Tag Archives: National Security

QP: The other conspicuous silence

Posted on by

For the final QP of the spring sitting (barring unforeseen circumstances), all leaders were present, and plenty of MPs kicked off with statements of thanks to spouses and supporters. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, reading congratulations for his new MP, before reading some aged talking points about the India trip. Justin Trudeau first congratulated the new MP, and thanked the pages and the Commons staff, but didn’t respond to Scheer’s question. Scheer read the laundry list of the prime minister’s supposed sins, worried about his reckless spending. Trudeau responded with a reminder about the investments they have made in the middle class. Scheer breathlessly read the costs of upgrades to the PM’s residence at Harrington Lake, and Trudeau stuck to his talking points about investing in the middle class, avoiding Scheer’s bait. Scheer tried again, and this time Trudeau took up a script to talk about the NCC’s responsibilities in maintaining official residences. Scheer tried yet again, and Trudeau sanctimoniously talking about all of the problems facing the country and the world, while that was what Scheer was focused on. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and demanded to know if the US was still considered a safe country for asylum seekers. Trudeau took up a script to respond that Canadians are concerned, and they were looking for ways to modernize the Safe Third Country Agreement, and they were monitoring the situation. Caron demanded that Trudeau denounce what was going on, to which Trudeau reiterated that the situation was unacceptable and they were monitoring it. Jenny Kwan took over in English, louder and angrier, and Trudeau took his script back up to repeat that what’s happening is wrong, and that he would stand up for those seeking refuge. Kwan tried one last time, and got the same answer.

https://twitter.com/cfhorgan/status/1009505095225151488

Continue reading →

QP: Concerns about home-growth

Posted on by

While the PM was in town today, he was not in Question Period, though Andrew Scheer was, amazingly enough. Scheer led off, first congratulating everyone who participated in last night’s by-election, and after some triumphalism, he said that the Conservatives respect provincial jurisdiction, and demanded to know why the government would force home-growth on Quebec. Ginette Petitpas Taylor responded with her standard talking points about stopping the black market and regulations. Scheer then demanded that counter-tariffs be placed on Americans immediately, to which Chrystia Freeland reminded him that they were consulting industry first. Scheer then concern trolled about the government “squandering” the strong fiscal position that they were left with and not having a contingency in the budget for trade uncertainty. Bill Morneau reminded him that they were left with billions in additional debt by the previous government as well as low growth, and there is always a contingency built into every budget. Alain Rayes took over in French to offer more triumphalism about the by-election results before reiterating about cannabis home-growth, to which Petitpas Taylor read some more bland talking points, and they went a second round of the very same. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, railing about the US policy of separating children from their families at the border, and demanded an end to the Safe Third Country Agreement (not that it would help in any of those cases). Marc Garneau said that the government was concerned and in Canada, we try to avoid immigration detention at all costs. Caron tried again, and Hussen responded in English that the UNHCR was monitoring the developments. Jenny Kwan tried again in English, got the same answer, and when she tried again, Hussen listed measures that Canada has taken to minimize immigration detention.

Continue reading →

QP: Pointing out the line-item votes

Posted on by

In what is likely the final week of the sitting, all leaders were present for what is likely the final Monday QP, and Andrew Sheer led off, and in French, he whined that his party forced a vote-a-thon, and demanded the cost of the federal tax on families. Justin Trudeau reminded him that everything was transparent on their website, and they have consulted with experts to design it. Sheer tried again in English, and Trudeau listed the line items from the Estimates that the Conservatives voted against in their vote-a-thon, and called their lack of a plan the real environmental cover-up. Sheer then moved onto that ISIS returnee walking the streets of Toronto, to which Trudeau retorted with the cuts that the Conservatives made to CBSA, and said that their security agencies are protecting Canadians. Scheer insisted that they had enough information to lay terrorism charges, and to this, Trudeau took up a script to list tools that national security agencies have. Scheer insisted that the government was taking away tools from National Security Agencies, to which Trudeau countered that they are in fact investing in new tools. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, worrying about child poverty in Canada, to which Trudeau reminded him that the numbers being cited were from 2015, before the Canada Child Benefit was created, which was lowering child poverty. Caron then cited the child removals at the US Border and wondered if the US was still a Safe Third Country. Trudeau stated that he wouldn’t play politics with this, but that the UN still designated the US a safe country. Jenny Kwan tried again in English, with added sanctimony, to which Trudeau noted that he was going to remain focused on a constructive relationship with the United States, and that he was trying to build support for refugees globally. Kwan demanded the Safe Third Country Agreement be suspended, and Trudeau insisted that he wasn’t going to play politics with it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A strained partisan detente

Posted on by

There is a strange partisan cold war settling over the nation’s capital, as both government and opposition try to put up a united front against the Trumpocalypse, while at the same time not looking to give up too much advantage, and so they probe areas where their opponents may be weak, but that they won’t look too crassly partisan in exploiting it, kind of like Erin O’Toole did last week when the steel and aluminium tariffs were first announced. The Conservatives and NDP are trying to probe the previous statements about Supply Management “flexibility,” while the Liberals are essentially calling Maxime Bernier a traitor as he starts speaking about his opposition to the system once again. It’s not pretty on either side, and yet here we are.

