for him either). But as it turns out, Scheer’s figures about what we are spending on foreign aid right now was one giant lie (and more context in this thread), and one notable example where Scheer couldn’t get a handle on his facts was that money that was sent to Italy was for relief after an earthquake there. His whole part about “depoliticizing” military procurement was just a wholly fictional accounting of the Mark Norman affair and the procurement at the heart of that situation (which was initially a highly political sole-source contract that was designed to save Steven Blaney’s seat). And to top it off, it was clear from this press conference that Scheer has an adolescent’s understanding of foreign aid – and foreign policy in general. But it should be alarming to everyone that someone who is running on “trust” went to the microphones and lied his way through an entire press conference on a policy platform that is in itself a house of lies. This election is getting worse with every passing day.

In Richmond Hill, Justin Trudeau met with some suburban mayors in the GTA to talk about gun control, but just reiterated their existing platform promises around banning assault rifles and finding a way to let cities further restrict handguns (even though these very same mayors all wanted a national handgun ban – so, own-goal there, Liberals).

Jagmeet Singh, meanwhile, remained in Vancouver to talk childcare some more, and this time pledged to let new parents retain full benefits if they take less time for parental leave than is usually allotted.

It’s the TVA debate tonight, so expect a quiet day on the campaign trail in advace of that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Capitalizing on the climate strikes – or not

Posted on by

It was a slightly less ridiculous day on the election campaign for a change, and first up of the day was Jagmeet Singh was in Ladysmith, BC, to announce that he would spend $40 million to protect the coast line, which includes protecting salmon stocks and clearing derelict vessels, as well as cancelling Trans Mountain and stopping that tanker traffic. He then went to the climate strike march in Victoria.

In Montreal, in advance of the Climate Strike, Justin Trudeau met with Greta Thunberg before announcing that he would ensure that two billion trees would be planted over the next decade, which would also create 3500 seasonal jobs (and it includes urban forests), and it would be paid for by the profits of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Andrew Scheer went to Coquitlam, BC, to announce more infrastructure plans for roads and bridges, cancelling the Infrastructure Bank calling it a “boondoggle” (reminder: These kinds of things take time to get up and running, and they did more than the Conservatives’ P3 Canada in its entire existence). Of course, on a day where everyone else was focused on climate change because of the strikes and protests, Scheer was pushing for more traffic infrastructure, and had the utter gall to say that it would help reduce pollution because people wouldn’t be in traffic as long. This of course is completely wrong, because traffic fills the available volume – it would create more traffic, and higher emissions (and congestion would be just as bad within a short period of time).

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1177669904566292480

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to draw in the Supreme Court

Posted on by

If this election could get any stupider, it did yesterday. Justin Trudeau started the day off in Sudbury, and after arriving by canoe, he promised not only to further expand the areas of land and waters that are protected areas as part of ongoing roll-out of green policies in advance of today’s “climate strike” rally, Trudeau also promised an expansion of the “learn to camp” programme, including bursaries of up to $2000 for low-income families. As someone who hates camping, this is borderline offensive – but it’s also one of the whitest of white people policies in the book. (Seriously – ask a person of colour how they feel about camping). I get that the idea is that it promotes connecting people with nature and the importance of conservation, but this was probably one of the dumbest campaign promises to date.

Andrew Scheer was not much better. From Trudeau’s riding of Papineau in Montréal, Scheer tapped into the Trumpian “Lock Her Up!” mentality by promising not only a judicial inquiry into the Double-Hyphen Affair, but also to pass a cartoonishly named No More Cover-Ups Act, which would empower the RCMP to go directly to the Supreme Court of Canada for access to Cabinet documents – all of it predicated on the lie that the RCMP are investigating the PMO (they’re not) and that they can’t get access to documents (because the Clerk of the Privy Council said no to a fishing expedition). It’s all very gross and unseemly. Not only do we not demand that the police investigate our political rivals (this isn’t a banana republic, and if the Liberals lose, then they will have faced political consequences for the Affair), but politicising judicial inquiries is a Very Bad Thing. Dragging the Supreme Court into one’s political vendettas is even worse (and I have a column on that very topic coming out later today about that very issue).

