Tag Archives: China

QP: Didn’t request any redactions

Posted on by

Both Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were present for a change, and Scheer led off by concern trolling Trudeau’s comments about the negative impacts on rural and remote communities when large numbers of construction workers come in, and demanded gender-based analyses of the cancellation of Northern Gateway and importing oil from Saudi Arabia. Trudeau responded with a list of projects the government approved before adding that some projects can have different impacts. Scheer railed about the jobs lost when Northern Gateway didn’t go ahead, to which Trudeau reminded him of the record unemployment but stated that they were looking to help Alberta to do well. Scheer demanded Northern Gateway be reinstated, to which Trudeau read quotes from the Federal Court of Appeal decision on why it wasn’t approved. Scheer demanded again that Northern Gateway be reinstated, and Trudeau called them out for bluster that wouldn’t help Alberta, reminding them that even if the project was acceptable, it would be years before it would get resources to markets. Scheer then changed gears and put on his tinfoil hat about the UN global compact on migration, to which Trudeau accused him of quoting Rebel Media, and praised Canada’s diversity. Guy Caron was up next, and railed about the redactions in the NSICOP report, to which Trudeau told him that neither he nor his office was involved in the redaction, but they took the advice of security officials. Caron then tried to wedge in the Raj Grewal investigation as an excuse for redaction, and Trudeau repeated his answer. Charlie Angus tried again in English and Trudeau called out his sanctimony before repeating the answer. Nathan Cullen then gave a torqued concern that Raj Grewal’s parliamentary privilege protected him from investigation — which isn’t true — and Trudeau raised Dean Del Mastro as an example of an MP under investigation whose privilege didn’t shield him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An odious historical comparison

Posted on by

While crude prices in Western Canada continue to take a beating (in part because there is a global supply glut in the market and there are questions about why oil prices got as high as they did recently given market conditions), there are other concerns about investors fleeing the country. Not all, mind you – there are still a number of big-ticket energy projects being signed in the country which defies this narrative that’s going on, but I have to pause on some of the overheated rhetoric being bandied about here, because we need to inject some perspective into the conversation.

For one, the lack of infrastructure to tidewater is because there simply wasn’t an economic case for it until recently. It’s hard to complain that we don’t have it when there was no proper rationale for its existence. Same with refineries – it’s a low-margin exercise and refineries cost billions of dollars to build, and the economic case for building more of them has largely not been there. It’s not just because we have tough environmental regulations in Canada that these projects don’t exist – there weren’t the market conditions.

The other thing that really sets off my alarm bells is this pervasive talking point among oil industry boosters that Canada once built railways, so we should therefore be able to build pipelines. This kind of talk should be utterly galling to anyone who has a modicum of understanding of history in this country, because the railways were built by virtual slave labour from China, following the relocation of Indigenous tribes across the prairies due to starvation and inadequate government aid (while there is some debate over how deliberately starvation was used to force compliance). This is not the kind of thing you want to be touting when it comes to building pipelines, particularly if those opposing construction are other Indigenous communities. And as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, it’s not the high bar of environmental regulations that are killing projects – it’s the fact that successive governments and proponents have tried cutting corners to weasel out of their obligations, and that’s what hurts them, not the minimal additional work it would have taken to properly fulfil those obligations. I get that they’re looking for scapegoats during these trying times for the energy sector, and that nobody wants to look in the mirror, but honestly, trying to compare the railways to this current situation is borderline offensive to anyone who has a modicum of historical knowledge.

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: Parting shots after the furore

Posted on by

As the furore around the transfer of Tori Stafford’s killer dies down now that she has been moved back to another medium-security facility (but not “behind bars” as there aren’t any in women’s institutions in this country), the Conservatives and Conservatives are trying to get parting shots in. While the Conservatives have been demanding apologies from the Liberals because they’re still sore that they were called ambulance chasers, the Liberals’ parting shot was delivered on Friday as Karen McCrimmon, the parliamentary secretary for public safety, let it be known on Power & Politics that other child killers were transferred to healing lodges under the Conservatives. Hold up, said P&P, and while McCrimmon couldn’t give any names, the show went and checked. And lo, since 2011, twenty people convicted of killing a minor have been moved to healing lodges, 14 of them under the Conservatives. Now, we don’t know any of the details of these transfers, and how along they were in their sentences, or anything like that, because the families of the victims didn’t come forward like Stafford’s father did. But it certainly blows the Conservative narrative that this is somehow a Trudeau/Liberal “soft on crime” policy out of the water.

So, a couple of observations: The Conservatives keep insisting that they weren’t the ones who politicised the issue, and yet they are simultaneously patting themselves on the back for “forcing” the government to act, when the government ordered a review within a couple of days of this transfer going public. That sounds an awful lot like politicising it. Their talking heads have also been going onto the talk shows to insist that the Liberals were the ones who started the “name calling” and “insults” first, when it was only after a day of sustained questions that got increasingly graphic and overwrought that Trudeau accused them of ambulance-chasing politics. In other words, they are trying to play victim. There is also a certain amount of utter shamelessness when they insist that things that happened under their watch (the aforementioned killer being transferred from maximum to medium security, or now these other child-killer transfers) are somehow different because we’re talking about the here and now. I get that this is politics, but at some point, one has to wonder why there is a lack of shame around any of what goes on.

