Tag Archives: First Nations

QP: In the shadow of the Emergencies Act

Posted on by

While talk of the imminent imposition of the Emergencies Act swirled, the prime minister was in his office but not in the Chamber for QP. Candice Bergen led off, script in front of her, and quoted Section 16 of the Emergencies Act to ask if he considers the blockades a threat to national security, to which Marco Mendicino quoted the arrests on Coutts this morning for weapons before listing supports the federal government provided to end the blockades. Bergen demanded the government agree with their Supply Day motion to capitulate to the occupiers, and Bill Blair railed about the illegal occupations. Bergen called capitulation “not unreasonable,” and demanded “hope and optimism” for Canadians. Mark Holland said that the Conservatives squandered all attempts at de-escalation, citing their various MPs who have supported it. Luc Berthold took over in French, and repeated the “division and stigmatisation” line before wondering how the government could possibly consider emergency measures. Mendicino repeated his previous answer. Berthold said that nobody wanted to see the army in the streets before demanding capitulation, and Holland repeated his condemnation of irresponsible Conservative statements in support of the occupations.

For the Bloc, Alain Therrien wanted to know how the prime minister planned to use emergency powers, and demanded a detailed plan today. Mendicino read about the support the federal government has offered. Therrien was not satisfied, but Mendicino simply repeated his response.

Peter Julian led for the NDP, and wondered why the prime minister didn’t “show leadership” 18 days ago—as though there were federal powers he could deploy (there weren’t). Bill Blair denounced the occupations and blockades, and stated that they did provide support where requested. Alexandre Boulerice took over in French to lament the same, and Mendicino repeated the script about supports given.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford wakes up after letting Ottawa suffer

Posted on by

After being content to let Ottawa suffer under occupation by grifters, extremists and conspiracy theorists for the past two weeks, Doug Ford woke up and got serious now that the Ambassador Bridge is threatened. He declared a state of emergency and promised permanent legislation about blocking critical infrastructure, with fines of up to $100,000 and up to a year imprisonment, but that didn’t seem to help motivate police any. It was an injunction in Windsor that seems to have had more of an impact (and I find the notion that police will enforce an injunction but not uphold the laws on the statute books to be a concerning development with the rule of law). They were promising enforcement, but we’ll see, given that the crowd only grew once the injunction came into effect.

Meanwhile, I find myself a bit at a loss about the demands that Justin Trudeau “show leadership” in this situation. Every time I ask someone just which federal levers he should be deploying, I get static in reply. When pressed on the topic on Power & Politics the other day, Jagmeet Singh flailed and handwaved before resorting to a Jaida Essence Hall and trying to make a bunch of erroneous statements about healthcare funding. Trudeau cannot simply assert authority in this situation—it frankly does not meet the test for the Emergencies Act, and I’m not convinced this is a situation that requires it. I fail to see the utility of trying to get the RCMP to bigfoot the Ottawa Police as a) they don’t have the expertise in this situation, and b) they don’t have the numbers, particularly in the area. He’s not going to call in the military, because that is a very, very bad idea and more to the point, it’s the premier or his attorney general who needs to make the request for the aid to civil power under the National Defence Act. What else should Trudeau be doing? He told the convoy to go home on the first Monday (meaning, day four) during Question Period and elsewhere (you know, when members of the media accused him of being “in hiding” when he was in COVID isolation and still attending the House of Commons virtually). He’s been making calls the whole time, though not necessarily as performatively as is being demanded. So how else should he be “showing leadership”? What other powers should he be deploying? And even more to the point, why should he be playing into the trap that Ford and the extremist organizers themselves are laying out for him that is trying to put him at the centre of this?

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s day of reckoning

Posted on by

Regardless of the outcome of today’s caucus vote, Erin O’Toole is finished as leader—the only question is how long he lingers. Thanks to the (garbage) Reform Act, what should have been an exercise in reading the room has come down to weaponization, threats, and now a legalistic battle of wills where anything less than fifty-percent-plus-one will mean O’Toole will try to lord over the caucus until an eventual grassroots leadership review, which may or may not be sooner than the current date scheduled (pretty much acceding to what Senator Denise Batters sidelined for calling for). But the fact that we’ve even reached this point, months in the making, where more than a third of his caucus is alienated, means he’s unable to lead the party no matter what, and frankly, the (garbage) Reform Act is just making this situation worse than it needed to be.

