Tag Archives: Euthanasia

Roundup: An agreement, and a start to further discussions

Posted on by

On the fourth day of negotiations, federal Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett, her BC counterpart, and the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have come to an agreement regarding land title rights for Wet’suwet’en territory, which has been an open issue for decades. It will need to be ratified by the Wet’suwet’en nation after a period of consultation, but it is a step. This does not, however, completely solve the issue with the proposed Coastal GasLink pipeline – the vocal group of hereditary chiefs remain opposed (while those in the community who support the project feel they aren’t being heard), but this remains an issue where the community needs to come together and use the feast system under their laws to resolve these disputes, which hasn’t been happening. It will also require further discussions with the RCMP about their operations in their territory, but again, there seems to be some progress made.

Meanwhile, a discussion among legal experts is ongoing regarding the efficacy of using legal injunctions when there are land rights protests going on, because they can be too much of a blunt instrument. Some are suggesting that the injunctions be structured to allow for mediated consultation instead of heavy-handed orders to stop their protests, as has been done in some provinces when it comes to labour disputes. And a prime example of something unhelpful is the bill recently tabled in Alberta to further penalize protesters with heavy fines (which is already likely unconstitutional), but there does seem to be a definite mindset behind that kind of legislation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A failed attempt at fundamental reform

Posted on by

Fair warning that this is going to be super wonky and a dive into parliamentary nerdery, but it’s important to how our democracy functions. It seems that the government’s attempt to better reconcile our budget cycle and Estimates process has been declared a failure, and the deeply flawed system that has grown up over a number of years has once again returned, and that’s a huge disappointment because it was an important change that they were attempting.

Part of the problem here is that we don’t have a fixed budget date, but the Estimates cycle operates by a fixed calendar. What this has tended to mean is that the budget can be pushed back after the Main Estimates, which means that all of the spending that Parliament is supposed to approve winds up being reflective of the previous year’s budget, and then it’s up to the Supplementary Estimates later in the year to update the spending to what was in this year’s budget – a system that makes it difficult if not impossible to track spending, particularly as the accounting used in the Public Accounts at the end of the fiscal year is different still from both the budget and Estimates. If Parliament’s key function is to study these spending plans and expenditures and hold the government to account over them, it is a nigh-impossible task (which is one more reason why MPs have given up on doing it, and simply turned it over to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which is a Very Bad Thing). It was Scott Brison’s pet project when he was at Treasury Board to try and better align these cycles, but that was easier said than done, particularly given some of the sclerotic processes within our civil service, and their attempt to try and get some money out the door faster with a $7 billion fund (derided by the Conservatives as a “slush fund” despite there being a list of approved items that accompanied it) never wound up actually working, and much of that money went unspent even though it was supposed to mean things happened faster. It’s a failure all around – both with this government and within the broader civil service.

I am hoping that the Liberals have taken what lessons they can from this and take more steps to rectify some of the problems, including assigning a fixed budget date so that the civil service can adjust their own cycles and processes to reflect this and the Estimates cycle can then reflect what is in the budget (and aligning the Public Accounts with these cycles would also help). This is at the very heart of how our parliament is supposed to operate, and if we can’t get this right, it’s a very, very bad sign for the health of our system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reverberations and court references

Posted on by

The fallout from the Teck Frontier decision reverberated yesterday, whether it was with disappointed local First Nations, or industry groups giving the usual lamentations about investor confidence. More blame was thrown around, most of it at Justin Trudeau’s direction which seems to be in direct contradiction to what the company’s CEO said in his withdrawal letter, which talked about partisan bickering between levels of government, while also talking about how they supported carbon pricing and the emissions caps – in other words, largely siding with the federal government as the provincial government tore up the comprehensive and reasonable plan that the former NDP government had put into place with a great deal of thought and consultation, which introduced all manner of uncertainty into the market and put them into direct conflict with the federal government unnecessarily – but they also made the gamble that Andrew Scheer would win the last federal election and they wouldn’t have to worry about carbon pricing or strict regulations any longer, and well, that didn’t happen. Of course, it didn’t stop Kenney, Scheer or others from making up things wholesale in order to keep the blame on Trudeau, after they already overly raised expectations for the project (in part by lying about what its promises actually were). In conversation yesterday, a fellow journalist made the supposition that Teck may have been afraid of federal approval at this point because the expectations for it had been built so high when they knew they couldn’t deliver on it, in large part because the price of oil is simply far too low for the project to be viable, not to mention that it’s hard to attract financing as global investors are looking for climate-friendly projects these days.

