Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

Roundup: No magic wands or Senate public bills

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau went to Edmonton yesterday, and amidst his many media appearances, made a few key points – that getting approval for Trans Mountain was a priority, that while considerations like an appeal or legislation were part of the “all options on the table,” he also made the point that he won’t use “legislative tricks” to get it through, and made some pointed comments about the Conservatives demanding that he wave a magic wand that doesn’t really exist to get it built. If you listened to what he was saying through the layer of pabulum that wraps all of his statements, the core point was that they will comply with the Federal Court of Appeal decision and find the best way to fulfil the roadmap to approval laid out therein.

And oh, what legislative tricks are being proposed. In a particularly boneheaded move, Independent senator Doug Black insists that passing his Senate Public Bill on the Trans Mountain pipeline will declare it in the national interest, and poof, problem solved. (He also suggested giving the NEB four months to redo the portions of the assessment related to marine tanker traffic, when credible people who know these processes say that’s a six-month process, so score another win for Black’s credibility). The problem of course is that there is no actual legislative solution to the issue – the certification is a Cabinet decision, and while some people suggest retroactively changing the legislation to keep the NEB scoping as it was in the report Cabinet based its decision on that the courts found to be flawed, that’s a prospect that will only engender more litigation and will cause further delays – which is why Trudeau has been making the point that they need to ensure long-term solutions so that there will be investor confidence (as Suncor’s CEO announced that they would halt any expansion of their operations until there is a firm pipeline in the ground). Oh, and no piece of legislation can get around Section 35 obligations for the duty to consult, and while I can see some political merit in getting the Supreme Court to weigh in on what exactly constitutes meaningful consultation, it sounds an awful lot like passing the buck to them in order to take the heat off of a political issue, which they really don’t appreciate, and frankly they’ve ruled enough times that governments should have a good idea about what constitutes meaningful consultation.

To add fuel to this fire, Jason Kenney has started making pronouncements about how this recent Court decision is “fuelling separatism” in the province, which really irks me because this wasn’t some bureaucratic decision out of Ottawa – it’s about the rule of law (and if you really want to be technical, the bureaucratic decisions of the NEB came out of Calgary, which is where their headquarters are located). Kenney is being a bad actor and is holding out lighters for arsonists to grab, only to turn around and say “Who, me? I wasn’t inflaming anything! I’m just relaying what I hear,” which is a very dubious denial, and he’s playing with fire in order to score some cheap political points. Add to that, his agitating against the rule of law has darker authoritarian tones, as Colby Cosh pointed out last week, given that this notion about Canada not being “open for business” because the courts protect peoples’ rights. He should be called out on this, rather than being encouraged to keep making these points by credulous journalists (just like those same voices who let Senator Black go unchallenged in that piece).

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne makes that very point – that this ruling is about the rule of law, and that’s a good thing. Too many actors in this are trying to muddy the waters or accuse the judiciary of some kind of activism that they’re not actually doing (while encouraging their own type of activism that would ignore the rule of law in favour of perceived economic benefit), which is a very worrying sign.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Setting a trap at committee

Posted on by

The use of Commons committees for performative outrage continued in fine tradition yesterday as an emergency meeting of the natural resources committee was convened, during which the Conservatives demanded that the ministers of natural resource and finance appear before them no later than Thursday with “concrete” plans for the next steps of the Trans Mountain pipeline. This, of course, is a bit of a trap, and unrealistic for any government to comply with, and yet here we were. Why it’s a trap, of course, is that when they inevitably refused and the Liberals con the committee voted it down, Andrew Scheer and his caucus could rush to the media about how outrageous it was that Trudeau was avoiding accountability for his “failure” when their demand was utterly unreasonable in the first place. But why should facts or context matter?

Now, don’t get me wrong – I do think that these ministers should absolutely appear before committee, but not for another couple of weeks, until they’ve had time to digest the Federal Court of Appeal decision, at which time they should answer for why they considered the flawed NEB report, and why they did not engage in an adequate consultation process that would meet the requirements of Section 35 of the Constitution. You know – to hold them to account like a committee should.

