Tag Archives: Venezuela

QP: New Chamber, same talking points

Posted on by

On the first day in the new Chamber, everyone was trying to find their way through the new building, yours truly included. After introducing the newest Conservative by-election winner, Andrew Scheer led off, decrying the government’s foreign policy as a “disaster,” listing a number of dubious points to bolster his case. Trudeau stood up, assured Scheer that he would get to his question in a moment, but wanted to take a moment to applaud the work of the men and women who did the hard work of getting the West Block up and running. Scheer repeated his question in French, and read that the government was hard at work to get those two Canadians released and for clemency for the third, while they stood up for the rule of law. Scheer read a wooden question about Trudeau apparently not being good with money, and Trudeau rotely recited his talking points about lowering taxes for the middle class. Scheer read the same question again in English, and got the same response, with an added Stephen Harper swipe included. Scheer insisted that the richest were paying less in taxes than before (not really true), and raised the spectre that the government planned to raise the carbon tax six times more than they stated — also false. Trudeau noted that people are now getting the Canada Child Benefit, and that Scheer didn’t talk about it probably because he wanted to cut it. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he demanded that the budget include investments in housing. Trudeau responded that their housing strategy was benefiting a million Canadians. Caron demanded more actions like cutting taxes on housing investments, to which Trudeau reiterated that their strategy was making progress. Peter Julian repeated the same question in English, and got much the same response from Trudeau, and when he brought up the big city mayors, Trudeau noted he met with them earlier in the day and that they thanked him for the investments.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making hay of Venezuela

Posted on by

The situation in Venezuela has been getting political play in Canada, though perhaps not unsurprisingly from the NDP. Much of the party has long had a fascination with “socialist” regimes, both the Chavez regime in Venezuela, as well as Cuba (I was once at a house party with an NDP staffer who expressed shock that the Revolutionary Museum in Havana would have the audacity to subject her to propaganda when she was there to be inspired). It was perhaps least surprising that it would be Niki Ashton who put out the condemnation over Twitter for the Canadian government’s declaration to support the declared interim president of Venezuela in the bid to try and get a new round of free and fair elections up and running. This was echoed by one of the party’s by-election candidates, as well as newly nominated candidate Svend Robinson, who decried that the Canadian government was somehow following the lead of Donald Trump – patently absurd as we have not followed along with their Trump’s musing about military intervention, and the fact that we have recognised the last democratically elected leader in the country who has a constitutional case for the interim presidential declaration. And Jagmeet Singh? He offered a pabulum talking point that said absolutely nothing of substance, but did repeat the false notion that Canada is somehow following the Americans’ lead on this. All the while, Conservative and Liberal MPs started calling on Singh to denounce the Maduro regime in the country, which he hasn’t done, leaving the badmouthing to anonymous staffers.

Meanwhile, Canada is planning to host the other countries of the Lima Group next month in order to plan how to steer Venezuela back toward democracy, which totally sounds like us following the Americans and their musing about military intervention, right? Oh, wait.

Continue reading →

Roundup: McCallum’s gambit

Posted on by

A political firestorm kicked off yesterday when it was revealed that our ambassador to China, John McCallum, held a media availability with Chinese-language media on Tuesday and didn’t inform Canadian media, and then he made comments about how Meng Wanzhou had a “strong case,” and laid out some reasons why, including the fact that Donald Trump politicised her arrest. There seemed to be some genuine confusion among the Canadian foreign affairs community about what exactly was going on here, including whether McCallum was freelancing or going on a limb, but during his own media availability later in the day, Trudeau didn’t distance himself from the comments – though he certainly danced around them a fair bit (though parliamentary secretary Arif Virani later went on Power & Politics to say that the government stood behind McCallum). And then the reaction – Erin O’Toole accusing McCallum of throwing the Americans under the bus, and Andrew Scheer insisting that he would fire McCallum if he was prime minister (for what good that would do).

It’s worth remembering that our extradition system always has the element of political discretion, in that the minister of justice has the final say once the court processes are over and have determined whether the case is viable. (Full explanation of the process here). Also, here’s a video of lawyer Michael Spratt explaining the process.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne says that McCallum put doubt into peoples’ minds about the rule of law, and will be seen to indicate a preference for the outcome, before wondering if McCallum was just freelancing or buying time with the Chinese. Given the swift media reaction in China, there may be more of the latter than the former in the calculation, but it’s hard to know at this point.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1088187071204941827

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1088095085886140416

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brison’s long farewell

Posted on by

It was a bit of a surprise yesterday morning, as Treasury Board president Scott Brison announced that he was resigning his cabinet position because he decided that after 22 years in elected politics, he had decided he wasn’t going to run again this fall. His reasons were mostly that it was time for something new, and the fact that he now has a young family – something that was largely inconceivable when he first got into politics, then as a Progressive Conservative – though that hasn’t stopped everyone from speculating that this has something to do with the upcoming trial of VADM Mark Norman, given that Norman’s lawyers are trying to insinuate that Brison had tried to politically interfere with the procurement process for the interim naval supply ship. (Brison denies this, and he’s not the one on trial, but here’s a thread on what this decision means on his ability to testify). One can’t also help but noting that this will be a bit of a blow for Trudeau as well, as one of his most experienced and competent ministers will be leaving the Cabinet table, and that will matter given the fact that there are still too many ministers that haven’t quite grown into their responsibilities yet.

