Following statements marking the two fallen soldiers who were killed by terrorists on Canadian soil four years ago, Andrew Scheer led off in French, mini-lectern on desk, reading a demand to deal with returnees from groups like ISIS, and that included demanding support for their opposition motion. Justin Trudeau responded with a statement of support for the police and intelligence services who are looking to bring these people to justice, and that they would support their motion. Scheer switched to English to repeat the demand, saying the government hasn’t done enough, and Trudeau reiterated the response in English. Scheer switched to the Mark Norman case, demanding the records from PMO be released to Norman’s defence, and Trudeau said that he wouldn’t comment on the case as it’s before the courts. Scheer insisted that he didn’t want comment on the case, but wanted to know if he would release the documents, to which Trudeau said that there were all kinds of other things they could ask about but they were fixated on this court case he couldn’t comment on. Scheer took Trudeau up on the invitation to ask about the New NAFTA, and wondered about caps on dairy exports to third countries, but Trudeau simply praised Supply Management and didn’t answer. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, lamenting that Canada could not meet their GHG targets, to which Trudeau accused the opposition of refusing to accept that the economy and the environment to together. Caron changed to French, and railed about the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline, and Trudeau listed investments in environmental protection that they’ve made, and insisted that they would meet their GHG targets. Hélène Laverdière demanded that arms to Saudi Arabia be halted, to which Trudeau picked up a script to read his condemnation for the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, and said that they were working closely with G7 allies. Laverdière switched to English to repeat the demand, and Trudeau read his English version of the script, with new paragraphs on strengthening export permit reviews.
Tag Archives: Terrorism
Roundup: A “grand coalition” is a terrible idea
Over in New Brunswick, where there has been no movement on whether or not there will be a new government, we are being treated to such views as the suggestion that there should be a “grand coalition” between the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives in the province to…rise above partisan interests? Erm, well, leaving aside the fact that there is a lot of bad blood between the leaders and it’s never going to happen, I find the suggestion in and of itself utterly offensive. Why? Because our system depends on there being an opposition to hold the government to account. That’s the whole point of parliament after all – to hold government to account, and while backbenchers are supposed to play that role as well as the opposition, in practice it often doesn’t work that well because the incentives are rarely there when there are Cabinet posts to distribute and the fact that we’ve bastardized our leadership system so as to neuter caucus’ ability to hold their leaders to account. Such a “grand coalition” would mean that the province has an opposition comprised of two three-member parties, which would have to fight over who gets to be the Official Opposition, and would have a hard time doing the job of holding a massive coalition government to account.
Now, I will add that New Brunswick and its peculiar political culture once returned a legislature that was 100 percent Liberal and had zero opposition members, and they managed to make it work. Sort of. But it’s not a situation that anyone should want to repeat, because it’s a Very Bad Thing for democracy and the practice of Responsible Government. Opposition plays an important role, and I know that people don’t like it because the adversarial nature can become both theatrical (witness Question Period), but if members don’t take that theatricality to heart, it can become embittering – especially if there are few avenues for cross-partisan bonding. I don’t know enough about how that part of the political culture works in New Brunswick, but the diminishing avenues for such bonding in Ottawa has created a less collegial parliament than it used to be in years past, and that’s a problem.
https://twitter.com/SkinnerLyle/status/1052295726477312000
Meanwhile, the lieutenant governor is straying dangerously out of her lane in issuing statements warning the parties to come to a solution because she doesn’t think the province wants a new election, and that means also finding a Speaker. This shouldn’t be public, and I get that some people want transparency, but she shouldn’t be doing this – especially because it gives people the idea that she can boss around the premier, which she can’t actually do unless we want to undo 170 years of Responsible Government in this country. It’s especially bad if the parties are trying to play the LG and trying to force her hand in some way – which is the kind of gutless manoeuvre that we should expect from Canadian politicians who don’t like to be seen to be making unpopular decisions and will try to foist the blame onto someone else. This whole situation is distasteful, and everyone needs to grow up and behave like adults.
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1052316915140423680
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1052317982884425729
https://twitter.com/SkinnerLyle/status/1052335901366476800
QP: No answers about “Jihadi Jack”
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.
Trudeau avoided answering the same question five times, and if he’s true to form, he’ll have a script that approaches the topic in another 24 hours. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 16, 2018
Roundup: Protecting parliament from court interference
The decision in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council) at the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday has been described in some cases as relieving the government of the Duty to Consult Indigenous communities when preparing legislation, but I think some of that misses the very real issue of the separation of powers and parliamentary privilege – particularly when the news channels would immediately trot out Indigenous lawyers to say that this was an infringement on the Duty to Consult, and that it was a “missed opportunity” to get legislation right, and so on. (And lo and behold, here’s Pam Palmater to argue just that, and I find her analysis flawed). In fact, the CBC piece on the decision buried the aspect about separation of powers at the very bottom of the piece, despite the fact that it’s at the heart of the ruling.
To recap, the separation of powers is the doctrine that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches have different roles and you shouldn’t have them meddling in one another’s business, which is exactly what the case was proposing to do – to allow the courts to weigh in on legislation before it’s been passed, or in this case, even been drafted. That’s a huge overreach by the courts, and a giant infringement on parliamentary supremacy. Why that’s especially important is because we’re seeing a growing movement of people who try turning to the courts when they lose at politics, which is very bad for democracy. (In fact, it appears that the Mikisew are engaging in a bit of that very thing here, objecting to the changes to the changes to environmental assessment legislation). If the Mikisew had their way, it would allow for the courts to weigh in on the legislative process at all points, which not only makes legislation impossible, but it means that parliament can no longer govern its own affairs, which is a very bad thing. Of course, there were many differences of opinion between the justices as to how this all shakes out, but they all agreed that the courts have no role in interference in the legislative process, and I don’t think that was highlighted nearly enough.
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1050384273394622464
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050384955954483200
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050386530752032768
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050389501523050496
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050390172947296257
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050393327521038336
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1050397264298950657
This being said, they did affirm that the Duty to Consult is still necessary – just that it didn’t need to be mandatory before drafting legislation. Smart governments who take the Duty seriously would do so in the planning stages of legislation, and there are opportunities to engage in consultation during the legislative process, particularly at committees, when amendments can be proposed that would assist with accommodation. Emmett Macfarlane also suspects that we could see the Senate take a more active role in ensuring proper consultation as it weighs in on bills as well, which could be an interesting evolution in the Senate’s activities as we move forward with its “new” characteristics.
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1050391764069019649
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1050392582931369984
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1050393088823185408
Meanwhile, Philippe Lagassé digs into Justice Brown’s reasoning around the Crown’s distinct capacities. Here is a thread from Emmett Macfarlane on his thoughts on the decision. And here’s University of Ottawa law school vice dean Carissima Mathen to explain the decision.
Roundup: Yet more dubious suggestions hosted by the GRO
Over on the Government Representative Office website, Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative” Senator Peter Harder has been hosting suggestions from former senators of late on how to “reform” the Senate. Because of course he has. And not all of the suggestions are particularly helpful, or good for the Senate in the long run. The latest example is from Senator Pierre De Bané, who was a senator for thirty years and an MP before that. De Bané seems to think that what the Senate needs more than anything is the independent oversight body that the Auditor General wants instituted before voluntarily neutering its powers by passing a motion to only use a suspensive veto. Because hey, if it’s good enough for the UK…
I’ve written numerous times that the notion of an independent oversight body risks the senate’s status as a self-governing parliamentary body. I would be okay with an audit committee that includes outside members but is still made up with a majority of senators in order to ensure that it remains in Senate control because it’s important that our parliamentary bodies retain self-governing status. Otherwise we might as well turn power back over to the Queen, because we obviously have no business governing ourselves. I’m also forever baffled by the notion that we should neuter the Senate’s ability to exercise hard power and defeat a bad government bill when necessary. It’s part of their necessary duties to hold government to account, and before you say that it’s good enough for the House of Lords, the Canadian Senate is a vastly different body than the Lords, with a very different history, and the Senate was never the primary legislative body as the Lords was for centuries. These are differences that can’t be papered over.
