Tag Archives: India

Roundup: Questions about that Senate poll

Posted on by

There is some drama going down at the Senate’s internal economy committee over Senator Donna Dasko’s poll on the Senate appointment process. Conservative senators say the poll is really partisan and should be a personal expense, whereas Dasko says they just don’t like the results and are trying to shoot the messenger. But I will have to say that I’m leaning more toward the Conservative side on this one because Senator Yuen Pau Woo – the “facilitator” of the Independent Senators Group – and others have been using this poll to push the Senate appointment process as an election issue, knowing full well that Andrew Scheer plans a return to partisan appointments and Jagmeet Singh follows the NDP dogma of preferring to abolish the Senate (but good luck getting the unanimous consent of the provinces). That is de facto partisan, whether Woo and the Independents believe it to be or not (and it’s somewhat galling that they don’t see this as being partisan, and yet they refuse to engage in the horse trading on managing bills in the Senate, because they see that as a partisan activity when it most certainly is not).

We all know that I didn’t find the poll particularly illuminating, because it could have asked Canadians if they wanted a pony and would have achieved similar results. I do especially find it objectionable that these senators are using it to justify their world view of the Senate, which is and of itself a problem – their particular disdain for everything that came before, dismissing it as being partisan and hence evil and wrong, is part of what has caused the myriad of problems the Senate is now facing with its Order Paper crisis and committees that aren’t functioning, because they don’t understand how Parliament or politics works and they don’t care to. But now they have a poll to point to that says that Canadians like the independent appointments process, as though that justifies everything. It doesn’t and it creates more problems in the long term.

Continue reading →

QP: Talking to the folks at home

Posted on by

Caucus day, and the benches were full, with all of the leaders present. Andrew Scheer led off, and he decided to re-litigate the cancellation of Northern Gateway, and demanded that it be revived. Justin Trudeau responded by reading quotes from the Federal Court of Appeal decision, and saying that the Conservatives treat the Duty to Consult as a suggestion. Scheer insisted that Indigenous communities would benefit from Northern Gateway, and Trudeau repeated that they didn’t understand that they need to work with Indigenous communities and scientists to ensure that projects get built in the right way. Scheer switched to French to demand the full guest list for the India trip, to which Trudeau congratulated the members of NSICOP for their work and that they accepted their recommendations. Scheer switched to English to raise the allegations around Navdeep Bains and the Brampton land deal — despite Bains’ repeated denials. Trudeau took the opportunity to tell the folks at home that parliamentary privilege means Scheer can say anything he wants inside the House without fear of prosecution, but the real test was if he repeated it outside. Scheer piled on the list of Liberal ethical lapses, and Trudeau again addressed the people at home to say that while the role of the opposition is to hold government to account, the current party across the way was more content with smears and innuendo. Guy Caron was up next, and demanded action for missing and murdered Indigenous women, to which Trudeau listed the measures they have taken to date. Caron demanded a national action plan, and Trudeau said that while there was work to do, they were continuing make progress. Sheri Benson wanted the PM to meet with petitioners around the MMIW inquiry, to which Trudeau read a statement about the Inquiry’s mandate and listed some of the investments made. Benson asked again, and Trudeau noted the extension of the Inquiry’s time, mandate and added funding.

Continue reading →

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: The inaugural NSICOP report

Posted on by

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians tabled their redacted report on the prime minister’s India trip yesterday, and, well, there were a number of redactions. But what wasn’t redacted did paint a picture of an RCMP that bungled security arrangements, and that didn’t have good lines of communication with the prime minister’s security detail, and where they left a voicemail for someone who was on vacation, while someone else in Ottawa decided to not bother trying to reach out until the following day because it was the end of their shift. So yeah, there were a “few issues” that the RCMP fell down on. And because of the redactions (done by security agencies and not PMO, for reasons related to national security or because revelations could be injurious to our international relations), we don’t have any idea if the former national security advisor’s warnings about “rogue elements” of the Indian government were involved was true or not.

https://twitter.com/SkinnerLyle/status/1069736311785951234

The CBC, meanwhile, got documents under Access to Information to show what kind of gong show was touched off with the communications side of things as the government tried to manage the fallout of the revelations of Atwal’s appearance on the trip (and in many senses, it wasn’t until the prime minister gave a very self-deprecating speech on the trip at the Press Gallery Dinner that the narratives started to die down). Because remember, this is a government that can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag.

