Tag Archives: Tony Clement

Roundup: On the debate on societal decline narratives

Posted on by

I’ve been thinking a lot about Colin Horgan’s essay about Pierre Poilievre tapping into the meta-language of a society in decline, and how playing into those narratives has the potential to make things worse, particularly as the bad actors who respond to this kind of thing start becoming increasingly drastic in their actions. In response, Matt Gurney wonders that if people do believe we’re in a state of decline, and whether it’s worse that Poilievre is speaking to them on those terms, or that the governing Liberals can’t admit to the problems under their watch. I’m have a lot reservations about the notion that Poilievre is trying to somehow channel these anxieties—there is absolutely no indication that Poilievre can try and do anything positive with them when the discourse is about burning things to the ground (metaphorically at least). But what exactly are we considering to be the decline?

https://twitter.com/Lazin_Ryder/status/1570536744080252928

This tweet from Matthew Lazin-Ryder makes a very good point—that the “rise and fall” narratives are not how societies work, and that the level of pessimism in 1974 was staggering when we read about it in hindsight. I also have to wonder about what is being considered in the decline. Much of what Gurney lists in his piece are areas that are complex—most of it are things that the federal government has little control over, so a figure like Poilievre addressing it has no substance to it, and in the areas that they do, such as the armed forces, it’s hard to consider things in decline when the institution was so horribly broken beforehand, and we are at a place were we are trying to do something about it rather than pretend those problems didn’t exist. Does that make it a symptom of decline, or that we’re actually dealing with the problems? As for the problems at the provincial level, yes they are problems, but they are not new—just reaching a boiling point—and they require political action to deal with, which is caught in a cycle of federal-provincial blame-shifting, enabled by media outlets who simply both-sides the issue rather than call out the responsible parties (meaning the premiers).

My other particular sense of caution around declinist narratives is the fact that a lot of them come from a place of people who have problems with women, queer and trans people, people of colour, all being more prominent, and who are being given a voice and agency for the first time in modern history. They see this as some kind of decline because as white men, they view equality as a diminution of their own privilege, which feeds this false narrative of decline. When you see people declaring themselves “anti-woke,” you have to ask yourself whether it’s the fact that they have a problem with women and minorities being visible or having agency. Hell, in the Quebec leadership debate, there was a segment where the host was demanding that leaders say the n-word to “prove” they weren’t woke, which is appalling, but an indication that those who try to resist so-called wokeism are really trying to make racism okay again. The fact that declinists espouse these kinds of narratives makes me question their entire world view, and brings me back to the problem of those who pander to that viewpoint for the sake of scoring political points, when it can feed it and takes us to a darker place.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 204:

President Volodymr Zelenskyy says that a mass grave with more than 440 bodies has been found in the recently liberated city of Izium in the Kharkiv region, which probably shouldn’t be surprising at this point. In fact, I fear that there will be all kinds of mass graves being uncovered for years to come thanks to Russia’s genocidal campaign. Evidence has also been found of Russian “torture chambers” in cities that have been liberated, so war crimes prosecutors have a big job ahead of them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: And now the lawsuits

Posted on by

Because we can’t go a single day without yet more nonsense in the interminable Double-Hyphen Affair fallout, we had news yesterday that Andrew Scheer is being personally sued by prime minister Justin Trudeau for libel following press releases in which he intimated that Trudeau committed a crime and is attempting to cover it up. Scheer says bring it on, and make it fast. And then come the narratives – Conservatives say that the prime minister is trying to intimidate them, or bully them into silence, but at least with the lawsuit he’ll have to testify under oath. The Liberals are saying that this is just calling out Scheer’s lies and shows that they have consequences, and it demonstrates that Trudeau is willing to testify under oath as a result. And the pundit class wonders why they would want to continue to drag this out for months, if not years, as this drags on in the court system. (And for those of you who recall, Stephen Harper once planned to sue Stéphane Dion for libel over allegations made in the Chuck Cadman Affair, but he eventually dropped it after Dion was no longer Liberal leader). So, something for everyone, really.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1114959070136537088

Meanwhile, Wilson-Raybould says that all of the anonymous leaks are “trampling over” the confidences around the discussions she may or may not have had with the prime minister. Err, except her own side has been leaking stuff too, even if she insists it’s not her doing it. She also says that she has no desire to help Andrew Scheer win the next election, and doesn’t see herself as a floor-crosser but will operate as an independent Liberal for the time being.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The ouster of the dissidents

