Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Roundup: Bozo eruptions coming from the top

Posted on by

Given some of the “bozo eruptions” over Twitter over the past couple of days by Conservative MPs and senators, I have to wonder about both the mindset behind this strategy of posting, and the adult supervision that underpins it. Obviously, the latter is lacking given what we’ve seen this week especially, but we also can’t deny that there is an attempt at strategy behind it, even if it’s a strategy that’s been kluged together in service of a narrative. That narrative is to put “Justin Trudeau” and “failed” in as many sentences together as possible, but it’s also about a deliberate campaign of lies and misdirection in service of creating that narrative. But even with this in mind, some of it is just really, really dumb.

Take this tweet from Shannon Stubbs – who is a pretty decent MP, it should be stated, but seems to have lost her ability to be credible over Twitter. Part of what is so gross about this tweet is that it basically undermines our entire criminal justice system, which requires that the accused have advocates in order to have a fair trial. And she knows this – the party knows this (while they go about fetishizing victims of crime and altering the entire vocabulary around them in order to tilt the playing field against the accused so as to deny them fairness). But the temptation to be shamelessly partisan is just too much for some of them to withstand. And in the end, I have to think that it’s this mindless partisanship is often to blame – and it is mindless. It robs them of their intellect and critical thinking capacity, and makes them focus solely on scoring cheap points.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1028043707788996610

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1028049573279948800

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1028052339914104832

I’ve seen a lot of the chatter about the tweet from Senator Denise Batters about Omar Alghabra, to the point that the woke crowd is referring to as a “white nationalist,” which I’m quite sure she’s not – she’s just partisan to the point of being mindless, and that includes making ill-suited attacks to the point of dogwhistling, because it becomes reductive and about scoring points. She should know better. (As for Blaine Calkins and his tweet, well, I’m not sure I’d give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows better, so I’ll leave it at that). But there needs to be a recognition that this kind of point-scoring is actually doing damage to their own brand, and as we’ve seen this week, has blown up in their faces more than once. You would hope that this would be cause for some reflection and that they’ll think twice before continuing to engage in this kind of behaviour – but I’m not holding my breath. So long as the official line from the leader is to lie over Twitter as often as he thinks he can get away with it, he’s set a low bar of an example for the rest of his caucus to follow, and it’s no surprise that we’re seeing these kinds of bozo eruptions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recalling the committee

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day when the Commons immigration committee returned to town for an emergency meeting on the irregular border-crossing situation, and in the end, they agreed to hold two more meetings in the next few weeks to get a better sense of what is going on, and what the government’s plans are. There’s partisan gamesmanship happening on all sides of this, and each party wants a different outcome from these hearings, but they’re going to happen, and despite the fact that Michelle Rempel tries to spin the fact that she “forced” the Liberals to pay attention to this, she was apparently pushing on an open door as they were happy to do it, as their position is that this gives them an opportunity to correct the spin and misinformation that Rempel and her compatriots are putting out there.

Meanwhile, the government also made it clear that they were going to give funding directly to the City of Toronto to deal with their housing situation for migrants (only a few of which are actually irregular border crossers) because the provincial government has abdicated their responsibility to do something – while other communities outside of Toronto are willing and able to house and resettle more of them, and are actively seeking to do so. David Reevely gives more context here, and in particular notes that while the number of migrants is relatively small, the bigger problem is that they’re being put into a system that is already stressed.