As for Jagmeet Singh, he was in Campbell River, BC to reiterate his promise to build half a million housing units, but to also flesh out his promise for income supports of up to $5000 per year for low-income renters. But again, this is provincial jurisdiction so the rental income supports will have to be a carefully designed policy, while he has yet to explain how he’ll rapidly build all of this social housing when the cities where it’s most needed are very tight labour markets, which means there likely aren’t enough construction workers to do the job, and that will drive up the costs of building these units by a lot. (Singh also completely mischaracterised the output-based system on carbon pricing as part of his trying to downplay the current government’s record, because he’s doing politics differently).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Red tape and legislating targets

Posted on by

It was a fairly boggling day on the campaign trail, starting with Andrew Scheer in St. Catharines, Ontario, to push his small business promises. Scheer pledged to reduce “red tape” regulations by 25 percent – a completely meaningless figure which means nothing when it comes to the value of regulation, and then told a completely misleading anecdote about a girl with a lemonade stand who needed to fill out all kinds of forms because of “bureaucracy.” (The real story is that said girl opened up her lemonade stand on National Capital Commission land, which is why she needed a permit, and has absolutely zero to do with small business regulations). Pledges about two-for-one rules around red tape (getting rid of two old regulations for every new one) has been federal practice since the Harper years, and his notion of a Cabinet-level “red tape reduction minister” like Alberta has is basically promising a job to someone for uselessness as Alberta has proven. (Seriously – the current government has a division in Treasury Board not only having success in streamlining regulations, but they have been working with the provinces on harmonizing regulations so as to eliminate non-tariff barriers). Scheer also complained that the tax code was too complex for these small business owners – apparently lacking any self-awareness that he’s the one who keeps proposing ever more tax credits that further complicate the tax code, so well done there. Then, after repeating the lie that Trudeau called small business owners “tax cheats,” he promised to undo the Liberals’ small-business tax changes, which has absolutely nothing to do with actually helping small businesses and restores a loophole for the wealthiest who create personal corporations to avoid paying taxes. There was a verifiable problem that the Liberals worked to solve (somewhat ham-fistedly because Bill Morneau is incapable of communicating like a human being) and Scheer has pledged to undo it for no apparent reason – certainly not one that benefits the everyday people he claims to be helping trying to get ahead. (Read through this epic thread from Justin Ling).

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1176532629039894528

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1176533727775617025

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1176536740187664384

Scheer later skipped a planned campaign event in Cambridge as there were protesters at the site (while denying that the protesters were the reason).

Jagmeet Singh was in Winnipeg to reiterate elements of his party’s climate plan, promising an east-west energy corridor (never mind the prohibitive costs or the fact that line loss is a real thing and much of that “green energy” wouldn’t survive the vast distance between Manitoba and central Ontario), a $15 billion “climate bank” and electrifying public transit.

The Liberals had a two-part environmental rollout, starting with Catherine McKenna in Ottawa to promise that a Liberal government would get to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and that there would be five-year legislated climate targets to get there (but wouldn’t give any details on how, or what the consequences for failing to meet said targets would be). Later in the day in Burnaby, BC, Justin Trudeau promised to half the corporate tax rate for companies that develop or produce zero-emission products as a way to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Because apparently there are no other mechanisms than to continue to dicker with the tax code.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Gun control theatre

Posted on by

While there was suspicion that the announcement was timed as a pivot from the past two days of bad press – Liberals insisting that his has been planned for days – Justin Trudeau was in Toronto yesterday for a morning of meeting people on the streets before he announced his long-awaited additional gun control measures which are guaranteed to please nobody – a total ban on semi-automatic assault rifles (never mind that there’s no actual definition of an “assault rifle”) with a buy-back programme, and the ability for cities to make additional regulations around handguns (as in, allowing them to attempt to ban them), plus some additional offers around licensing and the ability to forbid the purchase of new weapons after certain red-flags. The measures are not enough for those who want a national handgun ban, too far for certain gun enthusiasts, and almost certainly going to be useless because the problem of illegal guns is that the vast majority of them are smuggled from the US, which these measures largely won’t address (I didn’t see any promise for more resources for CBSA in the backgrounder). In other words, it’s a political play, trying to balance the need to be seen to be doing more about gun control for big cities where it’s a problem, while not alienating their rural voters (again), while also being hemmed in by jurisdictional considerations (Doug Ford, for example, has said he won’t go along with any kind of handgun ban that would fall under provincial jurisdiction). Nevertheless, the symbolism of banning AR-15s is something they hope to capitalise on, while they castigate Andrew Scheer for his promise to relax some gun control regulations, so that may be enough for them in the election in any case.

https://twitter.com/CochraneCBC/status/1175047467265642497

Speaking of, Andrew Scheer was in Saint John, New Brunswick, to promise that a Conservative government would spend $1.5 billion to get provinces new MRI and CT machines in an effort to reduce wait times (structural issues? What structural issues?) – never mind again that it’s provincial jurisdiction and he may have a hard time getting them to actually spend dollars that he’s earmarked for said purchases. Scheer also clarified that oil and gas subsidies would not be part of those he plans to eliminate – try to look surprised, everyone!

Jagmeet Singh was in Windsor to talk up the party’s pharmacare plan, and answer yet more questions on the Blackface issue, citing that he didn’t want to be complicit in Trudeau’s public exoneration. (And yet, the media is demanding this kabuki theatre to play out).