Posted on by

After a day of bated breath, and rumours of regional caucus meetings, Justin Trudeau decided to pull the plug and expel Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from Liberal caucus, ostensibly saying that trust had been lost. While Wilson-Raybould would not say that she had confidence in the prime minister, Philpott went on camera that morning to say that she did, that her loss of confidence was solely in the handling of that one issue but otherwise she was still a good Liberal, but that wasn’t enough. For her part, Wilson-Raybould sent a letter to her caucus mates to plead her case, that she felt she was standing up for the values they shared and was trying to protect the prime minister from a “horrible mess,” but it didn’t sway any minds it seems. In the intervening hours, the texts and notes that Gerald Butts submitted to the Commons justice committee were released, and it mostly focused on the Cabinet shuffle, with the assurances that she was not being shuffled because of the SNC-Lavalin file, but because they needed someone with high profile for one of the highest-spending departments and she refused Indigenous Services. (Wilson-Raybould was also convinced that they were planning to replace her chief of staff with one of two PMO staffers she accused of trying to pressure her, which Butts said was not the plan, and which has not happened, for what it’s worth). I did find that Wilson-Raybould’s concern about the timing of the shuffle was suspicious, considering that the SNC-Lavalin file was on nobody’s radar until the Globe and Mail article, and her warnings of Indigenous anger if she was shuffled is also a bit odd considering that her record on addressing those issues while she was in the portfolio were…not exactly stellar.

When the “emergency” caucus meeting happened, Trudeau had just informed the pair that they were expelled, and he gave a lofty speech about trying to do politics differently, and sometimes that was hard and they didn’t always get it right, but he called recording the conversation with the Clerk of the Privy Council to be “unconscionable” (though it bears reminding that Philpott did not partake in this), and that they needed to be united because Liberals lose when they fight among themselves – and then he went into campaign mode. Because of course he did.

In the aftermath, Philpott put out a message that described her disappointment, and noted that she never got the chance to plead her case to caucus – though one imagines that for most of the caucus, the interview with Maclean’s, the hints of more to come, and what appeared to be a deliberate media strategy was her undoing, and her last-minute declaration of loyalty wasn’t enough to save her. She does, however, appear to want to stay in politics, so that remains interesting. Wilson-Raybould tweeted out a message that was unapologetic, rationalised her actions, and talked about transcending party, so perhaps that’s a hint of her future options. Andrew Scheer put out a message saying that there’s a home for anyone who speaks truth to power among the Conservatives, which is frankly hilarious given how much they crushed dissent when they were in power. (Also note that the NDP won’t take floor-crossers who don’t run in a by-election under their banner, and if they “make an exception” in this case, that will speak to their own principles. As well, if anyone thinks that they’re a party that brooks dissent, well, they have another thing coming). Liberals, meanwhile, made a valiant effort at trying to show how this was doing things differently – because they let it drag on instead of instantly putting their heads on (metaphorical) spikes. And maybe Trudeau was trying to give them a chance – he stated for weeks that they allow dissenting voices in the caucus – but the end result was the same.

In hot takes, Andrew Coyne says the expulsions serve no purpose other than vindictiveness, and that it’s a betrayal of the role of backbenchers to hold government to account. Susan Delacourt marvels at how long this has dragged out, and whether it’s a signal of dysfunction in the centre of Trudeau’s government that it’s carried out as it has. Robert Hiltz zeroes in on the lines in Trudeau’s speech where he conflates the national interest with that of the Liberal Party, which has the side-effect of keeping our oligarchical overlords in their comfortable places.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No inquiry (for now)

Posted on by

Another day, and a few more incremental pieces to add to the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair. There were reports that Justin Trudeau met with Jody Wilson-Raybould about the company two weeks after the Public Prosecution Service declined to offer them a deferred prosecution agreement (but we have no details). Wilson-Raybould attended caucus, and Trudeau apologized to her for not forcefully condemning the remarks about her, or the political cartoons that portrayed her bound and gagged. (We also heard that when it came to Wilson-Raybould addressing Cabinet on Tuesday, she apparently waited outside for two hours while some ministers argued that she be allowed to be heard. So that’s curious – and pretty unprecedented). Later in the day, the Liberals voted down the NDP’s Supply Day motion to call for an independent inquiry on the whole affair – the party line being that they don’t think it’s necessary at this time with the Ethics Commissioner and justice committee processes in place – but two Liberals did break ranks to vote for it. It should be no surprise that it was Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Wayne Long (but could We The Media quit framing these kinds of things as “cracks in party unity” or nonsense like that? That’s why parties develop iron fists). After the vote, Wilson-Raybould stood up to put on the record that she abstained because the vote was about her personally, and she didn’t want to be in perceived conflict (which immediately created cries from the opposition that the PM should also have abstained), but she said she wanted to “speak her truth” as soon as she could. So that got more tongues wagging, naturally.