But the rhetoric carries on, and Andrew Coyne takes it on in this piece – that, despite the claims, this isn’t actually a “crisis,” and treating it as such isn’t helpful, nor are the suggestions that the Conservatives are throwing out there. And worse, the Conservatives have put out a particularly problematic Twitter campaign that is being decried as racist, basing itself on a headline from a Diane Francis column in the Financial Post which is full of outright misinformation (particularly the notion that irregular border crossers aren’t screened – they absolutely are), torque, and reheated Conservative talking points. Coyne went further in a twitter thread, but regardless, the Conservatives continue to walk a fine line around pandering to xenophobic anger while still insisting that they support “orderly immigration,” as though we that were feasible 100 percent of the time. Real life doesn’t work like that, and Canada has been fortunate in that we’re protected by three oceans and American paranoia, but now we have to deal with a fraction of the migrants that other countries do. Maybe it behoves us to act like grown-ups about this.

https://twitter.com/CPC_HQ/status/1018901437730865152

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1019025705865076736

Continue reading →

Roundup: Asylum claimant dust-up

Posted on by

So there was a bit of a testy exchange yesterday as federal and provincial immigration ministers met in Winnipeg, and Ahmed Hussen got into a bit of a spat with Ontario’s new minister, Lisa MacLeod. Hussen objected to MacLeod (and Doug Ford) using the rhetoric of “illegal border crossers” and ginning up the same rhetoric of the Federal Conservatives that somehow refugee claimants take make it harder for legal immigrants (despite the fact that they’re separate processes and systems). This objection is not new either – Hussen has been saying this for weeks, so for MacLeod to get offended about it yesterday is being performative in the extreme – which is what she wants. With Kathleen Wynne no longer in the picture for her party to pit themselves against, they now need to make Trudeau their straw man. And when Hussen called the behaviour “un-Canadian,” MacLeod and her defenders accused Hussen of “bullying,” which is childish. But wait – it gets better. MacLeod loudly announced that the federal government should pay for these asylum claimants, while Hussen has been saying for weeks that they need Ontario to step up and find places elsewhere in the province than just Toronto to house them, and hey, they’re providing money to do just that. And then, because this wasn’t theatrical enough, Saskatchewan’s minister also refused to sign onto the communiqué from the meeting and demanded that the federal government not only pay for these asylum seekers (of which Saskatchewan has received zero), but that they should pay the full cost of all other government-sponsored refugees. Couple of things: 1) This is starting to get alarmingly close to the kinds of xenophobic populist rhetoric we’re seeing south of the border, and we should be very alarmed by that; and 2) Remember how the federal Conservatives just a few years ago cut refugee health benefits as a “deterrence” mechanism (which the courts later called “cruel and unusual”), which simply downloaded those costs onto the provinces? These are your political brethren.

Also released yesterday were the latest figures for the number of irregular border crossers, and it has plunged again. Because it’s a “crisis” that the government has “done nothing about.” Err, except they have been doing something about it, trying to stem the migrant flow at the source, and lo and behold, it seems to be working. For now, in any case. But the Conservatives continue to press for a meeting of the Commons’ immigration committee next week to rail about it.

Meanwhile, Martin Patriquin calls out the divisive and inflammatory language because it misses the actual issue at play, treating it as a permanent burden rather than a temporary state of affairs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Brexit meltdown accelerates

Posted on by

The big news yesterday wasn’t really in Canada, but the UK, where two cabinet ministers resigned over the “compromise” Brexit deal, and there remain questions as to whether Thresa May can survive this (though her options are severely limited given the Fixed Terms Parliament Act). Lauren Dobson-Hughes has a good breakdown of just what has been going on:

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016322801072943107

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016323358688927745

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016324262276128770

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016324886845747200

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016325516607905792

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016326668158320640

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016346420712886273

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016346941062410241

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016347987637727237

Andrew Coyne notes the difficult position that May and the Brexiteers find themselves in, where a Norway-style deal may be their out (but it will be a humiliating climbdown). Andrew MacDougall examines the internal party politics playing out with these resignations. John Cassidy highlights that Boris Johnson’s bluster aside, he can’t point to any more credible Brexit deal, which makes his departure all the more opportunistic.