As for next steps, there have been boneheaded demands for a “legislative solution” that people keep tossing around, and it’s so stupid – the FCA decision specifically stated that this is a Cabinet decision to approve the licence, so you can’t legislate it into existence, nor would trying to retroactively change the legislation that the NEB was operating under when it didn’t properly scope the marine safety aspect of their report be a feasible option, because it opens all manner of cans of worms. And you most especially can’t legislate away the duty to consult under Section 35, so good luck there. The Conservatives won’t say what they’d do, let alone do differently, while the NDP continue to demand that Trudeau cancel the expansion, and have been giving this ridiculous line that they wanted a Supreme Court reference in the first place and nobody listened to them. The problem was their reference was about jurisdiction, which this decision has nothing to do with, which makes their talking point especially specious.

Meanwhile, Chris Turner has a spectacular piece in Maclean’sabout the history of the pipeline and how it got to be the dumpster fire of an issue that it is today, and I’d encourage you to take the time to read it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Negotiating in good faith

Posted on by

After another day of drama, there is no NAFTA deal, and talks have been suspended until Wednesday. And what drama there was, when off-the-record comments that Donald Trump made in an interview with Bloomberg were leaked to the Toronto Star, who published them, which showed Trump bragging that he wasn’t negotiating with Canada in good faith, and later in the day, he confirmed the remarks over Twitter with the note “at least Canada knows where I stand.” (Speculation now stands in that he deliberately leaked the comments). The revelation of the comments no doubt put a strain on the talks, but Chrystia Freeland later noted that she was negotiating with Robert Lighthizer, not Trump, and he was negotiating in good faith. So a little wedge in there, in any case. But in the end, Freeland insisted that we are close to a deal, so we’ll see once the long weekend is over and tempers cool a little.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1035582322668498944

Meanwhile, here’s a look at the issue of Chapter 19 – arbitration – that the Americans want scrapped even though it’s been as useful to them as it has been for us, so it’s a demand that makes no sense. Also, here are other things to look for when a deal is concluded, and what areas that we have made concessions on and what it means.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mandate letter madness

Posted on by

Yesterday was the big day that the mandate letters for the new cabinet minister were finally released, and the Cabinet committees got a bit shake-up. You can get an overview of the letters here, and some deeper analysis on what’s being asked of Jim Carr in international trade, Dominic LeBlanc in intergovernmental affairs, and Jonathan Wilkinson in fisheries. Reading through the letters, however, I found that almost all of the new letters – either with established ministries or with the new ones that they are establishing – were all giving them specific direction on which other ministers they should be working with to achieve specific goals. Very few of them were goals that they were to pursue on their own, which I find to be very curious from a governance perspective.

The big question mark remains around Bill Blair and just what he’s supposed to do as Minister of Looking Tough on Stuff – err, “border security and organized crime reduction.” We got no insight as to whether he has any actual operational control over a department or an agency like CBSA. Rather, his list of goals included looking at a ban on handguns and assault rifles as part of the existing Bill C-71, and that as part of his duties in relation to the border, he should have discussions with the Americans about the Safe Third Country agreement, but it was all rather vague. (There was also some talk about opioid smuggling as part of his border security duties, for what it’s worth). Nevertheless, it was another one of those letters that was focused on which other ministers he’s supposed to be working with as opposed to providing oversight of a ministry, which I find weird and a bit unsettling as to what this means for how the machinery of government works under Trudeau.

Meanwhile, the number of Cabinet committees was reduced, and some of the files that certain of these committees were overseeing got shuffled around. We’ll see how this affects governance, but it’s all a peek into the sausage-making of governance (which, it bears reminding, that the Ford government in Ontario refuses to give any insight into as he refuses to release his own ministers’ mandate letters).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Maxime Bernier, drama queen

Posted on by

Like a high school drama queen, Maxime Bernier made his move yesterday, removing himself from the Conservative caucus just as the party was about to begin their convention in Halifax. And not a moment too soon, apparently, as apparently the caucus was prepared to “belittle” him regarding his recent shitposting over Twitter, in an apparent attempt to Mean Girl him into falling in line. Well, that didn’t apparently work, and Bernier went out with a bang, calling the Conservatives a party that was “too intellectually and morally corrupt to be reformed,” and which only speaks in platitudes, and that he plans to launch his own party within the coming weeks. Good luck with that.

Minutes later, Andrew Scheer held his own press conference in Halifax and said good riddance, that Bernier was only in it for himself, but, curiously, stuck to platitudes. And notably, he didn’t refute anything that Bernier has been saying over the past couple of weeks, and in particular his winking to white nationalists. (Note to Conservatives: simply listing how many ethnocultural firsts your party has had is not refuting the aforementioned winking to white nationalists). And then Scheer said that Bernier evidently decided to help Trudeau, and then immediately started backpedalling to insist that no, this wasn’t going to split the party, and they’re united, and Bernier is a nobody, and you get the drift. So score one for Scheer there.

And then started up the tweets, many of them angry or belittling from fellow MPs, and a bunch of bizarre rumours started being floated to journalists like that Bernier used to sleep through Cabinet meetings under Harper (seriously? You actually expect us to believe that?) while other party stalwarts rallied around Scheer (and Bernier currently seems to have zero supporters, for what it’s worth). The Liberals, justifiably, are remaining cautious and are not openly popping any champagne bottles because who knows where this will go.

Meanwhile, Paul Wells has grave doubts that Bernier has what it takes to lead a new political movement, while Jen Gerson angrily writes about Bernier’s supposed defence of “Canadian values” and that he doesn’t seem to have a clue what he’s tweeting about. Scott Gilmore seems to think that Bernier’s fundraising record shows he may have the momentum to pull this off – but Stephen Maher has his doubts. John Ivison casts aspersions on all sides of the split, Martin Patriquin wonders about the effect that it will have with the ground ripe for messages of populist xenophobia like Bernier has been employing. Don Martin suspects this departure will rally the party around Scheer, while Robyn Urback takes Bernier to task in the most scathing, sarcastic way possible. (My own column on Bernier’s future will be up later today).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scheer plans another ego trip

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer has declared that in October, he and a group of MPs will head to India. While it’s not uncommon for opposition MPs to do a bit of foreign travel, particularly if they’re on some kind of committee or parliamentary friendship group, it’s a little more uncommon for them to go as the Official Opposition in any capacity (Washington DC excepted). But Scheer? He’s decided that his trip to India will be to “repair” the relationship with that country after the “disastrous” trip that Justin Trudeau made earlier this year.

Let’s unpack this a bit more. Scheer has zero diplomatic standing to do absolutely anything on behalf of the government of Canada. Add to that, I’m trying to figure out just what “damage” Scheer hopes to repair, because the only real “disaster” from Trudeau’s visit was related to Jaspal Atwal showing up at that event, which wound up being hugely overblown considering that India had allowed him back into the country and considered him rehabilitated from his former extremist views. The fact that Trudeau wore some expensive Indian clothes? The thing that people continue to underestimate/forget/ignore is that he was doing it to speak to a certain demographic in India which responds to these kinds of gestures – even if the upper-class voices that dominate their international press don’t. Trudeau didn’t lose points with that middle-class voter base in India (or the Indo-Canadian diaspora) – but that message was lost on the white press covering the trip, and given how the Conservatives reacted back in Canada (going so far as to use the insulting term of “costume,” which earned them a stinging rebuke from Liberal backbencher Ruby Sahota), they were tone-deaf to the whole thing. Was Trudeau snubbed my Modi? Not at all, and just because Modi didn’t greet him at the airport is not a snub considering that a) Canada doesn’t rank that high on his list of priorities, and b) we were greeted by an agriculture minister, who does have dealings with Canada. And on that subject, the fact that Trudeau wasn’t able to make progress on the tariffs that India imposed on pulse imports was not a “failure,” given that those tariffs were imposed for domestic political reasons (low prices due to a global supply glut, pandering to rural voters, and the fact that there has been a suicide crisis among Indian farmers for years now), and those tariffs hurt Australia more than they do Canada. But please, tell us again how those were done in retaliation for the trip. Meanwhile, Trudeau made several investment announcements and did have successful meetings with civil society groups in India. So again, I ask – what “damage” is there for Scheer to supposedly repair (for which he has zero authority to do anything about)?