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: Targeting the journalists

Posted on by

It has become increasingly clear that the Conservatives plan to wage war against the media as part of their election strategy, which you’d think is funny because We The Media aren’t running in the election. The problem is that this isn’t actually about the media, but rather about undermining the foundations of the institution and the trust that people place in it. Why? Because in the wake of the growing success of populist leaders and movements, they’ve decided to abandon all shame and simply straight-up lie. Most of the media won’t call them lies, because they tend to aim for both-sides-ism “balance” that tends to look like “one side says this, the other side says that, you decide” in its construction, and Scheer and company have decided to exploit that for all it’s worth. And if you do call them on those lies, well, you’re the one who is suspect, whose motives are driven by partisanship, or because you’re looking for some kind of government job, (or my favourite, that I’m allegedly performing sexual favours for the PM).

What I find particularly rich are the Conservatives operatives behind this campaign of harassment is how they insist that they don’t rise to Trumpian levels, but you could have fooled me. They may not say “fake news,” but they intimate it at every opportunity. And if you call them out on a lie (which doesn’t happen often), then they go on the attack. It’s happened to me on numerous occasions (and usually the attacks are themselves wrapped in more lies and distortions), but then again, I’ve also decided to call a lie a lie and not couch it in both-sides-ism. As much as they insist they’re just “pointing out specific inaccuracies” or “countering criticisms,” that’s another lie, and we all have the receipts to prove it.

In the meantime, they’ll content themselves with this sense of martyrdom, that they’re just so hard done byfrom the media, that the coverage of the Liberals is “glowing” while we do nothing but attack the Conservatives (have you actually read any reporting?) and that apparently the pundits are all taking the Liberals’ sides (seriously?) and that justifies their need to “go for the jugular.” But when you’re accustomed to blaming others to assuage your hurt feelings, you think that your attacks righteous, and that’s where we are. So yeah, this is going to get worse, it’s going to get Trumpian, and they’re going to keep insisting that they would never demonise the profession, but don’t believe them. It’s in their interests to undermine journalism, and they lack any shame in doing so.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stuck on the Norman questions

Posted on by

Yesterday’s somewhat bizarre Question Period, with the Conservatives focusing on a single question around Vice Admiral Mark Norman, certainly got the attention of media outlets, but it wasn’t all positive news, given how they it was also pointed out how they were lacking in any kind of prosecutorial style or killer instinct around it. It was just repetitive. Many of the points they made also didn’t seem to land – such as saying the PM had already “tried and convicted” Norman when he remarked that the courts would sort it out before Norman had even been charged – something that they are trying to use to insinuate that the whole affair is politically motivated.

As a reminder, Norman’s lawyers are looking for records from PMO, PCP, DND, the Department of Public Services and Procurement Canada, the Department of Justice, the Treasury Board, and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and that the documents being demanded include cabinet minutes, briefing materials and memos, and some ask for all forms of communication including emails and Blackberry messages. Those have all been deemed Cabinet confidence, which the Canada Evidence Actallows government to keep secret – the danger there, however, being that the court could decide that if the government doesn’t turn them over that the trial isn’t a fair one, and they could dismiss the case. As I remarked in my QP recap, I think the possibilities exist that some form of access could be negotiated that could mean a court-appointed officer could examine them to determine what is relevant as they do in cases of national security-related secrecy (like terrorism trials or people being held on security certificates), because the laundry list being demanded by Norman’s defence could very well be a fishing expedition and they want as broad a swath as possible to try and find something, anything, of use. (It’s also likely that the information is not only Cabinet confidence, but also commercially sensitive, which adds new layers of complication).

The other interesting fact that is still playing out is the fact that another public servant has been named as an alleged leaker, but he has yet to be charged, and this fact is making the Conservative suspicious that this is making Norman out to be a political scapegoat. Or rather, that’s the claim they’re making as they put on their dog and pony show about trying to make this into some kind of a cover-up, but we have nothing to point to this one way or another – just innuendo, which is enough to make political hay out of.

Continue reading →

QP: No answers about “Jihadi Jack”

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Secret document demands

Posted on by

The saga of Vice Admiral Mark Norman’s trial is making its way to the floor of the House of Commons, as Norman’s defence team has been trying to suggest that Brison tried to play a part in delaying the Davie Shipyard contract on behalf of his friends in the Irving family. Brison, meanwhile, tried to fend off the attacks in QP by suggesting that he did his due diligence as Treasury Board president to question the sole-source contract that the previous government entered into on the eve of the election.

Where this gets even more interesting, however, is with the suggestions in the documents that Norman’s team filed, was that senior bureaucrats tried to scuttle the deal because it could interfere with the established National Shipbuilding Programme, which everyone was so enormously proud of, and from there, Norman tipped off Davie officials, which was eventually leaked to the CBC. Added to that, Norman’s team are demanding a number of documents that have been deemed to be Cabinet confidence, which creates added complications because those are secret and could demand all new levels of safeguards for the court process if they are to be turned over. Trying to make political hay out of the government turning over the documents or not could be fraught with future consequences, however, for any future government that wants to protect secret materials from a court process, and given the growing propensity for people to turn to the courts when they lose at politics, that possibility could come sooner than one might expect. Nevertheless, this is an interesting case to keep an eye on, if only to shine a light on how broken our country’s procurement processes really are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Yet more dubious suggestions hosted by the GRO

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →