Tag Archives: Marijuana

Roundup: NAFTA theatrics

Posted on by

Yesterday was big for NAFTA news, as the Americans and Mexicans resolved their bilateral differences, particularly around autos, and made progress on getting concessions on the American demands for a sunset clause. But, true to form, US President Donald Trump started spouting a bunch of nonsense about how Canada was on the sidelines, and if we didn’t accept a deal by Friday, he’d slap tariffs on our autos, and so on. The problem there – that he has no congressional authority to conclude a bilateral agreement without us (and indeed, outgoing Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto kept saying that they were waiting for Canada to rejoin negotiations), so it’s a lot of bluster. Nevertheless, Chrystia Freeland cut short her diplomatic trip to Europe and is headed for Washington today, and trilateral talks will resume, and there’s likely to be a heavy focus on dairy as Trump has become fixated on it. This all having been said, have the Conservatives been pleased by the progress made? Funny you should ask.

First of all, the language in both is that it includes Trudeau’s name and the word “failure,” which is their narrative-building exercise (and Hamish Marshall can give them a cookie for sticking to it). But more importantly, as Kevin Carmichael notes, the Conservatives have been backing the government’s strategy to date on this. Of course, Andrew Scheer made a big deal during his big speech on Friday to insist that the Conservatives were going to be the adults in the room on foreign policy (which is risible considering the bulk of their record), but it also defies the reality of the situation. Even John Baird called bullshit on this line of reasoning – there was no reason for Canada to be part of those particular discussions, and this hasn’t really put us in a weakened position, and for all of the Conservatives’ sniggering about the labour chapter that Freeland has been advocating, wages were a big part of this deal that was struck with Mexico. (It’s also adorable that Erin O’Toole tries to make out that the Liberal strategy is all about domestic political posturing, which is exactly what he’s engaging in with his press release).

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1034187012415340544

In the meantime, industry players in Canada are looking for more details, while Philippe Couillard is vowing not to accept any compromises that will affect Supply Management, so that could be fun while the Quebec election rolls along.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1034216416512172033

Continue reading →

Roundup: Extreme multiculturalism

Posted on by

The fallout to Maxime Bernier’s latest Twitter missive on multiculturalism was more muted than one might have expected – no actual condemnation from Andrew Scheer, just a bland statement from his office that didn’t address Bernier’s words at all. And Erin O’Toole offered his own response which was basically just a reiteration that the various conservative parties in Canada’s history have had ethno-cultural firsts as a way of proving that they’re not all bigots or racists, but it missed the point that there was nevertheless a certain amount of tokenism in those firsts – that yes, they’ve got one of these different groups, but one is enough, thanks, and don’t talk to us about systemic barriers or discrimination. After all, these singular examples pulled up their bootstraps and made it – why can’t everyone else?

Bernier himself got huffy that he was described as saying he was against diversity – he insists he’s okay with some diversity, but not “extreme multiculturalism,” which is odd, because it’s like he missed the whole point of multiculturalism, which is about finding an effective way of integrating newcomers rather than alienating them further into ghettos. The fact that he doesn’t get that just adds fuel to the notion that this is all about winking to xenophobes and white nationalists, never mind the fact that it’s a nonsense proposition that there’s a Goldilocks zone of not too little, not too much, but just enough diversity that will magically keep Canada from disintegrating into some kind of ethnic hellhole. Never mind that the concern trolling about Liberal “identity politics” ignores the fact that in order to address systemic barriers facing women, sexual minorities, and people of colour, you actually to address what those barriers are, which is not about balkanizing – as Bernier seems to think.

Meanwhile, not every Conservative seems to be keen on Bernier’s pronouncements, but they seem concerned about how much influence he has among the base (somewhat mystifyingly). And with a convention coming up, we’ll see if these tensions spill out into the open.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh’s pipeline waffle

Posted on by

On yesterday’s Power & Politics, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh gave an interview that was probably as close to a car crash as I’ve seen him give to date, which should probably start to worry some people. His insistence that he’s in this “for people” is baffling, because that seems to be the most basic, elementary thing that politicians are in politics for. He spoke about the “housing crisis” that the federal government is supposed to do something about (he won’t exactly say what, because in places like Vancouver, supply is an issue), he rattled off the lie that the federal government had cut healthcare (a changed escalator is not a cut, and that particular lie went unchallenged), and he insists that he can do more as an opposition member to make the government keep promises than a Liberal backbencher could. (This kind of spin is something that the Liberals will play with the exact reverse – that a backbencher can do more because they can talk to ministers in the caucus room). He also denied that seeking this seat was because of caucus pressure to get a seat (this was indeed an issue), and is promising to move there if he wins (and good luck finding a house in that market, even to rent), but won’t say what he’ll do if he doesn’t win (and it was a close three-way race in the last election).