We’ve seen this kind of self-aggrandisement from Scheer before with his trip to the UK to supposedly have talks about post-Brexit trade agreements, never mind that a) he’s not the government and can’t commit to anything, b) Trudeau and Theresa May already agreed to those talks once Brexit happens – because the UK legally can’t hold any talks until then, and c) he totally sold the trip with that photo of him at a red phone booth. So you’ll forgive my scepticism about this planned India trip, because it sounds dubious at best.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving succour to racists to own the libs

Posted on by

That heckler the PM had an encounter with late last week turned into a big Thing today as it was revealed that she was a member of far-right and anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant groups in Quebec, and that her heckles were a set-up that Trudeau walked into. Trudeau himself offered no apologies for his response, but wouldn’t you know it – the Conservatives have decided to go to bat for this woman.

No, seriously. “Asking a question about the budget.” That was not “asking a question about the budget.” The translation of her (shouted) question was “I want to know when you are going to refund the $146 million we paid for your illegal immigrants.” That’s not a polite policy difference about interprovincial politics, as so many other conservatives have tried to intimate, that her question was the same one asked by three different provincial governments. It was followed up by her asking if Trudeau was tolerant of “Québécois de souche,” which some people translate as “old stock Quebeckers,” but that lacks the racially-charged nuance of the phrase, which some have likened to the “Quebec-speak variant of Master Race.” Add her “question about the budget” to this racially-charged phrase shows that she’s not concerned about the budget – she believes that these asylum seekers are stealing from Quebec. But, you know, it was “a question about the budget.” But wait – it gets better.

Andrew Scheer decided to weigh in and, ignoring all of what happened and the context, and the woman’s racially-charged language, Scheer attacked Trudeau for “name-calling” and “demonizing” people who are critical of him. Trudeau calling an avowed racist, with a history of public racism, a racist, is apparently “a vile [personal] insult” because he’s afraid of “legitimate criticism.” So yeah – way to go for offering succor to racists and white nationalists to “own the libs.” And while this woman’s apologists go on about how Trudeau “inflamed the situation” rather than answering her question – as though it was asked in good faith (it wasn’t) and wasn’t going to be immediately followed up with her racist remarks (which it was inevitably, given that this was demonstrably a set-up), you have to wonder just how wilfully blind Scheer and company will be in order to try and make Trudeau out to be the real monster.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1031727549896957952

Meanwhile, John Ivison says that confrontations like these are political gold for Trudeau because he can run against the image of a xenophobic Conservative party, which plays well to a certain segment of the population, while Chris Selley says that Trudeau needs to be careful when calling out intolerance because of his party’s own obnoxious tendencies.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A dearth of innovative policy ideas

Posted on by

While Maxime Bernier’s social media committee continues to demand attention (yesterday’s missive was to declare “political correctness” dead in Canada – in both official languages), all eyes will turn to Andrew Scheer as the party’s policy convention gets underway this week in Halifax. There is all kinds of talk that they’ll come away from this more united than ever – one of those kinds of meaningless phrases that parties seem to trot out whenever they face the slightest bit of internal criticism or difficulty, and usually before and after there’s some kind of rift or someone gets tossed. But depending on what Bernier tries to do with his acolytes at the convention, we’ll see if his tone or messaging changes after the convention is over, or if this becomes some new problem for Scheer to contend with – eventually.

As for the policy resolutions, most of the ones we’re seeing discussed are…not very innovative. In fact, most of them seem to be either the usual pushing back against restrictions on their well-worn bugaboos and hobbyhorses (looking to make anti-abortion policies more accepted in the party officially, for example), but so few of them seem to be actually coming from a free market conservative point of view. In fact, a lot of what’s on the list is pretty reactionary, and definitely signals a shift from a party that used to be all about the rule of law, and now seems to think they’re above it (witness resolutions against any payments or court settlements with convicted terrorists – a dig at Omar Khadr).