https://twitter.com/cfhorgan/status/1016376257590657026

https://twitter.com/cfhorgan/status/1016376998036320256

And hey, just remember that Andrew Scheer was a Brexit proponent, and fellow leadership aspirant Erin O’Toole promulgated a fantasy Canada-UK-Australia-New Zealand trading bloc that relies on constructing a pre-WWII relationship that really didn’t exist the way they like to think it did. In case you thought that Canada is immune to such flights of fantasy.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1016330038940258306

Continue reading →

Roundup: Equalization, feigned outrage, and outsourced research

Posted on by

Apparently, we’re talking equalisation again after it was “revealed” that the current formula was renewed for another five years in the budget implementation bill and nobody cottoned on to the fact. Err, except that it was right there for everyone to see. And so you have a bunch of performative outrage from the likes of Jason Kenney about how this was the “deceitful scrapping of Equalization Renegotiation talks,” which is of course, utter bullshit but he need to create outrage that will drive his base – because if there’s anything that will be guaranteed to drive outrage in the West, it’s the deliberate lies being spread about how equalisation works in order to make themselves look like the victims in all of this (never mind that even in the depths of the recession they had the highest fiscal capacity in the country, and the fact that they have a deficit because they made the political choice to keep taxes low and not implement a PST in Alberta). But why be truthful and talk about the system honestly when you can foment outrage with lies? Way to go there. Sure, you can make the point that there could have been more public discussions around it, but there were discussions at the federal-provincial level, despite what Kenney claims.

Which brings us back to the issue of whether or not this change in the budget implementation bill was done underhandedly. Obviously the fact that it was a) in the budget; b) in the budget implementation bill for all to see; and c) raised at committee, clearly it wasn’t being hidden very well if that was the intention. Add to that, there have been ongoing consultations at the ministerial level for months, which again, not exactly being done sneakily. Paul Wells dug into the paper trails and found all of the receipts. And yet it’s being decried as having been done in some underhanded fashion. Why? Because the Globe and Mail reported that this was done “quietly.”

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1010183605581164545

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1010186623366164480

If this is indicative of any problem, it’s the fact that our opposition parties are not doing their jobs. The Conservatives have long-since outsourced their opposition to the Globeif their QP questions are anything to go by (and confirmed by this latest “outrage”), not to mention the outsourcing of yet more homework to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and more to the fact, rather than doing their jobs of scrutinising the legislation and the budget, they spent the entire spring session railing about the India trip, inventing much (though not all) of the outrage out of whole cloth, and demanding the “costs” for the carbon tax where much of the data is already publicly available or does not exist where provinces have not yet come up with their plans. But instead, they spent their time trying to invent smoking guns that would “prove” that this government is out to raise taxes to pay for their deficits (again, ignoring that the funds from carbon prices all get returned to the provinces). If you’re the Official Opposition and can’t do your own homework, then what exactly are you doing? You’re in parliament to do a job – not to generate outrage clips for social media. And yet here we are.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1010195426396422144

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cynical procedural gamesmanship

Posted on by

Thursday night’s tantrum vote-a-thon ended mid-morning on Friday, long before it was supposed to have run its course, and no, the government didn’t capitulate and turn over that report that the Conservatives have been portraying as some kind of smoking gun for months now. No, after hours of high-minded exhortations that this, on the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta, was about no taxation without information, or that this was some kind of cover-up by the government intent on raising the cost of living for everyone, they decided to pull the plug as soon as the clock struck ten. Why? Because at that point, it would be too late to start Friday sitting hours in the Commons, and thus cancelling the day’s planned debates around the cannabis bill (where they would have finalized debate on the Senate amendments and send it back to the Upper Chamber). It is probably one of the most cynical procedural stunts that I have seen in all of my time on the Hill, dressed up as bringing attention to the so-called “carbon tax cover-up,” which is itself a cynical disinformation campaign.