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: Misleading his recruits

Posted on by

After some confusion in the Conservative ranks, Andrew Scheer’s Quebec lieutenant, Alain Rayes, is apologising for misleading candidates in the province when he insisted to them that the party considered abortion a settled matter and that they wouldn’t allow any attempt to change the laws. Not so – Scheer’s actual pledge is that the government – meaning Cabinet – would not bring forward any bills, but the backbenches are free to do so, which is why anti-abortion groups have been busy trying to get their supporters nominated as candidates. And now the party and Rayes are saying that he just misheard Scheer’s pledge, which could put some of those Quebec candidates that Rayes recruited in a sticky position because some of them are saying that they decided to run for the Conservatives because they were assured that they weren’t going to touch abortion. Oops.

And this dichotomy of a hypothetical Conservative Cabinet pledges versus its backbenchers is one of those cute ways that Scheer can try to mollify the Canadian public while at the same time assuring his social conservative base that yes, he’s still the party for them, and he’s going to ensure that they have space to put forward legislation. From there, depending on whether or not they have a majority government and if so, how large it is, it comes down to counting votes to see if these kinds of bills have a chance of making it – and the current move in anti-abortion circles is to use backdoor attempts at criminalization through means like trying to create jurisprudence by means of laws that give a foetus personhood status through bills that treat them as such when a pregnant woman is murdered, for example, which they then plan to slowly extend to abortion services. It’s a long-term plan, but one that begins with getting enough anti-abortion candidates nominated and elected, so even though Scheer says his Cabinet won’t introduce these bills, as private members’ bills, they are unlikely to be whipped, and that leaves him to free his caucus to “vote their conscience.”

Of course, if he’s planning to be like Stephen Harper and assert pressure to ensure that these kinds of bills don’t make it through, then his courting of the anti-abortion community is hollow, and he’s lying to them, which will also be something that his base will have to contend with. But the clarification that only a hypothetical Cabinet wouldn’t introduce any anti-abortion measures is too cute by half, and relies on the fact that not enough people appreciate the difference between Cabinet and the backbenches, and why that distinction matters.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Partisanship and thoughtlessness

Posted on by

There was an interesting piece out yesterday about a study that showed that those with strong partisan leanings were less likely to be able to correctly identify current events, and are likely using news to confirm their existing views rather than being well informed. It’s not too surprising in the current milieu, where partisanship it turning more toward tribalism as we are apparently trying to import America’s culture wars into Canada out of some misplaced sense of envy, however I worry that this will be the kind of study that will simply turn into an exercise in confirmation bias by all sides – partisans and supposed non-partisans alike.

Let us first recall that partisanship is not actually a bad thing – it’s fundamentally about a contest of ideas and values, which is a good thing in politics. While everyone likes to talk about “evidence-based policy” and doing what’s best for all, there are fundamental philosophical differences about what that may be – and that’s okay. That’s good for democracy! Let us also recall that party membership is of fundamental importance in our system of government, and it’s one that has been gradually been debased as leaders have grown too strong and have hollowed out their parties – in part because memberships have allowed it rather than jealously guarding their own powers. We need more people to be party members, because that’s where grassroots engagement happens. We should resist the temptation to turn this kind of a study into an excuse to debase this kind of engagement in the political process.

We should also note that a big part of the problem is a lack of media literacy – particularly as the study also points to people being unable to locate where how their partisan biases line up with media outlets (which is also not a surprise, because people will paint an outlet with bias if they don’t like a story that makes their team look bad). So long as people don’t have these media literacy skills, any partisanship gets conflated with their preference for their own “teams,” and that helps magnify the kinds of problems that this study points to. It’s a complex problem overall, but we can’t simply say “partisanship makes you stupid,” as will be the temptation. Partisanship on its own doesn’t make you stupid – but if it’s mixed with other kinds of ignorance, it adds fuel to the fire.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Figures without context for outrage

Posted on by

You may have noticed that the Conservative Party’s Twitter feed recently is trying to make “100 days of Trudeau fails” a Thing – because their overriding narrative has been to put “Trudeau” and “fail” in the same sentence for the past two years now, but it still feels a lot like trying to make “fetch” happen. But as they essentially regurgitate old headlines as part of this campaign, you will find that most of the posts are missing key context, which ensures that it’s often a big figure with nothing to support it. Given that We The Media have trained Canadians with our fixation on cheap outrage stories, I’m sure this is a tactic that they feel is a slam dunk, but in any case, here are a few examples from the past few days. In other words, don’t take anything at face value, but remember that there is context (that is easily Googled) to what they are posting, and most of it makes them look pretty petty – particularly the repairs and upgrades to the official residence at Harrington Lake, given that Trudeau has been entertaining foreign leaders there as they can’t do it at 24 Sussex.

Continue reading →