Tag Archives: First Nations

Roundup: Mischief with a reasonable goal

Posted on by

It may be a bit of mischief, but it’s certainly well-deserved, as the Alberta NDP are moving a motion in the legislature to have the government condemn separatism. The ostensible goal for the denunciation is because talk of separatism is bad for the economy – it drives away investment, no matter how low corporate taxes are (and you only have to look to Canadian history to see how the two referendums in Quebec saw the country’s financial capital move from Montreal to Toronto, even though Montreal was a more tax-advantageous environment). If Alberta hopes to diversify their economy, they need to ensure that they aren’t driving away investment in a similar way.

It’s also about jamming Jason Kenney to an extent, because while he has stated in the past that he’s not a separatist, he’s also winked and nodded to them in a fairly constant fashion, and used his own rhetoric to fuel their arguments, up to and including his ridiculous “Fair Deal Panel.” But with the rise of separatist parties, both federally and provincially in the prairie provinces, there are concerns about them gaining political traction – particularly as the so-called “Buffalo Party” gained a fair number of votes in last week’s Saskatchewan election, and it may have some people in Alberta worried. Granted, the Conservatives in the province should likely be more worried because they’re likely to peel voters away from the Conservatives, which may allow the NDP to come up the middle provincially, but there should also be no doubt that letting these separatists get any kind of political traction – even a handful of seats – would be sending the wrong signals to markets. Having Kenney denounce them in a way that they can’t spin as winking or nodded to them may be a way to take some of the wind out of their sails – but it could also expose divisions in Kenney’s own caucus (which is partly where the mischief comes in). Nevertheless, even if the movement is headed by a bunch of swivel-eyed loons who have no chance of success, they can cause a lot of damage along the way, and should be taken down at every chance.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s conversion to the labour movement

Posted on by

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole addressed the Canadian Club of Toronto yesterday, and the more I read of his speech, the more curious I become of just what it is he’s trying to say. For example, he spent part of the speech bemoaning the collapse of private sector union membership in the country, talking about how it was part of the balance between what was good for the economy and what was good for workers. That’s surprising considering that when he was in Cabinet, O’Toole supported anti-union legislation that the party put forward (under the guise of private members’ bills, naturally), and the party was having a field day before the last election trying to accuse the government of stacking their media bailout fund by allowing Unifor – the country’s largest private sector union – to have a seat at the table (given that Unifor also represents a lot of journalists). I’m sure the labour movement in this country has whiplash from this sudden reversal – though I would note that in his mouthing about the importance of unions the past couple of months, he is careful to distinguish between private and public sector unions, the latter he still continues to be evil. (And before anyone says those two anti-union bills were “about transparency,” you all know that’s a lie and can stop insulting our intelligence).

O’Toole argued that we have somehow completely de-industrialized as a country, which is news to the rest of us, and then went on an extended tirade about China, because he’s trying to frame this as a national security argument and not just populism hollowing out his party’s political ideology. He claimed that the Liberals were using the pandemic to launch a “risky experiment with our economy” around green energy, which is…not really true, and ignores how markets have moved to green tech with better economic outcomes for doing so. He also continued his protectionist bent, and made a few deeply curious statements like “Free markets alone won’t solve all our problems” (erm, his party is the one that rails about the evils of socialism, no? Is he proposing nationalizing industries? Or does he simply mean global trade when he talks about “free markets”?), and adding that that GDP growth is not the “be-all and end-all of politics” – which is odd because nobody has actually suggested that it is (but his predecessor was fond of attacking straw men as well). I’m also a bit puzzled by what exactly he’s getting at when he says “We need policies to shore up the core units of society — family, neighbourhood, nation. We need policies that build solidarity, not just wealth.” Some of this is thinly-veiled Thatcherism, but where it’s building in terms of his populist rhetoric I am a bit troubled.

And make no mistake – this is full-throated populism, particularly when he starts railing about political and business elites selling out the country (with mention about political correctness in there) – which he’s oddly making to an audience that is thought of as Canada’s business elites. But it’s also deeply hypocritical because of just who O’Toole is. He is the son of a GM executive (which he tries to obscure when he says his father “worked for GM” as though he were blue-collar), who went on to be an MPP. In fact, earlier in the week, O’Toole was tweeting about how he built himself up to leadership, conveniently omitting the huge leg-up he was given along the way. It’s like the “self-made” tech millionaires who got their start with loans from their millionaire fathers, and getting those fathers to buy their tech at their companies. More to the point, after O’Toole left the military, he was a Bay Street corporate lawyer, which is not exactly the image of the middle-class guy he’s painting himself as. When he rails about “elites,” he needs to look in the mirror because that’s exactly what he is. Of course, we’ve seen this story so many times in populist politics, where rich white guys turn themselves into the heroes for the “oppressed underclass” (of mostly straight white guys) who somehow believe that said rich white guy is a “man of the people.” And no doubt O’Toole is hoping he’ll dine out on this as well, but make no mistake, this speech was hypocrisy of the highest order.

Continue reading →

QP: A flaming clown show where seriousness goes to die

Posted on by

It being Wednesday, the prime minister was not only present, but ready to respond to all of the questions of the day — though the utility of those responses was the question. Erin O’Toole led off, scripts on mini-lectern, and he started in on the Baylis Medical story, asking the prime minister to ask Frank Baylis to change the name from the “Baylis Ventilator.” Justin Trudeau reminded him that people of all partisan stripes, including well known conservatives like a Rick Jamison also stepped up to partner with Baylis. In French, O’Toole tried to insist that the Baylis contract was padded, but Trudeau reiterated the response. O’Toole then lied about the story on judicial appointments, to which Trudeau insisted that they were chosen based on merit and diversity — including political diversity. O’Toole switched to English attempt being clever about judicial appointments, and Trudeau protested that it wasn’t true. O’Toole then demanded to know why Canadians would be at the “back of the line” on vaccine roll-outs, and again Trudeau stated that it simply wasn’t true, and listed their early actions on the pandemic. Yves-François Blanchet was up next, and demanded an official apology for the October Crisis in 1970, to which Trudeau reminded him of the Quebec politician who was assassinated by a terrorist cell. Blanchet insisted that raids were like those in the Soviet Union, but Trudeau reminded him that the premier of Quebec and the leader of the opposition in 1970 called on Ottawa go send in the troops. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and in French, stated that Stephen Harper cut healthcare funds which is why long-term care facilities were under-resourced — which is utterly false. Trudeau stated that the federal government worked with the provinces to help with their facilities when asked. Singh then blamed the government for deaths in care homes that he claims they own — another falsehood — and Trudeau gave a paean about propel deserving care in dignity.

Continue reading →

QP: Reaching on a false premise

Posted on by

The prime minister was in attendance today, though his deputy wasn’t. Alas. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he noted the two American CEOs who crossed the border without quarantines, and that if the public safety minister didn’t have the power to approve them, it must have been the PMO — a blatant reach based on a false premise. Justin Trudeau reminded him that these were decisions made by CBSA officers at the border in error — then congratulated the victors of last night’s by-elections. O’Toole then asked about the public inquiry into the Nova Scotia mass shooting, and Trudeau gave a somewhat platitudinous response about moving ahead with the inquiry at the behest of the families. O’Toole wondered just who was in charge of the RCMP if there were differing opinions in Cabinet about calls for her to resign, and Trudeau read a script about acknowledging systemic racism in the Force. O’Toole switched to French to lament rapid tests and the early numbers that came from China, and Trudeau explained everything they did to help families, which was what mattered. O’Toole then worried that the prime minister was blaming provinces for inaction and demanded they get to work, to which Trudeau reminded him there are areas of provincial jurisdiction and that he working with provinces to ensure that all Canadians were taken care of. Yves-François Blanchet was up next and raised blackface and the Indian Act as racist, while trying to defend that University of Ottawa professor. Trudeau reminded him that they were working with the First Nations to get past the Indian Act, but it can’t be done by decree. Blanchet went on a meandering path about what was nation-to-nation relations, to which Trudeau reminded him that there is a diversity of opinion among First Nations, which is why they were talking at the nation’s pace. Jagmeet Singh was up next that for the NDP, and in French, he demanded universal pharmacare, to which Trudeau recited his practiced lines about how nobody should be forced to choose between food and medicine, and that they were working with the provinces. Singh then raised that the federal government as a landlord raised the rent on a daycare facility forcing it to close, to which Trudeau said they would be looking into what happened.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding an answer on provincial measures