Worst of all was the hours of sanctimonious social media warfare that was sustained throughout it, whether it was the Conservatives dressing this up as some righteous fight over the refusal to release the information (which, let’s be clear, was apparently a projection based on the campaign platform that would mean nothing given that the carbon pricing plans will be implemented by provinces, and where the revenues will be recycled by those provinces and is largely irrelevant to the discussion), or the Liberals crying that the Conservatives were keeping them away from Eid celebrations in their ridings (so much so that Omar Alghabra accused the Conservatives of Islamophobia, and then the real wailing and gnashing of teeth started). It was so much self-righteous bullshit, and it made everyone look bad.

The Trinity Western decision

Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the law societies of BC and Ontario could decide not to accredit the graduates of evangelical Trinity Western University’s proposed law school on the grounds that the mandatory covenant that students are expected to sign infringes on the rights of LGBT students, particularly because it mandates that any sexual activity they engage in must only be within the confines of a heterosexual marriage. Of course, it’s more technical than that, because it boils down to standards of reasonableness with the decision that the Law Societies as accrediting bodies can engage in, and I can’t pretend to understand the nuances of it all – but the very smart legal minds that I follow had some trouble wrapping their minds around it all as well, because the balancing of rights is a difficult issue. Some of the legal minds I follow felt this was one of the worst decisions in years, but I’m not sure how much of that is ideological either. It’s also worth noting that this was the last decision that former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin participated in.

In reaction, here are three legal reactions to the decision, while Chris Selley worries about what it means for religious freedom, and Colby Cosh looks at what the decision means for the Supreme Court, paying particular attention to Justice Rowe’s concurring decision on the meaning of freedom of religion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another useless voting marathon

Posted on by

Unless a miracle happens and someone buckles, MPs will still be voting when this post goes live, because the Conservatives decided to demand another marathon vote session on the Estimates in order to prove a point. The point was that they want the government to table a document prepared by the public service about carbon pricing, which allegedly shows the fiscal impact – but it was redacted when released. The Conservatives see this as the smoking gun they need to “prove” that the federal carbon price backstop is a cash grab. Err, except the federal government isn’t keeping the revenues, and the provinces have until this fall to announce how they will be recycling the revenues, whether through tax cuts or whatnot, and lo, the government last month tabled a report that basically showed the efficacy of carbon pricing and that they’re waiting for the provinces to announce what their systems will be.

The Conservatives decided that their pressure tactic would be another round of line-by-line Estimates – because that worked so well the last time when they tried to force a meeting on the Atwal Affair™, only to buckle before votes could go into the weekend, and then they blamed the government for creating their own discomfort. Kind of like blaming someone else for when you hit yourself in the face on purpose to get attention. “You made me do this!” they cried. No, they didn’t, and worse, it was not only tactically incompetent (the votes had nothing to do with the demand then, and it doesn’t this time either), but by overplaying their hand, they voted against line items in the Estimates for things like funding veterans pensions or public services, all of which went into attack lines. And this time, because the government scheduled the vote for 10:30 PM, the fact that the Conservatives forced the 200 votes rather than the single vote means that Liberal MPs can complain that the Conservatives were keeping them from attending Eid celebrations in their ridings at dawn (some of them going so far as to cry Islamophobia). It’s a reach, and both sides are self-righteous about this, but come on.

As for the Conservatives’ demand, well, it’s a lot of disingenuous nonsense because the costs will be determined by how the revenues are recycled, which the federal government has no control over. Poilievre has been trying the semantic arguments that because it’s a federally-imposed tax that they need to know what the impact will be, focusing only on the cost before revenues are recycled, which is again, disingenuous and the precursor to misinformation. And if they were so concerned, they can do the analysis themselves – as Andrew Leach points out. But they don’t want to do that – this is all cheap theatre, performative outrage that the government is “covering up” information that they’re characterising as something it’s not. But as truth and context have become strangers in this parliament, none of this is unexpected.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More Bernier fallout