Emerging from this whole issue are the metaphysics of how the federal justice minister has a separate hat as Attorney General, and how the two roles can sometimes clash, particularly when it comes to political consideration. To that end, Colby Cosh delves further into this dichotomy and why that may be part of the cause of this whole affair to begin with. There are also a couple of worthwhile threads to read on it – one from Adam Goldenberg (one-time Liberal staffer and former law clerk to then-Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin) that argues that the Act requires a political consideration for deferred prosecutions in order for political accountability, while another litigator, Asher Honickman, disputes that – but agrees that the situation has a lot of nuance.

For context, here is an exploration of the role that Gerald Butts played in Trudeau’s PMO. Here’s the updated timeline of events as we know them so far. Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column explores how a Commons committee could run an investigation into an affair like the current one, but notes they’re not well suited to do so, and also details where it would break down into a partisan sideshow.

In punditry, Chantal Hébert makes the salient point that Wilson-Raybould is more in charge of the current situation than the prime minister is, which is an interesting dynamic.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The data for the debunking

Posted on by

I love a good takedown of some tired talking points, and lo, we have another doozy. You know how Andrew Scheer’s whole schtick and electoral campaign strategy is that carbon pricing makes life unaffordable for people because it drives up costs? This is the narrative he’s pinning his fortunes on, and lo, we find more data that it’s simply not true. Data from Alberta, which implemented its carbon tax two years ago, found that the inflation levels weren’t any different from other provinces, meaning that carbon taxes didn’t drive up prices. Mind you, having data won’t stop Scheer’s carousel of lies, because lying to people to make them angry is what he thinks is going to win him the election (and it might), but it’s still a lie, and we have yet more proof that it’s a lie.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the other side isn’t being sloppy with its own messaging. Rachel Notley is trying to go after Jason Kenney talking about tolls, but she undermines her own arguments for a carbon tax because it’s the logic works the same way. But that’s the attempt at populist messaging for you. Unfortunately.

Meanwhile the Yukon has come up with their carbon pricing system, which involves a certain level of rebates, with higher levels to those in remote areas – something that is of particular concern for those living in any of the Territories.

Continue reading →

Roundup: CSIS’ hackers

Posted on by

So that story about CSIS looking to hire hackers and data scientists? Well, some of the concerns raised about the story may have been overblown. Maybe. Stephanie Carvin – who used to be an analyst at CSIS – has some thoughts on the issue and what it represents.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1081183300738342918

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1081183303783383041

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1081183316747919360

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1081185895636787200

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1081185900007247873

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1081185903224205312

I do wonder if We The Media are capable of asking some of the right questions when it comes to our intelligence services, and whether we treat them with too much suspicion because they’re a world of secrets and we don’t get to learn them, and that they not able to operate transparently. Not that they’re above scrutiny – they’r enot, and the fact that we’ve now got NSICOP to provide parliamentary oversight is a long overdue step up in that direction – but we can’t treat everything they do as inherently problematic.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An oil conundrum

Posted on by

There’s an interesting conundrum happening in Alberta, where the premier and industry leaders are talking about production cuts owing to the supply glut and lack of refining capacity in the US being responsible for near-record lows for Canadian exports. The problem of course is whether the premier should use powers that haven’t been exercised since the days of Peter Lougheed, or if oil companies should voluntarily reduce their own production – and if they do, does this constitute price-fixing? There isn’t any easy solution to any of this, and it’s not just build more pipelines – they would only need to be pipelines to tidewater in order to find markets not hampered by the current refining shutdowns in the US, and that are prepared to take heavy oil and diluted bitumen. It’s also a bit on the unfair side to say that it’s simply “regulatory and political” challenges – as we’ve seen from successive court decisions is that attempts to take shortcuts and to weasel out of obligations is what’s causing delays and to have permits revoked. In other words, part of the problem is self-inflicted, and they try to hand-wave around it by crying “national interest” as though that makes it better.

Here’s a lengthy but good explanatory thread from Josh Wingrove, and it’s well worth paying attention to, because there’s a lot of demagoguery floating around about the issue, and it pays to be informed about why prices are low, and why it’s not something you can wave a magic wand to fix.

https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1062817943812218894

Continue reading →

Roundup: Looking for a domestic MS-13

Posted on by

Over the past week, Andrew Scheer has been touting his latest pre-election policy plank, which promises to tackle the problem of gang violence – except it really won’t. His proposals are largely unconstitutional and fall into the same pattern of “tough on crime” measures that are largely performative that do nothing substantive about the underlying issues with violent crime, but that shouldn’t be unexpected. The measures go hand-in-hand with their talking point that the government’s current gun control legislation “doesn’t include the word ‘gangs’ even once,” and how they’re just punishing law-abiding gun owners. And while I will agree with the notion that you can’t really do much more to restrict handgun ownership without outright banning them, it needs to be pointed out that the point about the lack of mention of gangs in the bill is predicated on a lie – the Criminal Code doesn’t talk about “gangs” because it uses the language of “criminal organisations,” to which gangs apply (not to mention that you don’t talk about gangs in gun control legislation – they’re separate legal regimes, which they know but are deliberately trying to confuse the issue over.