In pundit response, Heather Scoffield points to the lack of the next stages of the federal climate plans, combined with Alberta’s battling those plans, as factors making us unattractive to investors. Scoffield also blames a lack of leadership for why it’s taking so long to get those needed plans in place. Max Fawcett considers Teck Frontier a metaphor for an Alberta past that won’t come back, and that the withdrawal of the application should be a wake-up call for those who are trying to bring that past back. Kevin Carmichael calls out Teck’s CEO for playing martyr while sabotaging the kind of conversation over energy and the environment that the country needs to have, but now won’t because the deadline is off the table and we have degenerated into assigning blame.

And then, as if things couldn’t get any more interesting, the Alberta Court of Appeal released their 4-1 decision that said that the federal carbon price was unconstitutional, in direct opposition to the decisions from Ontario and Saskatchewan (both of which will head to the Supreme Court of Canada next month). But that being said, there is a curious amount of overtly political editorialising within said judgement, from one of the concurring judges in particular, which I am assured by a law professor will be a field day for the Supreme Court of Canada when this ruling makes it to them.

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232059249158545408

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232074971918168064

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232161066898968576

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232054682140340225

https://twitter.com/charlesrusnell/status/1232124886937550849

Continue reading →

Roundup: An emergency clip-gathering

Posted on by

Sympathetic protests continue across the country as Justin Trudeau and several Cabinet ministers convened the Incidence Response Group yesterday, but had little to say as they emerged, other than dialogue remains the best option to resolve the situation as opposed to sending in the police to crack heads. Some new protests included demonstrations that closed Bloor Street in Toronto, and another blockade on the Thousand Islands international bridge (which was short-lived). Carolyn Bennett is still waiting on more meetings, apparently, while the CBC got a leaked recording from Marc Miller’s meeting with the Mohawks in Ontario on Sunday, so there’s that. And amidst this, police associations are grousing that they’re caught in the middle of all of this, criticized for both being too aggressige and not doing enough at the same time.

And with Parliament back again today, the request has been made for an emergency debate on the situation – but I can tell you right now that it’s going to be nothing shy of a five-alarm clown show. If the Speaker decides to grant it, it’ll happen after the close of regular business, so somewhere between 6 and 7 PM, and designated to run until midnight, unless debate collapses sooner. But you can bet that the most that can come of it – and the parties bloody well know it – is that they’ll simply be gathering clips for their social media of their righteous indignation for their side of the debate, whether it’s that the economy is being affected, that police are supposedly not enforcing the rule of law (hint – that’s not what “rule of law” means), or that this government has failed in its goals of reconciliation (as though that could happen in the space of four years). And if it’s outraged clips they want, well, isn’t that what Question Period has devolved into? In other words, I see zero actual utility in the exercise, but then again, I’m cynical (or realistic) like that.

https://twitter.com/Lazin_Ryder/status/1229361547593408512

https://twitter.com/Lazin_Ryder/status/1229362819901952002

https://twitter.com/Lazin_Ryder/status/1229363277202784256

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt tries to evaluate this government’s communications around the current situation after they handled the previous two (Flight PS752 and COVID-19) fairly well, and outlines the difference between complex and complicated problems. But being unable to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag is this government’s usual schtick, so that should be no surprise.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stop proposing bad rule changes

Posted on by

Sound the alarm, because MPs – and Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux in particular – are talking about changing the Standing Orders again. Lamoureux has apparently committed to bringing back Frank Baylis’ package of reforms, most of which were are either half-measures, or wrong-headed and will have unintended consequences that will simply make things worse. But as with anything, as soon as it’s been proposed, it becomes the politician syllogism – “Something must be done. This is something. Therefor we must do this.” Apparently, nobody learned a gods damned thing after Michael Chong’s garbage Reform Act, and we’re about to go through yet another attempted exercise that will wind up going badly. (I wrote about Baylis’ proposals last year).

There are a few things in the Lamoureux interview that I did want to highlight first, which is the talk about eliminating votes on Mondays and Fridays – that’s pretty much a given considering that they already don’t have votes on Fridays, barring exceptional circumstances like a vote-a-thon, and they rarely have them on Mondays either, and when they do, it’s usually in the evening, by which time most MPs should have arrived in Ottawa. I’m also going to give some major side-eye to MPs who complain that they could be doing more work in their ridings, because their jobs are in Ottawa. Their jobs are to hold the government to account by doing the work of things like scrutinizing the estimates, going through the Public Accounts, and studying legislation in committee. Their jobs are not actually about doing “casework” with constituents, most of which should be done by the civil service. An MP’s office is not supposed to be a Service Canada desk, and I wish that they would stop pretending that it was.