Posted on by

With the prime minister in town but not in the Chamber, his deputy was, which tends to be better in any case. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he decried that the government announced the appointment of a special representative for the fisheries dispute in Nova Scotia. Chrystia Freeland assured him that they want a peaceful, constructive solution, and that everyone wants to assure the rights of First Nations people as well as conservation, O’Toole then pivoted to boil water advisories on First Nations and Neskatanga in particular, to which Freeland noted that they are working hard to solve the advisories, but there was shared responsibility as the Conservatives didn’t solve the issues either – but she didn’t offer anything in the way of candour about the particularities of the situation. O’Toole then decided to thump his chest on China and their dubious numbers early in the pandemic, to which Freeland reminded him not to lecture her on authoritarian regimes because she lived in one and reported on them extensively, and she listed concerns Canada has with China’s actions and human rights abuses. O’Toole went again in French, got the same answer, and for his final question, he went on a paean about democracy and transparency versus Chinese dictatorship, and in a very slow and calm tone, Freeland cautioned O’Toole that they draw very careful lines about what is permissible in democracies, and that he is engaging in the most base partisanship. Alain Therrien got up for the Bloc to decry businesses suffering in “red zones” in Quebec, to which Freeland assured him a bill was coming in days. Therrien stated this was too little too late, to which Freeland listed measures they have provided to businesses so far. Jagmeet Singh was up next by video, and in French, decried the Neskatanga situation, and insisted that Trudeau had no intention of keeping his promise on boil-water advisories. Freeland disagreed, and stated they we working to address it and had made progress. Singh switched to English to repeat the question, and got much the same answer. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Self-harm by way of platitude

Posted on by

I try not to make a habit of re-litigating my Twitter disputes in this space, but in this particular case, I find it’s a perfect illustration of how this government’s inability to communicate its way out of a wet paper bag, and why that harms them. To wit: A Global News piece declares that Trudeau won’t commit to ending boil-water advisories on First Nations by 2021 as is the current promise. It uses the recent evacuation at Neskatanga First Nation as an illustration of problems with boil-water advisories. It quotes Trudeau giving a bland talking point about “more work to do,” and way down at the bottom of the story is reference to the fact that in Neskatanga, not only has money been approved and delivered, but the new water treatment facility is nearly completed construction.

So why is this a problem for the government? Because if they had the slightest bit of candour, they could have explained that capital projects like these take time, particularly in the kinds of remote and fly-in communities like these particular First Nations. Twitter is filled with people who are seriously asking why the government hasn’t solved these issues if they’re showering money around, without having the slightest clue about what he actual problems with these boil water advisories are, and accustomed to situations where they can simply throw money at a problem and it will go away. That’s not the case, and not understanding the logistical and capacity issues at play means that we get this ongoing confusion. For example, many of these reserves are only accessible to bring equipment up with ice roads for a couple of months of the year, which slows the ability to make timely solutions. (This is also an issue with housing on many reserves – small windows by which to bring in building supplies, and those windows are getting ever shorter because of climate change). This has been made even worse in the pandemic, because many communities won’t let the people who are building these new facilities into the community in an attempt to keep COVID out (which Trudeau made vague reference to, but folded it into his platitude so it gets lost). In some communities, it’s not a question of the equipment but of maintenance – as soon as they find and train someone local to do the work, they get headhunted and given a better offer, and the community has to start over again, as the equipment once again breaks down. And it would be great if Trudeau or one of his ministers could actually articulate these challenges, but they won’t. Instead, they fall back on their platitudes about “doing better,” and not giving people a clue about what the actual challenges are.