De Bané’s other suggestion is that the Senate start creating a series of special committees tailored to senators’ special interests to…do advocacy work, apparently. I’m not opposed to senators undertaking an advocacy role on issues that are of particular interest to them, I am less keen on the proliferation of special committees because I worry that it will draw the focus away from the actual legislative responsibilities of senators – especially in an environment with independent senators who are beholden to nobody and who aren’t able to be corralled into getting work done. We’re already having problems getting bills passed in a timely manner because the leadership within the Senate refuses to do things like negotiate with one another – now imagine that these senators are otherwise engaged with busywork of their own interest rather than with the boring work of scrutinising legislation or holding government to account. I do fear that creating an environment where personalized committees can proliferate will have a detrimental effect on the Senate overall, and I’m a bit surprised that a former senator doesn’t see this possibility.
Roundup: Populist myths and the lies they tell themselves
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.
QP: Blair’s blunders
While Justin Trudeau was off at the United Nations General Assembly, and Andrew Scheer busy preparing for a 4 PM press conference, Alain Rayes led off, reading some kind words about the response to the tornado on the weekend, and asked for an update on the situation. Ralph Goodale gave his own statement of thanks and condolence, and said the federal government was assisting where they can. Rayes then turned to Bill Blair’s self-admitted mistaken statement on those asylum claimants that have left the country. Blair admitted to the confusion he created and again apologised. Rayes railed that no plan to resolve the border “crisis” has been issued, and this time Diane Lebouthillier was deployed to accuse the Conservatives of creating fear. Michelle Rempel took over, restated the first question in English, and Blair responded with some chiding about her use of “illegal border crossers.” Rempel reiterated her question, noting that he didn’t answer her which created more confusion, but Blair responded with a lecture on due process. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he hectored the government on the duty to consult Indigenous peoples on projects. Amarjeet Sohi responded with the trite lines about the importance of the relationship and assured him they were properly consulting. Caron insisted that they couldn’t be real consultations if they had already decided to “force” the expansion of Trans Mountain, and Sohi responded that Canadians expected them to get new markets for their resources. Rachel Blaney took over and repeated the questions in English, and she got the same response both times, insisting that they will offer accommodation is possible.
Roundup: A “positive vision” full of falsehoods
Andrew Scheer gave his first major speech to the party faithful at the Conservative convention in Halifax on Friday, and it was, in a word, meh. After telling the tale of his grandparents and parents struggling to get by, and establishing his “regular guy” credentials (despite the fact that his career suggests he’s been anything but), but from there, it was his usual litany of lies and nonsense talking points. “Conservatives would never leave a credit card bill to our children and grandchildren,” says the party that racked up hundreds of billions in debt during their term; vague assurances about the environment that would actually do nothing to address emissions while also maligning carbon taxes while claiming to understand them and yet demonstrating he doesn’t – or that if he does, he’ll simply lie about them. He went on a whole tangent about Sir John A Macdonald, and this whole bit about how activists were only targeting him because he’s a Conservative and not Liberal prime ministers who arguably did worse (and another lie was about how they weren’t going after Mackenzie King on the $50 banknote – he is being phased out in the next series, as Viola Desmond on the $10 banknote pushes the established prime ministers to higher denominations). He claimed he got to work with UK prime minister Theresa May on a post-Brexit trade deal – something that Trudeau actually did, given that he has no standing to do anything, and claimed that he would be the “adult in the room” in his planned trip to India (which, again, he has no diplomatic standing to do anything on, and that there is no “damage” for him to “repair.”) And his “positive vision” for Conservatives? That he won’t look back at history with shame, and he would have space for debate with viewpoints he disagreed with (this after being astonished that Trudeau would call an avowed racist a racist, characterizing it as a “smear.”) So…yeah. If your positive vision is to simply keep lying about issues, I’m having a hard time squaring that circle.
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1033106952245731328
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1033110282405588993
I especially enjoyed the part in the speech where, immediately after saying "we do understand it", @AndrewScheer got large-emitter treatment wrong, and forgot to mention rebates to lower income folks. https://t.co/cPqzzWvhWa
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) August 24, 2018
There is no economic case for Energy East. You’re supposed to be a party that understands economics. #PnPCBC
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) August 24, 2018
He got his “Justin Trudeau = failure” talking points in there, so Hamish will give him a cookie later. #PnPCBC
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) August 24, 2018
Also at the convention, the party will send the resolution around abortion regulation to the full membership, while they voted down the attempt to make repealing gender identity legislation part of the policy book. Not debated was the resolution around ending supply management, which infuriated a number of delegates – some saying they felt that the debate was deliberately stifled, others that it’s emblematic of a party that doesn’t actually care about free market conservative ideas – and that this may drive them to Bernier’s camp.
Meanwhile, the Bernier fallout continues apace at the convention. While he appears to have zero caucus support, there is talk that he can theoretically get the bare minimum he needs to register a party with Elections Canada, and good news, Kevin O’Leary is thinking of supporting him, and he’s got an ally in Stephen Fletcher, whose nomination Scheer blocked. So there’s that. In the interim, Conservatives at the convention continue to mean girl him (to which Bernier says that’s typical of losers), and the anonymous sources with the behind-the-scenes drama have started spilling the tea, for what it’s worth.
In yet more reaction to events, Andrew Coyne notes that while Bernier’s criticism of the Conservative Party under Scheer rings true, Bernier’s planned party nevertheless still smacks of a vanity project. Colby Cosh notes that Bernier’s lack of intellectual hygiene in his veering into talk of diversity and immigration has corrupted his chance to attract concerned with economic issues to his nascent party. Chantal Hébert looks at the history of the Reform Party and it doesn’t compare favourably to Bernier’s record. Former Reform MP Monte Solberg has been there and done that, and he evaluates Bernier’s behaviour and performance in light of it. Terry Glavin thinks that Bernier did Scheer a favour, assuming he takes some of the swivel-eyed loons with him away from the Conservatives. Also, I was on Canada 2020’s /Thread podcast, talking Bernier and his ability to pull it off.
Roundup: On lying with statistics
Over the weekend, Andrew Scheer tweeted that there was “devastating” job news released on Friday, with “zero total jobs created” in April, and that 41,400 jobs had been lost so far this year. Investment is apparently being driven away from the country. It’s all doom and ruins. Except that it’s all complete bullshit. It’s lying with statistics.
Devastating news for Canadian workers. Justin Trudeau is failing to create opportunity for Canadians. He continues to drive essential investments out of the country. @CPC_HQ will continue to fight Justin Trudeau’s reckless policies that hurt Canadian workers. pic.twitter.com/DeYKGqx2fV
— Andrew Scheer (@AndrewScheer) May 12, 2018
Man, this is lamer than lame that stepped on a tack and is hopping around on one foot.
I think CPC comms needs a holiday. https://t.co/qvjTUMQ725
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) May 13, 2018
What do the actual figures show? For starters, unemployment has been at a 40-year low for the past several months at 5.8 percent. This while the participation rate and employment rate have remained relatively steady throughout. Those “devastating” numbers in April were a net loss of 1,100 jobs, but that net showed a loss of 30,000 part-time jobs and an increase of 28,800 full-time jobs, and industry-wise, the losses were mostly in either construction or retail and wholesale trade. Wages have been increasing over 3 percent year-over-year for several months now. And yes, there was a brief correction in job numbers in January, but it was after a spike in November and December, while the trend cycle remains upward. And if you ask any credible economist, they’ll tell you the underlying numbers indicate that the economy is strong, which puts a lie to Scheer’s tweets.
Of course, I tweeted that Scheer was wrong over the weekend, and I was bombarded with apologists insisting that we should really be looking at the US unemployment rate, which is 3.9 percent. Err, except the Americans use a different measure, and if we used that same measure, our rate would be 4.9 percent. I was also told that all of these new jobs were part-time (not true – as explained above, they’re mostly full-time jobs displacing part-time ones, and have been for several months now), or that this is all because people have run out of EI and have stopped looking for work (please see: participation rate). Oh, and then there were the anecdotes being thrown my way as “proof” that those figures are wrong. Because anecdotes trump statistical data, as we all know. The data are all there. Scheer’s particular cherry-picking is ludicrous on its face, but he’s counting on the low-information voter not having enough know-how to look up the figures at StatsCan, or to read some actual economic analysis about how yes, the economy is doing quite well right now and we can expect interest rates to start going up as a result. It seems to me that if they were in government and an opposition party was doing the same thing he was doing, they would be howling about how awful it was that the opposition was talking down our economy. Funny how that is.
Roundup: A recanted confession
It was not unexpected that we would get a level of histrionics and performative outrage in Question Period yesterday regarding the revelations that a Canadian ISIS returnee had spoken to a New York Timespodcast about his experiences killing while in Syria. (Never mind that this was the second time they raised this issue, but it never got traction when they tried on Tuesday). But amid the dramatic meltdown that completely distorted the situation – citing his description of the killing as “gleeful” when it was apparently anything but (note: I have not listened to the podcast myself because there aren’t enough hours in the day, but this is basing it on the accounts of those who have), and how it’s a complex and nuanced situation of someone who was recruited and who wasn’t a front-line fighter, but was in the “morality police.” And then, hours later, when contacted by the CBC (who had interviewed him years earlier, when he said he didn’t kill anyone), he recanted the tale he told the Timespodcast, citing that he turned a third-person account into a first-person one possibly under the influence of drugs, as the Postinterview was within three weeks of his return to Canada after a spell in Pakistan where he began abusing substances to cope with trauma. And yes, CSIS and the RCMP have been in touch with him.
First, some thoughts from people who know what they’re talking about:
https://twitter.com/MrMubinShaikh/status/995047235946676224
https://twitter.com/MrMubinShaikh/status/995048194802413568
https://twitter.com/MrMubinShaikh/status/995106705267666944
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/995063490866905088
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/995063493035409408
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/995063494901874690
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/995063496847970304
Other observations: We keep getting from the Conservatives this false notion that the Prime Minister welcomes back former terrorists with hugs, cheques, and that they send them away to poetry classes, all of which is complete bullshit, and conflates a number of issues that is not helpful in any of this. The Omar Khadr settlement is not because of anything he is alleged to have done as a minor while in Afghanistan, but because he was tortured by the Americans with the full knowledge of our intelligence agencies in breach of his Charter rights. That’s kind of a big deal. And those “poetry classes” are derisive attempts to conflate rehabilitation with de-radicalization in the Countering Violent Extremism programme, which is extremely valuable because it prevents them from becoming terrorists. But instead, we get demands that, in order to look tough, both distort the situation and that would in all likelihood jeopardise actual criminal investigations if they were seriously acted upon. Was the news of this podcast “confession” concerning? Yes. But does a half-cocked meltdown that completely misrepresents the whole situation help? Nope. In fact, it probably does more damage in the long run, feeding the paranoia of the likes of the Quebec mosque shooter, who radicalized by internalizing these very kinds of irresponsible messages. Not that the Conservatives care if there are points to be scored.