O’Toole apparently spent the day working the phones, and apparently has been saying that he’s willing to change his policies if he survives—but isn’t that part of the problem that got him here? That he keeps changing his positions depending on the audience he’s in front of? I’m not sure how he thinks this promise helps him. Also, “coincidentally” an Astroturf grassroots group calling itself the “Majority Committee” launched itself yesterday morning, conveniently parroting the exact same lines O’Toole used in his challenge letter to his caucus, so that doesn’t look staged at all. Meanwhile, his former allies are lining up against him, a number of former MPs have added their names to an open letter calling for him to step down, so any illusion that continuing on as leader after this is really just delusion.

https://twitter.com/BobBenzen/status/1488633402400071682

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne argues that it’s not O’Toole that needs to be ousted, but rather the unhinged yahoos in the caucus that are causing the party its biggest headaches. (I don’t disagree, but appealing to the yahoos is part of O’Toole’s problem). Althia Raj correctly notes that whatever the outcome of tomorrow’s vote, it’s untenable for O’Toole to stay. Matt Gurney (by video) wonders if this winds up leading to the break-up of the party.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1488522864269705222

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1488526887408353282

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1488528268106031108

Continue reading →

Roundup: The extremists weigh in

Posted on by

As the grifter convoy 2022 gets closer to Ottawa, it is attracting more online attention from some unsavoury circles. Some of them have been calling for this to be Canada’s January 6th insurrection, which one might think would give some Conservative MPs pause, but nope. No denunciations have yet been forthcoming. Another group associated with the convoy, calling itself “Canadian Unity,” seems to think they can force the government to sign some kind of quasi-legalistic “Memorandum of Understanding” that would essentially force the all governments, federal, provincial and municipal, to rescind all public health measures and dissolve the government so that said group can rule by fiat. Erm, yeah, that’s not going to happen.

One of the organizers (who has the GoFundMe in her name) says she won’t tolerate extremist rhetoric associated with said grifter convoy, but yeah, good luck with that. And if things do turn violent, well, that could trigger anti-terrorism financing laws to everyone who donated to those GoFundMe accounts.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1486064285361086469

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1485976603918315525

Oh, and the federal government isn’t budging on the vaccine mandate, and if they think a convoy like this will change the Americans’ minds for their own mandate, well, good luck with that delusion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New NSICOP line-up, sans Conservatives

Posted on by

Because the issue of NSICOP/Winnipeg Lab documents refuses to die, yesterday’s iteration was that the prime minister announced the new composition of NSICOP, and it didn’t include any Conservatives, either MPs or senators, because they refused to put any names forward. Erin O’Toole then tweeted that this was because it was somehow hiding documents, which is a complete and utter falsehood.

To recap: those Winnipeg Lab documents were released in an unredacted form to NSICOP to review. The Conservatives withdrew from NSICOP because it didn’t suit their needs to actually review the documents—the whole point was the song and dance about a “cover-up.” If, during the years that NSICOP has been operating, any of its reports were unfairly redacted and information was being hidden from the public that its membership felt was important, they would have resigned in protest. That did not happen because it was working. And even if it were a full parliamentary committee, redactions still happen because it’s still national security.

O’Toole is acting in bad faith so that he can wink and nod to conspiracy theorists and put on a show that doesn’t reflect reality. He knows it, and he should be called out on it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mandatory vaccination is Canadian

Posted on by

There’s been some nonsense going around the pundit-sphere over the weekend about mandatory vaccinations being “against what Canada stands for.” Erm, except we’ve had mandatory vaccinations since around 1885, because public health concerns are public health. Seriously. This is not that difficult, people.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A late start isn’t an extra week off

Posted on by

I’m not sure whether it’s because it’s a very, very slow news season, or if the basic knowledge of how Parliament works is that lacking, but we got a lot of really bad headlines yesterday about how the Senate plans to take an “extra week off.” Which is not actually true, and distorts the situation. And in some cases, it’s being spun this way by certain media suspects completely out of bad faith, because anytime they can badmouth the Senate they’ll grab the opportunity and run.

To clarify: The Senate does not have a fixed sitting schedule the way the House of Commons does, and in no way are they bound to match the sitting schedule, because they do different work, and the timelines are different. The Senate frequently doesn’t convene at the same time as the House of Commons after the winter or summer break because they simply don’t have enough work on their Order Paper to justify it. They passed all of the bills that the Commons sent to them before they adjourned for the break, so coming back at the same time makes no sense—especially when they are competing for IT resources and interpreters with the Commons in the current hybrid context (which has, frankly, screwed the Senate over, but they’ve also allowed it to happen). More to the point, there are many years where the Senate will sit for weeks after the Commons rises for its break, and they will have break weeks out of sync with the Commons every now and again because their workloads are different. But this isn’t communicated effectively, either by the Senate itself, or by the media reporting on it—and it most especially isn’t communicated or even mentioned by the bad faith actors whose only agenda is to paint the Senate in a bad light. It’s disappointing, but not unexpected.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recalling a committee for a dog and pony show

Posted on by

The House of Commons’ access to information, privacy and ethics committee will be recalled for emergency meetings after the Conservatives were “alarmed” to hear that the Public Health Agency used anonymised mobile data to see how Canadians were responding to public health measures. The point of the data collection is to get a sense of travel patterns during these kinds of measures, and to see whether people stay at home, or how far they go, and because its anonymised, nobody can see who is doing what individually—they’re looking at patterns.