The other part that I’m getting increasingly irate with is the talk about developing a parallel chamber for the House of Commons, and dressing it up as “efficiency.” No. There is no reason for us to have one. It makes more sense in Westminster where they have 650 MPs, and there are fewer opportunities for them to have take-note debates on things in the main chamber, but we really don’t have either the need, or frankly the bodies to do it, because we already have enough of our MPs assigned to more than one committee outside of House Duty, so there are already not enough hours in the day for most of them. We also don’t need the hours for added “debate” on government bills – we need to reform how we’re structuring debate period. We don’t need additional time for private members’ business because it will only bottleneck in the Senate and die on the Order Paper anyway. There is zero rationale for it – but there is currently a romance with the notion, and so they keep proposing it. No. Stop it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The reality of negotiation

Posted on by

As was ever thus, the Twitter Machine erupted with fury and disingenuous outrage when health minister Patty Hajdu told reporters that she couldn’t guarantee that a national pharmacare programme would be in place at the end of the current parliament (for which we don’t know when that will be, as a hung parliament rarely lasts beyond two years.

“Some of that will be predicted by, predicated by, the responses of the provinces and territories,” said Hajdu, because *mind blown* healthcare is largely the domain of the provinces and any pharmacare system would have to be negotiated with them – in particular, a national formulary, which is going to be extremely complicated to ensure that existing plans don’t get left behind or that the new national plan isn’t worse off than any existing ones that it would replace.

What is especially irritating are all of the voices crying out that this just means the Liberals were lying on the campaign trail, which is false and ridiculous – Trudeau spent the campaign not overpromising on this file, but rather kept saying that it was contingent on negotiation with provinces, which is why their fiscal plan only called for a “down payment” on such a programme rather than the whole thing, but nevertheless, the promise was to go by the principles of the Hoskins Report, which they have bene doing thus far. The NDP, by contrast, insisted that this could be done by 2020, and whenever anyone brought up the fact that the provinces may object, the line was largely that why would anyone say no to federal dollars? It’s absurd, of course, because provinces are rightfully afraid that they would be stuck with an expensive programme to run if the federal government suddenly cut out transfers or funds to it because they suddenly had other priorities (which has happened in the past).

And to that end, we have a bunch of premiers who are balking at it, Quebec and Alberta want to be able to opt-out with compensation, and Ontario is instead insisting that the federal government pay for drugs to treat rare diseases – the most expensive kind, and the ones where costs are rapidly escalating. So of course they want the federal government to pay for them rather than to share the burden. It’s predictable, and for anyone to be shocked and appalled that the Liberals have to deal with this reality is really, really tiresome.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving up HRH

Posted on by

News came down on Saturday from Buckingham Palace that Harry and Meghan had given up their royal titles – they remain the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – and that they would be repaying for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which would continue to be their residence in the UK. On Sunday, Harry gave a speech that outlined his continued commitment to causes, but said that he had no other choice than to step back from royal duties, and it wasn’t possible to keep up Commonwealth and military commitments while not being senior royals receiving the sovereign grant.

The fact that the pair have given up their royal titles is likely to mean that they are no longer on the list of internationally protected persons, meaning that Canada will likely not have to foot any kind of security bill for them – even though no assessment had even been made on it (as it was still a bit early considering that little had been finalised).

So what does this mean for my proposal that we put them to work giving patronages in Canada? Well, very little, actually – Harry has insisted that they are still devoted to causes, and well, they have the time and the availability to devote themselves to these causes while they’re spending (likely just shy of) six months of the year here. It will just mean that they will be more under their celebrity status than royal status, which is more the pity. Besides, what could be more Canadian than getting something second-hand from Britain and hoping that it doesn’t catch fire on its way across the Atlantic?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Framing for controversy

Posted on by

I try to give my brethren in the media the benefit of the doubt as often as possible, but yesterday there were two egregious examples of places where they framed a quote in a way that gave it a particular perception, and then went and tried to make news about that perception. The first example was to take a quote from Trudeau from the Global News interview from the night before, and tried very hard to make it look like Trudeau was blaming Trump for the deaths on Flight PS752.

“If there were no tensions, if there was no escalation recently in the region, those Canadians would be right now home with their families,” said Trudeau. “This is something that happens when you have conflict and war. Innocents bear the brunt of it and it is a reminder why all of us need to work so hard on de-escalation, moving forward to reduce tensions and find a pathway that doesn’t involve further conflict and killing.”