Posted on by

Because we can’t stop talking about the Maxime Bernier “ouster,” if it can really be called that since it was more a demotion than anything, but it still got all of the tongues wagging, and all of the reporters cornering every Conservative they could find. And most of those Conservatives downplayed the whole thing, Erin O’Toole going so far as to say that hey, there are other shadow cabinet changes coming so no big deal. The underlying message was that Bernier “broke his word” about the book chapter, which is a semantic game, but given some of the various dynamics in play, it’s hard not to try and find additional drama into the whole affair.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1006872600994123777

That Rob Silver tweet may be even closer to home than most people want to admit. I have to say that there have been some pretty spectacular expectations heaped on Bernier, particularly because he speaks to a certain slice of the party, but perhaps in a more superficial way than they want to believe. After all, many of the Ayn Rand-readers are desperate to attach themselves to someone in the party who represents them (never mind that this isn’t a party of libertarians or even economic conservatives, but right-flavoured populists), so he was someone that they could pin those hopes to, ignoring a lot of what he actually said and did. His lack of judgment when he was foreign affairs minister under the Harper government was stunning, both in his intemperate comments in Afghanistan, or with the security of documents with his then-girlfriend. During the leadership campaign, he would sign off on social media campaigns that dogwhistling to MRAs before claiming he didn’t know about the connotations of “red pills” and so on (and knowing who was running that campaign, they couldn’t not know what it meant). And his constant self-promotion in opposition to Scheer post-leadership is another sign of poor judgment. And really, we shouldn’t discount this particular bit of reasoning.

In further analysis on the whole brouhaha, John Ivison keeps his ear to the ground in the caucus and wonders if Bernier’s ouster from shadow cabinet may force a rift in the party given how close the leadership vote was. Chantal Hébert notes that it was probably a matter of time before things with Bernier came to a head (as she suggests he’s not too well-liked among his Quebec colleagues) and that the by-election timing made it something Scheer couldn’t ignore. Andrew MacDougall sees this as a failing by Scheer to manage his caucus, not properly communicating with Bernier when necessary, and keeping him outside of the fold at a time when he should have drawn him in to get his cooperation on the issue at a time when it’s under attack by the likes of Trump. Andrew Coyne similarly sees this as a failing by Scheer, but for the fact that he has bought into the line that caucus must sing from a single song sheet, particularly on an indefensible policy like Supply Management. Colby Cosh sees not only political games from Bernier, but explicit quid pro quo from Scheer for his dairy supporters who (allegedly) put him over the top in the race (though I’m not sure we have any actual proof of this), and that those dairy lobbyists have successfully leveraged intra-party dynamics to their advantage.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Undead electoral reform concerns

Posted on by

With BC’s electoral reform referendum on the horizon, and vague promises around it from the Ontario NDP as the election draws to a close, we’re apparently talking proportional representation again. Sigh. Over the weekend, Jean Chrétien made the particular case in his idiosyncratic way that the reason why it’s a bad system, and the core of his argument is that it doesn’t force people to engage with voters. Door knocking to win a riding? Democratic. Being a party wonk who gets in because they’re on a list? Not very democratic. It’s a way of looking at the practical inputs and outputs of the system that most people gloss over when they whinge about the popular vote (which, I will remind you, is a logical fallacy because general elections are not one single event, but 338 separate but simultaneous events) and how “unfair” it seems when viewed through this skewed lens.