The more painful part of the interview, however, had to do with his commentary on the current spat with Saudi Arabia, during which Singh started pontificating about energy sovereignty, and not getting oil from the Saudis any longer. Okay, great – they currently supply a mere 11 percent of Canadian oil imports, so that’s not a big deal, but energy sovereignty means pipelines going west-to-east, which the NDP had a big problem with already in a proposal called Energy East. But when asked about pipelines, Singh deflected and started talking about refineries, which is a different thing altogether. Falling back on NDP catchphrases like “value-added” and “rip-and-ship,” his argument not only didn’t make any sense (the question wasn’t refineries – but that is an issue because East Coast refineries aren’t built to handle western heavy crude), particularly economically (seriously, there’s a reason why we haven’t built new refineries and have in fact shuttered others), it ignored the question about how you have energy sovereignty without pipelines that will run through Quebec – a voter base that the NDP is desperate to hold onto.

He’s been leader for almost a year now – this kind of talking point word salad is getting a bit thin for someone who should be able to provide answers on issues of the day, and who shouldn’t just fall on reheating non sequitur talking points. But this is what the party chose (well, in as much as we’ll see how many of those memberships stay active).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Get off that former diplomat’s lawn

Posted on by

For the past couple of days, we’ve been bombarded by this suggestion that the Saudi Arabia spat has been all because the Liberals spend too much time doing their diplomacy over social media rather than in person – which is utterly ridiculous, and smacks of a bunch of retired diplomats railing about kids today before they yell at them to get off their lawns (while they hike their pants up to chest-level). If you actually look at the tweet in question, versus the kinds of vacuous press releases that governments issues on diplomatic issues all the time, about how they “strongly condemn” this or that, there is no actual difference whether it’s a press release or a tweet, except for the character limit (and even then, sometimes no difference at all). There’s a term for this – moral panic.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1027338409768087553

Meanwhile, the opposition has gotten in on the “diplomacy by tweet” game, which is awfully rich. Some of these same voices have been ones who would rant and rail that the government didn’t issue tweets condemning one government or another fast enough, or who’ve issued their own foreign policy missives by Twitter on their own. And then there’s the fact that they’ll rail about any diplomacy done behind closed doors with other countries, but when it’s done in the open like this? Terrible. Just terrible.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1027247475135008769

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1027248707467702273

The other thing I would mention is the fact that while there are demands that diplomacy be done either in the open or behind closed doors – take your pick on what the outrage du jouris – the assumption that Chrystia Freeland doesn’t know what she’s doing here is also puzzling and not borne out by history. Remember not that long ago, with the pogrom against LGBT people in Chechnya, and there were voices on all sides howling for Freeland to make some grand public gestures about what was going on. As it turns out, she was personally working behind the scenes to get some extremely vulnerable people out of the country and to safety before they wound up in a concentration camp, which she very well couldn’t do while making grand public gestures. All of which to say is that this posturing around Twitter diplomacy is absurd and helps no one.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A trifecta of constitutional buffoonery

Posted on by

Yesterday was not a good day for the constitutional order in this country, as the Ontario government launched a constitutional challenge of the federal carbon price backstop legislation, arguing that it’s “unfair” and “unconstitutional” – which it absolutely isn’t, but this is about throwing a public temper tantrum in the name of populist outrage – but as David Reevely also points out, it’s about dragging this out in the courts, both Ontario courts and the Supreme Court of Canada well past the next election. Ontario’s two ministers insisted that they had legal opinions that said they had a solid case, but that’s almost certainly false, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see what kind of novel argument they came up with that the courts will laugh out.

As if this big of constitutional buffoonery weren’t enough, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh also came out with a demand that the federal government immediately give cities the ability to ban handguns – which is constitutionally a non-starter, since cities are the creatures of provincial legislation, and criminal powers are federal. Delegating federal criminal powers to the municipalities is similarly a non-starter. (Singh is also a lawyer and should know this).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1025031516290613248

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1025034441410797568

But to cap off the trifecta of constitutional idiocy comes courtesy of the Toronto Star, who asked Ontario Attorney General Caroline Mulroney if she was prepared to use the notwithstanding clause to opt out of the federal carbon tax – which is not something that the notwithstanding clause could actually deal with. Compounding this was that Mulroney’s answer was that they were going to examine all legal options, which made it sound like she was considering it, rather than simply saying “that wouldn’t apply here” and possibly adding “you moron” because it was not only a bad question, it was an irresponsible question and one that was either designed to make Mulroney look stupid (which she kind of did with the answer she gave) or to demonstrate that the reporter in question had no idea what they were talking about. So well done, Star. Slow clap for making all of us look bad in the process.

https://twitter.com/coreyshefman/status/1025022811579006976

Continue reading →

Roundup: A public dust-up

Posted on by

Late last week, as news came out that the Canadian government had been instrumental in getting a number of Syrian “White Helmets” and their families out of that country and that a number of them would be resettled in Canada, there was a bit of a public scrap between Conservatives as the party’s foreign affairs critic gave a position on the situation that Rempel hadn’t been consulted on, despite the fact that she’s the immigration and refugee critic. Her musing publicly as to whether the boys made the decision without her is one of those signs that perhaps not everyone is singing from the same song sheet in Andrew Scheer’s Conservative party – which isn’t necessarily a bad thing – but not consulting the relevant critics before freelancing an opinion to the media is a bit of a faux pas. Whether it was sexism (per Rempel’s insinuation) or just arrogance on the part of O’Toole, remains to be determined, but it was certainly illuminating for observers.

On the subject of Rempel, the Hill Times has an extensive profile of her, which is a good read that I’d encourage everyone to do. It’s a pretty fair piece, and I would suggest to people that her persona over social media is not representative of who she is as an MP. Which isn’t to say that her social media persona isn’t a problem – it very much is, particularly when she sends her followers on the attack against someone who she has a disagreement with. But that aside, she’s the kind of MP who takes the time to do her actual job of things like reading the Estimates and the Public Accounts, and who can follow debate and ask questions that aren’t scripted (and indeed, she tends to eschew talking points whenever possible). We need more MPs who take the job as seriously as she does.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Deleting the message

Posted on by

The Conservatives decided to delete their tweet yesterday that depicted a black migrant crossing to Canada – over a bridge made of Trudeau’s #WelcomeToCanada tweet, and through a broken chain-link fence. There was backlash that the tweet was racist, and it certainly was intended to stoke the xenophobic tendencies that they have been flirting with. I will point out once again that their continued reliance on the talking point that this is about the “orderly” asylum system would probably make most of Europe laugh and pat them on the head condescendingly, because it’s pretty precious that they think Canada should get the special status of an “orderly” system that no other country gets.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1019323971274248193

Meanwhile, Maclean’shas a look at the history of the Safe Third Country Agreement, and how it’s basically just waiting for Donald Trump to blow it up if he actually learns about what it is and what it does. Chris Selley, on the other hand, points out the ways in which both the federal government and the new Ontario government are mishandling the whole file, which is fair criticism. But I do think we can’t take our eye off the fact that the Conservatives are flirting with xenophobic populism for partisan gain, and playing cute with it, pitting one group of newcomers against another, and patting themselves on the back for their “compassion” for certain groups of refugees that they use solely as props to hammer away at the regime they’re fleeing. This has been their modus operandi since Jason Kenney was immigration minister, but they’ve poured it on a little thicker since they saw that this kind of populist rhetoric worked for Trump and Brexit (never mind the fact that we have solid proof of election interference in both, and definitive proof of broken rules in the Brexit referendum). This is worrying for our democracy, and we should be very wary of their adopting these techniques.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Barriers and non-solutions

Posted on by

As part of a discussion on Power & Politicsyesterday on barriers women face in politics, there were a few well-worn tropes thrown out there, but I wanted to poke into a couple of the items discussed (much of which I’ve already written about in my book, but a refresher course never hurts):

  1. This needs to be an issue addressed by the parties at the grassroots level and shouldn’t be legislated top-down. Parties are already too centrally controlled, and if you want empowered MPs that are women and those who are from diverse communities, they need to participate from the ground-up rather than be appointed top-down.
  2. The side-effect of quotas, be they de facto or de jure, tends to be that women and minorities are nominated in “no-hope” ridings. We’ve seen this time and again, even from the NDP, who have their “no nomination can be run unless the riding association has exhausted the possibility for an equity-seeking candidate” rule. That rule is often conveniently broken if they think they have a winnable straight, white male candidate, and 2011 is a perfect example of how they loaded a lot of women and racialized candidates in “no hope” Quebec ridings that got swept up in the “orange wave.” Most were not good MPs, and some had never been to their ridings before winning, which is the opposite of how nominations should be run.
  3. The voting system is not the problem – it’s entrenched barriers in the nomination system where not enough encouragement is given to women to run (i.e. until this last electoral cycle, they didn’t recognize that women need to be asked several times before they will consider running, and they may have things like childcare issues that need to be sorted when running). A PR system usually creates some manner of list MPs, where your women and minority MPs come from lists rather than having had to run and win ridings, which creates two-tiers of MPs. This also manifests itself in countries with quotas, and women MPs in places like Rwanda have seats but little power as a result.
  4. We can’t do much more to make our parliament more “family friendly” without hollowing it out even more than it has been. While there are issues with childcare, MPs are not without resources to address it (like hiring nannies) rather than forcing the institution to hire precariously-employed childcare workers for part of the year with no sense of numbers on a daily basis. While 60-day parental leave is not objectionable, remote voting and Skyping into committee meetings is very much a problem that we should not encourage in any way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fighting to preserve parliamentary privilege