If you notice, the focus was – quite rightly – on the fact that civilians get caught in the crossfire of war. But the various outlets in this country (and the US – Fox News in particular) tried to frame this as Trudeau blaming Trump, which he didn’t actually do. And then, CBC had their Washington correspondents getting reaction to the “perception” that Trudeau was blaming Trump, even when he wasn’t, and in interviews, kept aggressively going after the perception of the comments, without actually acknowledging that they were trying to create that very perception with the very frame they put around those comments. The lack of self-awareness and self-reflection was entirely galling.

The second incident in a single day was taking a comment that Stephen Harper made, where he called for “change in the nature of the government” in Iran, and headlined it “calling for regime change” which has a very specific meaning, and got their reaction quotes based on the notion that he called for regime change – again, putting a frame around comments which were so bland as to be not worth reporting. (Note: CBC was not the only offender here, and they had to issue a “clarification,” which was really a correction, as a result; the CTV piece eventually changed their headline and lede, but didn’t note that they had made the correction).

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1217233046908416000

Two instances of torqueing quotes and placing dubious framing devices around fairly innocuous quotes to spark controversy in a single day. Not good, guys, and like Robert Hiltz said, this is the kidnd of thing that erodes trust. Let’s be better than this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Officially on the way to Canada

Posted on by

It’s official – Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, will be splitting their time between Canada and the UK as they “transition” to private lives, according to a statement from the Queen – and that has a bunch of coverage already in a bit of flurry. Despite a UK outlet erroneously reporting that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has already agreed to pick up security costs for the couple in Canada, Bill Morneau stated that the matter hasn’t been discussed yet (which didn’t stop certain media outlets in this country from trying to make it sound like it was a fait accompli, because there’s nothing they love more than cheap outrage stories – never mind that if they’re no longer senior royals, they may not be entitled to the same protection that they currently have). Even if we were to cover it, at $1.7 million per year, that’s still a fraction of what we paid for when Barack Obama visited Ottawa for an afternoon, so let’s keep that cheap outrage in check.

BC premier John Horgan said he was very excited about the possibility of the couple moving to BC, and suggested some potential jobs for them in the area. (I have some suggestions of my own, which should be on macleans.ca later today). Here is some analysis of the results of the meeting with the Royal Family as to the next steps for the couple in the wake of the announcement. As well, here is some media analysis to show how Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, has been treated differently from Meghan, and it’s proof of how framing devices absolutely matter in media in how stories are presented.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The call is coming from inside the caucus room

Posted on by

The hits just keep coming for Andrew Scheer, as one of his MPs came out vocally against his leadership yesterday. In the wake of the fairly low-key announcement of his Shadow Cabinet, it was quickly noticed that Ed Fast was not on said list, and Fast himself said that he was asked to be part of it and he declined, saying that Scheer should be surrounded by people loyal to his leadership, while Fast has concerns about it. Up until this moment, Scheer’s loyalists were dismissing those vocally and publicly calling for Scheer to step down as being Toronto elites and sore losers that go back to leadership rivals. Fast’s public denouncement puts a lie to this narrative.

Let’s face it – public dissent in caucus is rare because we have virtually eliminated all of the incentives for it. Our bastardized leadership selection process has leaders claiming a “democratic legitimacy” that they use to intimidate MPs into not challenging them, because it goes against the “will of the grassroots” (and to hell with that MP’s voters, apparently). We gave party leaders the power to sign off on nomination forms with the purest of intentions and it quickly got perverted into a tool of blackmail and iron-fisted discipline. Pretty much the only time MPs will speak out is if they have nothing to lose, and Fast is in that position – he could retire tomorrow and be all the better for it. And it’s when the dissent goes public that leaders really need to worry because that means that it’s happening by those inside the caucus room who aren’t saying anything out loud. Provincially, we’ve seen instances of it taking only one or two MLAs coming out publicly for leaders to see the writing on the wall and resign. The caucus may be bigger in Ottawa, but the sentiment is increasingly out in the open – that can’t be sustainable.

Scheer later went to the annual UCP convention in Calgary, where he was predictably given a fairly warm welcome– but he shouldn’t rest on this applause because he doesn’t need to win Alberta – he already has their votes, and they’re not enough to carry the country, no matter how much they increase their vote share. He needs seats in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, and he is having a hard time cracking those areas, in particular because of his social conservatism and the UCP convention isn’t going to be the place to go to get honest feedback about that problem. It’s a bubble, and a trap that becomes too easy to feel that there is nothing wrong if he stays in it too long.

Continue reading →