The government also assumes that these reporters will do the work to find out what the challenges are, but they won’t. Pressed for time, and under the constant pressure to produce, most of them will only both-sides the quotes and move on (as happened in this particular case). Most don’t understand the background or the actual challenges, so it doesn’t get reported – only the platitudes in face of the complaints. Actual candour from Trudeau and the Cabinet would fix this – easily! But they won’t do it. It’s maddening, and they’re just shooting themselves in the foot, over, and over, and over again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pushing back against the committee order

Posted on by

The credulous takes on the Conservatives’ health committee motion continue, and now industry is also starting to push back, concerned that commercially sensitive information is going to be released publicly which will affect them and the ability to produce PPE for the country. Of course, Michelle Rempel Garner is dismissing these concerns as “Liberal spin” and offering the assurance that the Commons Law Clerk will redact any sensitive information – except that there are no assurances that he knows what is and is not commercially sensitive information. (And this recent trend of making the Law Clerk redact documents under the howls that anything else amounts to a cover-up is worrying, because it’s once again piling work into independent servants of the House that is beyond the scope of their duties, which will soon become a permanent duty). Other manufacturers are saying it’s not about the information, but about the fact that they’re going to become political footballs for stepping up in the early days of the pandemic – and they’re right. Given how many falsehoods are being repeated about the Baylis Medical contract – which media continues to both-sides rather than call out – is going to keep happening, and we’ll see these company owners be grilled for any remote Liberal connections, because this is an exercise in the Conservatives fishing to “prove” that this was about the Liberals trying to pad the pockets of their “friends,” because they are determined to try and recreate a new Sponsorship Scandal. And I’m surprised that there aren’t more voices in the media who can’t see this, or the shenanigans in Rempel Garner’s motion.

Meanwhile, Patty Hajdu hasn’t exactly covered herself in glory over the past few days with her dismissive comments about Access to Information requests – comments that got the attention of the Information Commissioner, who sounded the alarm over them. I will note that having once worked as a contractor in Health Canada’s records department (I had to pay the bills while building up my pre-political freelance career), that they had one of the worst-kept systems across the federal government, and I have no reason to believe that things are much different now than they were then. This gets compounded by the fact that ATIPs are being slowed by the fact that government offices are closed because of the pandemic, and people aren’t being able to access the files necessary, which is making the situation worse. It would be great if Hajdu could actually say something other than the dismissive comment (which I’m fairly certain was off the cuff when caught flat-footed by the issue), and her haughty defence of civil servants, but as we all know, this government can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, and she proved it once again, in spades.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another paralyzing motion

Posted on by

In the wake of Wednesday’s confidence vote, Erin O’Toole was strutting around saying that his party was going to focus on “issues” instead of “playing politics” – as though the stunt of the so-called “anti-corruption committee” was anything other than playing politics, or the fact that he has to continually lie about non-issues in order to make people angry than focusing on some of the actual issues that this government is getting wrong. And to that end, O’Toole and Michelle Rempel Garner spent yesterday on another Supply Day motion, this time geared toward ordering the health committee to conducting a wide-ranging study on the federal government’s response to the pandemic. Rempel Garner insisted that this was “non-partisan” and free of the hyperbole of the previous motion (and the government is not treating this as a confidence motion), but I still have issues with it (and I do not agree with Kady that this is “100% shenanigan-free).

For starters, many of the items enumerated by the order are the kinds of things that the Conservatives have been engaging in a campaign of revisionist history around, so I absolutely do not consider their intentions to be pure and honourable regarding them, and I suspect there will be many a fishing expedition based on this order, particularly to satisfy the conspiracy theorizing that the Conservatives have engaged in around the role of China and the WHO. The motion also orders a massive production of documents going back to January 2018 in some cases – something that the government has warned would be physically impossible in the time allotted (because we need to remember that nobody is working from their offices, and access to many of their files is limited to non-existent because nobody can get to their offices for “health and safety” reasons). I don’t think that Patty Hajdu was being too hyperbolic herself when she said that this kind of order would grind the department to a halt. As Kady mentioned in her tweet, the protocol of ordering ministers to appear is bad and setting a terrible precedent, and I’m increasingly uncomfortable with orders that the Law Clerk handle redactions on a very limited basis, meaning that there is no room for Cabinet confidences under the order, and the fact that he may not necessarily have the right knowledge to know about national security exemptions, or commercial sensitivity as Anita Anand pointed out yesterday around some of the negotiations for contracts, whether it’s PPE or vaccines, and publicly releasing that information could undermine ongoing negotiations with other suppliers.

The vote on this won’t be until Monday, and it looks like the other opposition parties are lined up in favour of supporting it, as they have with most other Supply Day motions (that weren’t declared confidence). I do worry that these kinds of motions are going to start becoming commonplace, and that very bad precedents are being set for the future.