But this kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth over anonymised data is nothing new for Conservatives, who have sounded this particular alarm before when Statistics Canada was hoping to use anonymised bank data to track Canadians’ purchasing habits in a more robust and accurate way than shopping diary surveys can, and lo, that project got iced. Of course, because irony is dead, the Conservatives’ election platform had their “carbon points” plan, which would require so much itemised consumer data that it puts this kind of anonymised data to shame, but why worry about consistency or logic?

Because this is a House of Commons committee, we are guaranteed that this is going to be nothing more than a dog and pony show. If they agree to hold a study on this—which it’s not yet guaranteed—it’s going to be hauling public health officials before committee and subjecting them to ridiculous questions that have little to do with this particular issue, in the hopes of catching them out on something, and attempts to build some kind of conspiracy theory that the government was trying to play Big Brother during the pandemic, and it will balloon from there until the point where the government has had enough and starts filibustering the increasingly unreasonable demands by opposition members, and the committee will grind to a halt. Because that’s how this kind of thing happens every time, because our MPs are more concerned with being partisan dicks on committees than actually doing their jobs of accountability. But maybe I’m just getting cynical about the current state of affairs in federal politics.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The healthcare debate needs to include strings

Posted on by

Our healthcare system is the topic du jour across much of the media, with a lot of “told you so,” and handwringing about how provincial governments drove “efficiencies” over the past number of decades that left almost no surge capacity­—Ontario most especially—while not doing anything about its robustness. And through it all, there are a number of opportunists saying “See! We need more private options!” which in turn leads to accusations of “See! You want American-style healthcare!” and the argument goes binary and unhelpful. (And here is some perspective on the American system amid COVID, which had more capacity, but is similarly overburdened now and some hospitals are declaring bankruptcy because they have had to cancel elective surgeries).

What I find particularly curious, however, is that in none of the pieces I read over the weekend was it ever acknowledged that over the decade that the health transfer escalator was at six percent annually, that provincial health spending didn’t match that growth, and that the money was being spent elsewhere. Provincial governments should be held to account for the fact that they were given money to fix their healthcare systems, and they didn’t, which has led us to this situation, and while my reply column on Twitter likes to insist that this is just conservative governments, no, it was common to governments of all stripes for decades now. This is why we need all future federal transfer agreements to come with hard strings, and compliance measures to ensure that we actually use those federal dollars to fix the system, not paper over cracks while they use the money to lower taxes elsewhere.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The limits of federal capacity to help

Posted on by

As the omicron variant continues to surge and stress hospital systems around the country, the federal health minister has started issuing a warning to provinces—the federal government’s resources to help provinces are finite, and that provinces are going to need to do more to bend their curves and reduce caseloads, because the federal government is about tapped out. That could include stricter vaccine mandates within provinces, because they may not have a choice as the unvaccinated continue to swamp the healthcare system. (This is where Jason Kenney and his mini-me, Scott Moe, immediately declared that it wasn’t going to happen in their provinces).

The Canadian Forces’ own medical abilities are very finite, and even before the pandemic, they were already short thousands of bodies necessary to do all of the work they’re supposed to be doing. The pandemic has very much not helped this situation, and between pandemic needs and natural disasters (wildfires and floods), the military is having a hard time doing its own job and preparing soldiers for possible combat deployments when provinces keep demanding more military help—and there is talk that Ontario should bring in more military personnel to deal with the crisis that is yet again brewing in its long-term care homes. This is not only not sustainable, but I suspect there is also a troubling willingness on the part of provinces to simply turn to the federal government (and federal dollars) because it’s easier than doing the hard work on their own, in their own backyards.

Yes, the federal government is doing what it can, but at this point in the pandemic, a lot of bad decisions by provinces are catching up with them, but we already know that the blame is going to fall on the federal government because they couldn’t do enough to fix the premiers’ mistakes (and really, they have neither the jurisdiction, the capacity, or the necessary competence to do so). But too many bad actors are willing to blame the federal government because it suits there purposes to do so, and I will bet you that virtually nobody in the media will bother to correct them because too many of them believe the maxim that “nobody cares about jurisdiction in a pandemic,” even though real life doesn’t work that way, and no amount of political willpower (or Green Lantern rings) can change that fact. And premiers whose bad judgment cost thousands of lives will get away with it, because we have an allergy to holding the right people to account in this country.

Continue reading →