In order to get some national security expert reaction, here’s Stephanie Carvin and Craig Forcese:

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1069747574435995648

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/1069718997937995776

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1069708639479451649

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1069708795134308362

It should also be pointed out that the opposition parties are trying to make some hay over the redactions, and are intimating that they’re the product of PMO for partisan reasons. It’s not supposed to work that way, but hey, why deal in facts when you can proffer conspiracy theories, or in Andrew Scheer’s case, shitposts on Twitter?

https://twitter.com/RobynUrback/status/1069786954756173825

Continue reading →

QP: Taking allegations outside

Posted on by

While the PM took a personal day after his return from the G20, Andrew Scheer was off in Winnipeg to talk guns and gangs. Pierre Poilievre led off concerned about the PM’s supposed “celebrity lifestyle” that referred to the pre-planned tweet around funds for women and girls’ education, before he suddenly pivoted to Bill C-69, demanding it be scrapped. Amarjeet Sohi reminded him that the system the Conservatives put into place that wasn’t working, so they were working to get a one project-one-review process. Poilievre railed that the PM was at the G20 talking about how there were negative consequences when male construction workers went to rural communities,  before returning to the demand to scrap C-69. Sohi reiterate his response, and when Poilievre went for another, more boisterous round of the same, he got much the same answer. Alain Rayes took over to ask about the report in the National Post about a potential investigation on a land deal that might involve Navdeep Bains and Raj Grewal, to which Bains told him the allegations were false and invited him to repeat them outside of the Chamber. Rayes tried to insist on Liberal connections to the situation, to which Bardish Chagger read a statement that functionally repeated Bains’ response. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, railing about high-protein milk under Supply Management, to which Lawrence MacAulay deployed his usual lines about defending the system. Caron then turned to the Oshawa closure and demanded action by the government, to which Bains read that the sector was strong, that they had the auto innovation fund if GM wanted to use it. Tracey Ramsey demanded action on Oshawa, to which Bains reiterated his previous response. Ramsey then railed that steel and aluminium tariffs were still in place, to which Mélanie Joly read that the NDP celebrated the deal behind closed doors.

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: A policy reviewed and changed

Posted on by

The government announced that their review of the transfer of inmates to Indigenous healing lodges is complete, and they made some changes to the policy to tighten the conditions. While they wouldn’t say directly, it was confirmed that Tori Stafford’s killer was reassigned from the healing lodge she had been transferred to back to an institution. Cue the self-congratulation from the Conservatives, who assert that the killer is back “behind bars.” But there are a few things we need to unpack here because some of this back-patting is disingenuous.

First of all, these healing lodges are still prisons. Said killer went from one medium-security facility to another medium-security facility. While Andrew Scheer kept insisting that she was moved to a “condo,” he is not only lying about what a healing lodge is, he is also misconstruing what conditions in women’s institutions in this country are like. There are no longer any of the kinds of cells and bars or high walls that you see on television – women’s institutions largely feature campus-like atmospheres, with apartment-like dwellings. Indeed, the facility she’s been transferred to post lodge is described as “a minimum security residential-style apartment unit and residential-style small group accommodation houses for minimum and medium-security inmates in an open campus design model.” So much for the crowing that she’s back behind bars.

There is also the self-congratulation in saying that they embarrassed the government into taking this action, and that this somehow disproves what the government said about not being able to act to transfer her. This is again disingenuous – when it came to light, the government ordered a review, and the policy writ-large was changed. They didn’t order an individual transfer, because that would be abusing their authority to do so. Now, there are some genuine questions as to how appropriate it is to change policies based on a single case, but insisting that they did what the Conservatives asked is not exactly true. Worse, however, is the unmitigated gall of the Conservatives demanding apologies and insisting that it was the Liberals who politicised the issue when they were the ones who decided to start reading the graphic details of Stafford’s murder into the record in the House of Commons. They’re still sore that they’ve been called ambulance chasers, which they insist is some kind of grievous insult, however their behaviour in the Commons around this issue was hardly decorous. An issue was raised, the policy was reviewed and changed, and the process worked. But trying to play victim over it is taking things a little too far.

https://twitter.com/journo_dale/status/1060641966776475648

Continue reading →

Roundup: Populist myths and the lies they tell themselves

Posted on by

The Nobel prize has been awarded to economists working on issues of climate change, who point to the need for carbon pricing to get markets to come to a consensus about finding solutions, and what do we get in Canada? Doug Ford going on tour to see Scott Moe and Jason Kenney to decry carbon taxation, and to lie to people about the efficacy of carbon taxes. They work, despite what Ford, Kenney, Scheer, et al. say, and we have the data to prove this.

The Ford/Kenney rally was apparently quite something, a demonstration of partisanship over politics, and a demonstration about what how this all relates to our recent discussions over populism, with the carbon tax as a wedge issue. But while this is being put against this notion that Stephen Harper is trying to put forward in his new book about how “conservative populism” is somehow trying to weed out the worst instincts of populists, but that can’t actually be true if the dog-whistling still goes on. In her piece about the Ford/Kenney rally, Jen Gerson relayed the anecdote about people attending the rally being asked to cover up their MAGA hats with oil sands stickers – but the MAGA hats are still there, even if they’re being literally papered over. Kenney and Ford still play semantic games around the same terminology that the xenophobes use (such as the use of “illegals”), and it’s still a dog-whistle. And it can’t be any surprise that because of all the dog-whistling that the Soldiers of Odin have started posing with UCP candidates in Alberta while wearing their badges and vests. You can’t simply say “Oh, it’s unacceptable these people show up to our events” when you keep inviting them with the dog-whistle language. (There’s a lesson in here for Maxime Bernier as well).