Continue reading →

QP: A hand extended to work together?

Posted on by

While the prime minister was busy doing virtual business tours, his deputy was present. Erin O’Toole led off, with his scripts and mini-lectern, accusing the government of allowing Canadians to be at the “back of the line” for rapid testing. Chrystia Freeland listed the rapid tests that have been approved to date with an assurance that they were available to Canadians. O’Toole then engaged in some revisionist history around the early days of the pandemic, to which Freeland listed a timeline of events. O’Toole raised the false story about Baylis Medical before demanding the government support their Supply Day motion on the health committee, to which Freeland stated with in no uncertain terms that insinuating the government was not looking out for Canadians would not be tolerated. O’Toole tried again, and Freeland again took umbrage with the insinuations. O’Toole switched to French to return to the Baylis Medical false story, to which Freeland clearly annunciated that there was no contract with Baylis. Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he concern trolled about the use of the n-word by a university professor — in support of the professor. Freeland picked up a script to denounce anti-Black racism. Kristina Michaud got up to demand the government defend academic freedom, and Freeland insisted that they do support academic freedom but they need to be aware of systemic racism and take action to fight it. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and in French, raised a particular First Nation that hasn’t had drinking water for 25 years, to which a Freeland reminded him that drinking water on First Nations was a priority, and that they still have work to do, and they are working on it. Singh repeated the question in English, to which Freeland reiterated some of the same points, but stated that they were recommitting to the promise that all communities will have water to drink.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Confidence maintained, control wrested

Posted on by

It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that the government survived the confidence vote – it was very much an example of Wells’ First Rule – and the NDP and Greens voted to keep parliament going. Of course, the narrative that both the Conservatives and NDP adopted was that the Liberals were pushing for an election – the Conservatives (and Bloc) claiming it was because the Liberals really wanted to cover something up, and the NDP self-righteously declared that they weren’t going to give Trudeau the election that he wanted, but would keep parliament going to get things done for Canadians. Of course, if Trudeau really wanted an election (which he doesn’t), he could just head next door to Rideau Hall on any given morning and ask Julie Payette to dissolve Parliament, but he won’t, because that’s not what today was about.

Part of what has irked me in this is the way in which the Conservatives’ motion was being described, which is innocuously. One writer went so far as to call it a “pedestrian motion,” which it was anything but, and I highly suspect that nobody actually read through it except for the two other procedural wonks in the Gallery. Aside from the inflammatory title of “anti-corruption,” or the proposed alternative whose four-letter abbreviation would have been SCAM (both instances that demonstrate that it’s a group of juvenile shitposters running O’Toole’s office who are treating the Order Paper as a game of who can be the most outrageous), the proposed committee’s terms of reference would have put the government at a structural disadvantage with three fewer members (generally committees in the current parliamentary composition are split, and on committees where the government chairs it, the opposition has the votes to outweigh the government), but it would have given the committee first priority for all parliamentary resources, and compelled production of all documents they wanted and witnesses to appear, no matter who. This essentially means that both ministers and the civil service would be at the committee’s beck and call, and that they would have to drop everything to attend it – which is what Pablo Rodriguez meant by the committee being meant to “paralyze” government. They could go on unlimited fishing expeditions with little to no ability to push back, and given the fact that there aren’t any smoking guns here, it would be constant wild goose chases while Parliament was unable to get anything else accomplished. More than that, it would also have enshrined that the prime minister’s extended family – meaning his mother and brother – would be considered legitimate targets, and have their financial information put into the open for no good reason. And funnily enough, not one story from yesterday mentioned these facts – not the Star, not the National Post, not CBC, nor The Canadian Press. Yet this seems like some pretty vital context for why the government would so strenuously object to this “pedestrian” motion.

There was another consideration, that former Paul Martin-era staffer Scott Reid expounded upon, which is control of the agenda. That’s a pretty important thing in a hung parliament, and under the current circumstances. Trudeau hasn’t been able to make much progress on any file (admittedly, much of this is his own fault for refusing to bring parliament back in a sensible way, followed by his decision to prorogue), but being hamstrung by that motion was going to make things moving forward near impossible. Now that he’s stared down O’Toole, I suspect he has some breathing room again.

Continue reading →