As for this referendum in BC, it’s a bit of a dog’s breakfast with its two-stage vote – the first vote as to whether to keep First-Past-the-Post or to adopt a system of proportional representation; the second stage being to choose between three systems – mixed-member proportional with some regional weighting, dual-member proportional, and a hybridized system where urban ridings would have single-transferable-votes, and rural ones would have some kind of proportional system akin to MMP. But there are problems with all three choices – the regional weighting associated with their version of MMP exists nowhere in the world so we don’t know the outcomes; the dual-member proportional is a theoretical system dreamed up by some University of Alberta system that exists nowhere in the world and we really have no idea if or how it would actually work; and the split urban-rural system would never pass constitutional muster. If BC’s attorney general thinks that the Supreme Court would allow different voting systems based on where you lived, I suspect that he’s dreaming, and it would have to be one hell of an excuse to try and save this with Section 1 of the Charter (being that it’s a reasonable curtailing of your rights and freedoms in a free and democratic society). So, good luck with that.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne is no fan of the two-stage referendum and would rather simply prefer a single ballot where status-quo was an option like they did in PEI. Where Coyne goes wrong is when he said this as successful in PEI – it really wasn’t. They had to go some five ballots before a PR system squeaked through by the narrowest of margins with unusually low voter turnout for a province that typically takes voting very seriously. Colby Cosh, meanwhile, quite properly lambastes the whole affair as being completely gamed, because aside from the way in which they’re dubiously counting the second ballot if one system doesn’t get a majority from the start, there are still too many unknowns in the three proposals, including whether the proportional lists would be open or closed – a very huge consideration in how PR systems work, and which goes to the heart of holding governments to account in these systems. In other words, this BC referendum is shaping up to be a boondoggle from the start, which is not good for our democracy in the slightest.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Justifying a belligerent tone

Posted on by

Two days after the American tariff announcements, and I found myself still struck by the tone that the federal Conservatives have adopted with this, squarely blaming Trudeau rather than the uncertainty engine known as Trump, and engaging in the same kind of disingenuous narrative-building to justify their stance. In particular, they have been trying to claim that when Trudeau made his tour of steel and aluminium plants earlier in the year, that it was a “victory tour,” which is vastly different from how I remember it. Back then, it was about reassurance and the prime minister wanting to tell them that he had their backs and given that the government was ready for these tariffs to happen and had a package of retaliatory measures ready to go, it means that they didn’t take the reprieve for granted – entirely negating the premise of the Conservatives’ attack lines. Not that facts matter. They are also insistent that the Trudeau government has allowed itself to get “distracted” by the feel-good chapters around labour and gender in NAFTA negotiations, which again, is novel if you pay the slightest amount of attention to what’s been going on. But this isn’t about truth – this is about building their narrative that Trudeau is a dilettante who is incompetent and that the Conservatives are the real grown-ups in the room (despite evidence to the contrary). And because people have let Scheer and company lie with impunity on all sorts of files for months now, they feel emboldened to take this course of action, despite how gauche or out of step with other conservative voices in the country it may be, because they see this as their long-term game plan. And we’ll see if any of those voices call them out on it.

As for the impact of the tariffs, it turns out that they could have a far less detrimental impact on Canada’s aluminium industry because it exports more product to the US than we do steel, and America’s own smelters are older and less efficient than Canadian ones, meaning that these tariffs won’t do anything to help support the US industry, and American producers say that they could do more harm than good. Steel, of course, is a different story. The whole tariff issue, meanwhile, could mean that the lock that the American arms industry has on our military procurement may be at an end, and that our Forces may start looking to Europe for equipment instead – something that may actually be more affordable, but the tendency had been to buy from American producers under the guise of “interoperability” with American forces. As for the American companies facing retaliatory tariffs, well, they’re still learning about them, but most don’t seem too concerned. At least not yet. And many Republicans and businesses are lashing out at Trump for the move – including anchors at Fox Business.

In further reaction, Andrew Coyne believes that the sheer size of the US economy means that our retaliation will come to nothing, and even if we coordinate with other countries, we’re unlikely to change Trump’s mind, so better to work to contain the US presidency. Susan Ariel Aaronson suspects that the tariffs will weaken America’s national security interests rather than strengthen them, as Trump has used as the excuse to enact them, while Andrew MacDougall thinks that Trump’s move may benefit Doug Ford, who pledges to lower taxes and cut red tape that may appeal to people who think this can help keep Ontario’s economy competitive.

Continue reading →