Meanwhile, John Geddes went through that excerpt of Harper’s book and deconstructed his arguments and his analysis about populism, and his nonsense construction of “Somewheres” and “Anywheres.” Aside from the fact that it’s deeply ironic that Stephen Harper, strong friend of Israel, is using the same “rootles cosmopolitan” argument used in Soviet propaganda to vilify Jews, it’s just trading on baseless mythology and trying to build an argument around it that doesn’t actually hold any water. But it also goes back to what Ford, Kenney and others are pandering to – they’re denying that problems exist, and then undermining the institutions that can help solve them. Such as with the looming climate crisis. We need a wake-up call.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All about Alleslev

Posted on by

As the fallout from Leona Alleslev’s defection to the Conservatives continues, the comments from her former colleagues have remarkably tended not to be bitter or angry, but more bewilderment as she didn’t express any concerns to them beforehand, though there was understandably some shock from her riding association. That’s a bit shocking considering the pure vitriol that we’ve heard from Conservatives when they had defections in the past (particularly when women defected, if you recall the misogyny lobbed at Belinda Stronach after her floor-crossing). Of course, that also hasn’t stopped the Liberals from leaking effusive emails of praise that Alleslev sent them, and speeches she gave that completely contradict everything that she told the Commons on Monday when she made the decision. I remain struck by this insistence that the current government isn’t offering the “foundational change” she claims to be looking for, yet is aligning herself with a party whose recent policy convention was pretty much dominated with resolutions to simply turn back the clock to the Harper era, which was apparently a golden age. If she wanted “foundational change” from that, I’m not sure that going back to reinforce it is what she’s looking for.

Meanwhile, here’s a look at some of the history of floor-crossings in Canada, and the trends for when it goes well for those MPs, and when it all goes down in flames.

Bernier blindsided

Maxime Bernier’s team is finding it hard to keep up with online groups pretending to act on his behalf but have no actual associations with him, and which are posting offensive material and items that he says are contrary to his positions. I have two things to say about this: 1) It’s hard to believe that his team are such rank amateurs that they didn’t secure these domain names in the first place, which bodes ill for the kind of logistical knowledge they would need to run a national campaign; and 2) Bernier has brought much of this on himself. By winking to white nationalists, and by not even dog-whistling, but rather playing these tunes with a tuba, he’s invited the very xenophobes that he claims aren’t welcome in his party (as he keeps playing their tunes on his tuba while staring wide-eyed as they keep flocking, like he’s the Pied Piper of racists). This credulous, naïve act he’s putting on is getting a bit tiresome. If he doesn’t understand how his message plays out, that’s another strike against him being ready for the prime time of leading a credible political party.

Please note: I’ll be hosting a live chat today at 7 PM Eastern for $10 subscribers to my Patreon, to answer your questions about the return of Parliament. Subscribers have access to exclusive content not available elsewhere.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Playing fast and loose with pluralism

Posted on by

Another day, another eruption from Maxime Bernier, this time in advance of his party’s announcement on immigration policy, intimating that suddenly they’re interested in it now that he’s brought it up. Not actually true – rather than talk about restricting immigration levels or diversity, Michelle Rempel gave a litany of issues that the party wants to have consultations on over the coming months, some of them quite legitimate (others, less so), but in the end, Rempel noted that Bernier had not once come to talk to her about immigration issues, and that he needs to decide if he’s supporting Scheer, or if he wants to let Trudeau win again.

Amidst all of this, Ralph Goodale put an essay up on his website about some of the racist history of his province, particularly the political influence that the KKK once held, and warned about those who are playing fast and loose with pluralism in this country – which is something that I think needs to be called out, because while Rempel does have some legitimate criticisms about how this government has handled the immigration and refugee files (and it needs to be stressed that these are separate and should not be conflated), she also has a huge habit about concern trolling and then shouting that the government is undermining support for pluralism, which she is very much doing by lighting her hair on fire and declaring a crisis where one doesn’t actually exist. And when she offers cover to public racists by trying to frame their stunts as “asking a question about the budget” (which it absolutely was not), she too contributes to undermining support for pluralism – the very thing she says she’s trying to avoid. Add to that, by not explicitly condemning Maxime Bernier’s winking to white nationalists – winking that they’re picking up and amplifying – she’s further undermining the very cause she claims she’s trying to shore up.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert tries to divine what Maxime Bernier’s endgame is, while Andrew Coyne warns against the Conservatives using fear-mongering and soft-pedalling racists to try and score points on the immigration file. Matt Gurney sees the real crisis as falling support for immigration (if we can believe a single poll), which is exacerbated by perceived government incompetence on the file – and we can’t deny that this government’s perennial inability to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag is part of the problem.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1032433369924227072

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1032443595486310400

Continue reading →