One could go on – a policy about building Energy East, despite the fact that there is no economic case to do so. Repealing gender identity legislation because they are under the illusion that it compels people to use unconventional pronouns (because apparently the Jordan Peterson crowd is well represented here), Andrew Scheer’s problematic policy of withholding funds to universities who don’t defend speech (but no context there, because you know they’ll rail about Israel Apartheid Week), closing the “loopholes” in the Safe Third Country agreement (no mention of how exactly, or the unintended consequences of doing so), maybe developing a climate policy that won’t involve a carbon tax or cap-and-trade (so you’re in favour of heavy-handed and expensive regulation? Really?), prioritizing CANZUK trade agreements (a rose-coloured view of our colonial past that didn’t really exist economically), treating pornography like a public health issue (Seriously, guys – didn’t you embarrass yourselves with this already at the Commons health committee when you couldn’t articulate a policy out of this fraud) – nothing innovating in here in the slightest. So one has to wonder just what vision there is within the party if this is the best that they can come up with for policy resolutions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mischief petitions

Posted on by

There’s a nonsense e-petition circulating on the Parliamentary website about the PM’s groping allegation, and essentially calls for him to be removed from caucus because that’s what happened to other Liberals who faced allegations (not true), and then goes on about how he’s lost the confidence of citizens. It’s pure mischief, and the fact that Michelle Rempel is sponsoring it is pretty much proof of that, but that aside, I’m mystified how this passed the vetting that these kinds of petitions are supposed to get because it has nothing to do with a government issue but rather it’s phrased entirely about caucus management. It should be disqualified as such.

This having been established, I have to say that I’m getting mighty tired of e-petition stories, because they’re not actually news. The fact that they’re hosted on the Parliament of Canada website makes them easy to search, so it’s cheap and easy filler content, but the fact that the story here didn’t contextualize the petition as not having anything to do with government business, and instead ginned it up with a headline that it was trying to force a “government response” to the allegation when it has nothing to do with government business, is actually on the irresponsible side. Yes, it’s salacious because it keeps the “groping” allegation story going, but there’s nothing actually there. It’s the equivalent of empty calories in news form. We should be doing better.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier’s dog whistles

Posted on by

While we’re on the topic of bozo eruptions, we got another one from Maxime Bernier over Twitter on Sunday evening, railing about Justin Trudeau’s declaration that diversity is our strength. While I won’t reproduce all of Bernier’s feed, some of the commentary around it has been interesting, and in particular, just what kinds of dog whistles and language that Bernier employs in his language – and likely not a coincidence that this happened on a day of counter-protests to white supremacists in the United States. Also worth noting that his tweets were in rapid succession and in both official languages, which indicates that they were premeditated and not spur of the moment, and that does mean something as well.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1028812175673094146

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1028834166849368064

I might be willing to suspend enough disbelief around Bernier to suppose that he’s really not all that bright and that he really doesn’t know what he’s doing when he tweets stuff like this, but the people who surrounded him in his leadership campaign absolutely knew what they were doing when they tweeted things like red pill memes, and one presumes that they’re still in Bernier’s orbit. But Bernier has consistently demonstrated that he doesn’t have particularly adept political sensibilities (witness his ejection from shadow cabinet), and the fact that he went from going to Pride parades during his leadership campaign to insist that his libertarian values meant that he valued freedom over social conservatism, to becoming a Jordan Peterson convert who was paranoid about “enforced speech” and the bogus fears about being jailed for mis-gendering someone. But as is pointed out below, we are two weeks away from the Conservative policy convention, and it’s possible that this dog whistling is also about Bernier trying to gather support to oppose Scheer in some capacity or other.

Michelle Rempel also put out a tweet thread in response (which again, I’m not going to repeat), and some of the points she made seemed to be refuting Bernier, but at the same time, she makes her own coded appeals about planned migration and the language of pitting groups of newcomers against each other, in very Jason Kenney-esque ways.

Ultimately, however, we are back to the notion of where the adult supervision is with this party, and we recall the reasons why Harper put the party into communications lockdown – before they won in 2006, they went into lockdown because the 2004 election saw them lose because of precisely these kinds of bozo eruptions from the likes of Cheryl Gallant and others. And the strict message discipline seemed to work, but it causes as many problems as it solves (not to mention it’s terrible for democracy). But with this kind of tire fire over the past couple of weeks, you have to imagine that Scheer, whose own Twitter strategy is a lot of lies, obfuscation, narrative building and populist memes, is all for this kind of air war that he thinks will rile the base in ways that appear to have worked for both Trump and Ford. Maybe this kind of “shitposting” (as it is colloquially known) is the message discipline, in which case, we’re probably all doomed.

https://twitter.com/aradwanski/status/1028816033610575872

https://twitter.com/aradwanski/status/1028816045262307328

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1028416748331126785

Continue reading →