This, of course, means that we’re now fully into Cabinet shuffle speculation, given that there is one coming on Monday to replace Brison. Every other member of Cabinet, save Jody Wilson-Raybould, has confirmed that they plan to run again in the next election (and Wilson-Raybould likely will as well – she was out of the country and didn’t respond to questions), so it’s unlikely that anyone else will be dropped at this point, particularly given the last shuffle wasn’t too long ago, so it’s an open question as to who will be tapped to replace Brison, and who will take the Treasury Board file.

On a personal note, Brison played a big part in my early days on the Hill, when I was writing primarily for LGBT outlets. When I was the Ottawa correspondent – and later political editor – for the now defunct Outlooks magazine, I had a monthly segment where I would ask Brison, Senator Nancy Ruth, and NDP MP Bill Siksay (later Randall Garrison after Siksay retired) a question every month to get queer perspectives from the three main parties, and that helped me to grow into the journalist that I am today. He was always generous with his time, and incredibly patient with my rookie status, and I will forever be grateful for that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On track for a final cannabis vote

Posted on by

Over in the Senate, some of the drama around the cannabis bill has resolved itself and we can look forward to some structured, orderly report stage and third reading debate leading up to the June 7thfinal vote. And yes, before you say anything, the Conservative senators are playing along and have been swearing up and down that they will respect this date and not try to play any games and delay it further. (They also know that they’ve burned a hell of a lot of political capital on unnecessary fights lately and aren’t keen to burn any more).

To recap, part of the drama has been that the Conservatives still plan to move amendments at Third Reading, which is their right. But they wanted this as part of the structured plan, and the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, wasn’t playing ball, and wanted the Social Affairs Committee – which funnelled all of proposed amendments from the four other committees that studied the bill and voted on them there – to have a look at those amendments first. And the Conservatives, rightfully, refused. And then members of the Independent Senators Group started giving quotes to newspapers about how they were open to real amendments and not those that were “superficial, tactical, unenforceable, or would only serve to delay this bill.” That, and throwing more shade about how they believed the Conservatives were just playing games, because the modus operandi seems to be that anything the Conservatives do is partisan and therefore bad, but anything they do out of a shared belief is not partisan and just fine, which is a lot of bunk. And some of the Independent senators are getting downright condescending in trying to make that particular case. Suffice to say, peace has broken out after the ISG got over their issues about the amendments, and they now have a plan for debate that will carry them through to the vote on the 7th.

Meanwhile, there is talk about whether the amendments to C-46 – the impaired driving bill – will survive a full vote in the Senate after the likely unconstitutional provisions around random alcohol testing. ISG “facilitator” Senator Woo is hinting that they would vote to reinstate the provisions. I will add, however, that I am not absolutely not buying their supposition that senators were trying to simply embarrass the government by returning the omnibus transport bill to the Commons a second time because it was their own Independent senators who insisted on those amendments. Sometimes senators insist on amendments because they think they’re in the right – which is a novel concept, I’m sure.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Abandoning a fiscal anchor

Posted on by

In yesterday’s National Post, economist Stephen Gordon cast a critical eye on the fall economic update and the government’s excuse for running deficits, and the decision to abandon the fiscal anchor of balanced budgets in favour of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. And rather than worrying about the non-existent debt-bomb, Gordon is mostly looking for answers why the policy shifted post-election. Fair enough. (He also does the math on how much more a government can spend by shifting the fiscal anchors like the government did here).

Enter fellow economist Kevin Milligan, who digs through and finds an answer. Enjoy.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925024898388389888

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925026096898129922

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925028185174970369

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925029751072235520

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925098340303347712

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925099179298373632

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925110355491041280

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925110707498000384

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, the Senate can’t fire Lynn Beyak

Posted on by

After another week of sustained outrage about Senator Lynn Beyak, with mounting calls for her resignation, and the exasperated commentary of those Indigenous groups that have tried to educate her as to the reality of the situation that Beyak has seen fit to comment upon, we’ve also started to see articles speculating on ways that the Senate can be rid of her. Those suggestions would be a grievous mistake.

We can all agree that what Beyak has said is odious in the extreme. But the performative outrage that she should be expelled from the Senate does cross a line because as much as we all disagree with Beyak, she hasn’t broken any laws or violated any ethics rules. She may have views that are on their face racist (though she probably doesn’t see them that way – the Conservative senators that I’ve spoken to pretty much consider her a clueless Pollyanna figure who nevertheless has deeply held Christian beliefs that inform her particularly selective world view), but those views are neither illegal nor contrary to the rules of the Senate. And we should be wary of trying to regulate Senators’ speech, because that is a gross violation of parliamentary privilege. We also can’t ignore that Beyak gives voice to an ignorant segment of the population, and when she raises these views publicly, she has given rise to a debate that such a segment of the population isn’t usually exposed to. Simply demanding her removal for it is hugely problematic for all manner of reasons.

Now, the Conservative caucus has taken the steps to minimize her role as much as possible – she is off all committees, and thus marginalized from having any position of influence. Why she remains in caucus is likely because they want to maintain their plurality in the chamber for as long as possible, and with ten current vacancies (and a couple more pending), that will likely change in the coming weeks, but for now, they are looking to maintain their numbers, and Beyak’s remaining in caucus does that for them, however they’ve sidelined her. And once the Independent Senators Group forms the plurality, the Conservatives’ impetus to keep her may change, but they may also hope that she can be redeemed, as it were, with more education (and perhaps a dose of humility). Maybe. Or, this could be an early sign of trying to phase her out, where there can still be some modicum of caucus control over her actions rather than simply turning her loose, which might actually embolden her (because then she’ll be a martyr for the cause). But let’s hope that this is the Senate’s version of phasing her out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Concern trolling over tax loopholes

Posted on by

There’s been a great deal of concern trolling going on over the past few days when it comes to the planned changes to self-incorporation to close the tax loopholes found therein. Conservative leader Andrew Scheer tweeted out another of his disingenuous messages yesterday, talking about “hiking taxes” on doctors – who are leading the concern trolling charge against this closure of self-incorporation loopholes – which is not surprising, but nevertheless not exactly the truth about what is going on.

Meanwhile, economist Kevin Milligan has been dismantling the concern trolling arguments with aplomb, so I’ll let him take it from here:

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/895338880961961984

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/896066789569777664

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/896067622332022784

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/896068604008910848

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/896069143002140672

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/896069848106647552

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/896070338647175170

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/896070769976815616

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/896109673312473088

Continue reading →

Roundup: The downside of leaks

Posted on by

The thing that had everyone’s tongue wagging yesterday was the release of those Trump Transcripts™ detailing calls to Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, and the inevitable Canada angle in which Trump says that there’s no problem with Canada, that they don’t even think about us. Some friend and neighbour.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/893110071571484672

All joking aside, this piece by Andrew MacDougall explaining how readouts of calls with foreign leaders work is crucial reading to understanding why it’s important for diplomacy that world leaders be allowed to have open and frank conversations without these kinds of details leaking out. While yes, these Trump leaks are more about the damage to his domestic agenda, they’re not revealing much about him that we don’t know already, but it remains an issue that it sets a very bad precedent, and that could have bigger and worse repercussions down the road, not only for the ability of politicians to speak freely to one another, but also for the likelihood of there being note takers in the room with Trump in the future, and neither is a good thing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Suspicions about political donations

Posted on by

The Star has a story that shows how a recently appointed judge made donations to the Liberal Party in the past couple of years – $1800 worth over the two fiscal years, in part by attending a fundraising dinner. And after it lays out all of his donations, the story leaves us with this: “It is not unusual for judicial appointees to have made political donations, nor does it break any rules.” Which makes me wonder why they’re making a) an issue out of it, and b) framing the story in such a way that it gives the impression that he bought his appointment, because that’s exactly what the headline screams. Emmett Macfarlane sees an issue, but I’m having a hard time buying it.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/892368713848147970

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/892369069906825216

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/892369516889550848

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/892369907496738820

https://twitter.com/jameslhsprague/status/892386009727590400

Part of my issue is the fact that we’re already at a crisis point in this country when it comes to grassroots democratic engagement, and this current media demonization of any political fundraising hurts that. The more we demand that anyone who has made donations be excluded from jobs, the worse we make the political ecosystem as a whole. Sure, once they’ve been appointed they shouldn’t make further donations – that’s fair. But the fact that he didn’t even make the maximum allowable donation over those two years, and the fact that the amount he’s donated is a couple of billable hours for him, is hardly worth getting exercised over. This isn’t America – we don’t have big money buying candidates here, nor do we have the spectre of elected judges that are entirely interested in getting re-elected. And, might I remind you, the previous government appointed Vic Toews and most of Peter MacKay’s wedding party to the bench, which seems far bigger of an ethical breach. The current government has reformed the judicial advisory committees to broaden the scope of who they’re considering, and considering how slowly the process is going, it’s not believable that they’re simply going through the party donor rolls to find a match. And while Macfarlane insists that it’s not about the dollar amount, but the perception of bias, I am very bothered by the way in which stories like this are framed adds to that perception. It’s driving the perception, not the other way around, and that is a problem when it comes to trying to fix the actual things that are breaking down about our democracy.

Continue reading →