I have to wonder if the recent focus on gangs as the current problem in gun crime is that they need a convenient scapegoat that’s easy to point a finger at – especially if you ignore the racial overtones of the discussion. Someone pointed out to me that they’re looking for their own MS-13 that they can demonise in the public eye – not for lack of trying, since they focus-tested some MS-13 talking points in Question Period last year at the height of the irregular border-crossing issue when they were concern-trolling that MS-13 was allegedly sending terrorists across our borders among these asylum seekers. The talking points didn’t last beyond a week or two, but you know that they’re looking to try and score some cheap points with it.

With that in mind, here is defence lawyer Michael Spratt explaining why Scheer’s latest proposal is a house of lies:

Or as another criminal defence lawyer, Dean Embry, puts it, if you’re going to make stuff up on this issue, then why not go all the way?

https://twitter.com/DeanEmbry/status/1062102941123907590

Continue reading →

Roundup: A diminishing vision of a regulator

Posted on by

The Supreme Court of Canada returned their reference decision on the constitutionality of the proposed national securities regulator yesterday, and it was a unanimous green light – because this is a voluntary system, it’s constitutional. You may recall that a previous attempt to create such a national regulator to be imposed by the federal government was found to be unconstitutional, and lo, it didn’t happen. When the previous Conservative government constructed this new voluntary model, Quebec appealed to the SCC, and as we can see, didn’t win the day. And even with this decision, Quebec still says they’re still going to stick with their provincial regulator, thank you very much, and that’s that.

There are a few things to think about in this decision, and in the system as it’s being designed. One of them is that part of the mechanism that makes it acceptable to the Supreme Court is that the regulatory authority is being delegated to a council of ministers, but that may come with more challenges. Because the wait for this decision essentially stalled the work of the new regulatory body, it remains to be seen as to how long it will take to get the new system up and running.

While Andrew Coyne makes the point that this system really makes no sense because it’s not able to deal with the issue of systemic risk, it may be worse than that. I wrote about this proposal for Law Times back in the spring, and even proponents of the national regulator had started to sour on the concept because the proposed system as it was being built essentially let provinces maintain their own particular carve-outs, which increases the complexity and reduces the uniformity of the system across the country. Even more alarming, according to one lawyer I spoke with, is the fact that this sets up a system that is unaccountable, that makes up and enforces its own rules and is self-funding, which seems to go against most good governance norms. So we’ll see where this goes, but the final result certainly looks to be far less than what was initially promised.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A policy reviewed and changed

Posted on by

The government announced that their review of the transfer of inmates to Indigenous healing lodges is complete, and they made some changes to the policy to tighten the conditions. While they wouldn’t say directly, it was confirmed that Tori Stafford’s killer was reassigned from the healing lodge she had been transferred to back to an institution. Cue the self-congratulation from the Conservatives, who assert that the killer is back “behind bars.” But there are a few things we need to unpack here because some of this back-patting is disingenuous.

First of all, these healing lodges are still prisons. Said killer went from one medium-security facility to another medium-security facility. While Andrew Scheer kept insisting that she was moved to a “condo,” he is not only lying about what a healing lodge is, he is also misconstruing what conditions in women’s institutions in this country are like. There are no longer any of the kinds of cells and bars or high walls that you see on television – women’s institutions largely feature campus-like atmospheres, with apartment-like dwellings. Indeed, the facility she’s been transferred to post lodge is described as “a minimum security residential-style apartment unit and residential-style small group accommodation houses for minimum and medium-security inmates in an open campus design model.” So much for the crowing that she’s back behind bars.

There is also the self-congratulation in saying that they embarrassed the government into taking this action, and that this somehow disproves what the government said about not being able to act to transfer her. This is again disingenuous – when it came to light, the government ordered a review, and the policy writ-large was changed. They didn’t order an individual transfer, because that would be abusing their authority to do so. Now, there are some genuine questions as to how appropriate it is to change policies based on a single case, but insisting that they did what the Conservatives asked is not exactly true. Worse, however, is the unmitigated gall of the Conservatives demanding apologies and insisting that it was the Liberals who politicised the issue when they were the ones who decided to start reading the graphic details of Stafford’s murder into the record in the House of Commons. They’re still sore that they’ve been called ambulance chasers, which they insist is some kind of grievous insult, however their behaviour in the Commons around this issue was hardly decorous. An issue was raised, the policy was reviewed and changed, and the process worked. But trying to play victim over it is taking things a little too far.

https://twitter.com/journo_dale/status/1060641966776475648

Continue reading →