Posted on by

Senator Mike Duffy’s court challenge started yesterday, and the Senate as a whole fought back to have the Chamber excluded from his lawsuit under the rubric of parliamentary privilege. The Senate’s privileges include the ability to discipline its members – and this needs to be reiterated firmly, because as a self-governing body with institutional independence, that’s the only way that senators can be disciplined outside of a criminal process. This is also why there is a differentiation when it comes to the judge asking the hypothetical about the Speaker shooting someone – privilege does not necessarily cover criminality.

Part of what Duffy’s lawyers are trying to argue was that the Senate’s punishment of his suspension without pay should be subject to judicial review because he was acquitted of all charges by the Ontario Superior Court. The problem is that he was found to have broken several of the Senate’s rules, regardless of what the court found, and the Senate is empowered to deal with those breaches as they see fit – not to mention, it was also about making sure that discipline was seen to be done, which was important for a body that was facing scandal and public outrage. This doesn’t mean that they went about it in the best way, however – the pressure (especially coming from PMO, which the Senate leadership at the time capitulated to) wanted to have these suspensions out of the way immediately, and so Duffy’s interventions were cut short, and Senator Pamela Wallin never got her chance to defend herself at all because of the haste. Due process was not necessarily followed, and yes, that’s a problem. However, that is not a problem that can be sorted by means of judicial review, because that would undermine the Senate’s ability to be self-governing (just like the Senate subjecting itself to external financial control like the Auditor General wants would undermine its privileges and ability to be self-governing).

It can’t be understated how damaging it will be if we let the courts start interfering in the operations of Parliament, in either the Commons or the Senate. The constant injunctions to legislation, the threats of lawsuits, the massive breach of the doctrine of separation of powers – it’s not something that we should mess with. Duffy may feel he was treated unfairly – and maybe he was to an extent – but it’s no reason to start pulling bricks out of the wall when it comes to privilege. And if the judge has any sense, she’ll respect that separation and take the Senate out of the lawsuit.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Delay for the sake of delay

Posted on by

With Parliament now risen for the summer, The Canadian Press decided to take a look back at the rise in obstruction tactics by the opposition in the last couple of months, and some of it is blatant obstruction for the sake of obstruction. And while a number of the usual pundits decried the piece, I think there are a few things to drill into here – not because I don’t think that there are legitimate uses for opposition obstruction and filibusters (because there certainly are), but what it says about the tone of this current parliament.

There are a few examples cited in the piece about opposition tactics that don’t make sense – the insistence on running out the clock on a six-hour marathon of speeches over the Senate public bill about Latin American Heritage Month that all parties supported (though I’m unsure how, procedurally, a Senate public bill got that many hours of debate because it should have really gotten two under private members’ business), the vote-a-thon tantrum that was cynically designed to simply kill Friday hours rather than make any meaningful points about the Estimates that were being voted upon, or the hours of concurrence debates on committee reports that all parties agreed upon. The piece makes the point that there are concerns that these tactics were designed to force the government to bring in time allocation on more bills in order to get them through, so that they could turn around and accuse them of acting in bad faith after they came in promising not to use time allocation (despite the fact that it’s a defensible tactic under most circumstances).

To a certain extent, this is the government’s fault for coming in trying to play nice and operating under the rubric that all parties can be reasonable and agree to debate timetables. That hasn’t always proved true, and when Bardish Chagger’s proposals around scheduling motions like they use in the UK got shot down (legitimately – it’s not something I would have really supported because it means automatic time allocation of all bills), she warned that time allocation would be used more frequently, and it certainly appears that the opposition parties have dared her to do so with their tactics. But I do find it frustrating as a parliamentary observer that good faith attempts and allowing more debate gets abused in order to try and embarrass the government rather than making parliament work better, and then they can complain when the government has to play hard(er) ball. We already know that the rules in which we structure debate here are broken and need to be overhauled to ensure that our MPs are actually debating rather than simply reciting speeches into the void, and that they in fact can encourage this kind of dilatory behaviour. The measures that Chagger proposed to make Parliament work better wouldn’t have actually done so, but I don’t think it’s illegitimate to shine a light on delay for the sake of delay because it does highlight that there are problems with the rules at present. But we need to get over the kneejerk reactions that calls to do so are about partisan purposes rather than about the health of our democracy.

Continue reading →