While Trump has threatened auto tariffs, I’m not sure that’s even remotely feasible given how integrated the whole North American industry is, and those tariffs would not only devastate supply chains, but it would have as many adverse effects on the American industry as it would the Canadian one. Of course, we’re dealing with an uncertainty engine, so we have no idea what he’ll actually do, but hey, the government is working on contingency plans that include further retaliatory measures if these auto tariffs come to pass. As for Trump’s focus on dairy, here’s a look at the size of subsidies that the American dairy industry is awash in. Brian Mulroney, incidentally, thinks this is all a passing storm, for what it’s worth.

Because there are so many more hot takes about developments, Andrew Coyne thinks that there should be debate on how to best retaliate to American threats rather than just rally around the PM. Chantal Hébert notes that Trump has essentially boxed Trudeau in with regards to how he can respond to the threats. Martin Patriquin counsels patience with the Trumpocalypse, so that we don’t go overboard thanks to a few intemperate tweets. Chris Selley notes the sudden burst of solidarity and hopes that they don’t return to bickering over small differences once this crisis passes. Jen Gerson, meanwhile, notes that Trump’s attack are those of a bully trying to pick on a weaker target, but forgets that Canada isn’t weak – we’re just passive aggressive. Gerson was also on Power & Politics(at 1:08:35 in the full broadcast) to say that her genuine fear out of all of this is that it’s all a sideshow designed to turn Canada into some comic enemy for Trump to run against in the upcoming midterms, and I suspect that she’s onto something, and we may be playing into Trump’s hands when if we get self-righteous in our response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sore loserism and entrails

Posted on by

If you had any money riding on who would be the first to whine that Thursday’s election result was a signal that we need electoral reform, and if you chose Elizabeth May, well, collect your winnings. I spent much of Friday responding to this nonsense, but I will reiterate a couple of points – that if you blame the system because your party did not do better, you’re already missing the point. We’ve seen it happen time and again that when a party has a message that resonates, it’s the non-voters who come out, not the committed party base, and we had increased turnout on Thursday night which meant that people were motivated to throw the bums out. Similarly with Trudeau in 2015 – a significant uptick in voter turnout because they had something that they wanted to vote for/throw the bums out. This matters, and whinging that the system isn’t fair is missing the point entirely. The system works. It needs to be allowed to function the way it was intended. What doesn’t help is using a false number like the popular vote in order to make it look like the system is unfair in order to justify your disappointment is the epitome or sore loserism.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1005214910966452224

In terms of reading Thursday night’s entrails, here’s Paul Wells taking a detailed look at the three campaigns and how each succeeded and failed in their own ways. CBC has a look at how Ford’s use of simple and vague messaging made him look sensible to an angry population. Robert Hiltz looks at the ways in which the Liberals defeated themselves by their craven attempts to hold onto power. Nevertheless, Wynne’s surprise concession days before the election may actually have saved the seats the Liberals did win, according to exit polling done, so that particular strategic calculation may have actually paid off.

Jen Gerson wonders if Doug Ford’s win isn’t akin to a Monkey’s Paw curse – getting what you wish for at a terrible price. Andrew MacDougall wonders what Ford’s win means for modern conservatism given that Ford isn’t really a small-c conservative, nor were his outlandish promises. Similarly, Chris Selley looks at the phenomenon of Ford Nation, the Harper Conservatives that surround him, and the way that Andrew Scheer has suddenly attached himself to the cause. Andrew Coyne (once you get past the griping about the electoral system) warns politicians and pundits not to overread Thursday’s results (hey federal Conservatives and your crowing in QP on Friday – this especially means you), and further wonders if Ford will pull a “cupboard is bare” routine to keep carbon pricing to use the revenues. Jason Kirby mocks up what Ford’s first speech might look like, by referencing earlier speeches about bare cupboards.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A major amendment at committee

Posted on by

There will be another looming showdown between the Senate and the Commons in the coming weeks, as the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee narrowly voted to remove the random mandatory alcohol testing provisions from Bill C-46, the government’s new impaired driving legislation. And this wasn’t just the Conservatives being obstructionist – Liberals joined in this too, the tie-breaker coming from Senator Serge Joyal. Why? Because this provision is almost certainly unconstitutional. Senator Denise Batters, who moved the motion, explained the reasons in this video here:

It can’t be understated that the criminal defence bar has been warning for months that this will lead to even more court challenges, including Charter challenges, and that it will do nothing to alleviate the backlog in the courts, and would only make them worse in the post-Jordandecision world of tight timelines. And if you don’t think that this won’t create problems, then just look to BC to see what moving to administrative roadside penalties for impaired driving did to their court system – it’s created a cottage industry of court challenges to those citations. I’ve interviewed these lawyers before. One of them, for whom this is her specialty (as tweeted below) knows what she speaks when it comes to what this bill will do.

The government will point to constitutional scholars that told them their plans were sound, but again, this likely won’t be definitively be answered until it gets put to the Supreme Court of Canada. And plenty of lawyers will also point out – correctly – that just because the police are looking for certain powers, it doesn’t mean they should get them because they will infringe on Canadians’ Charter rights. The funny thing is that this creates a schism within the Conservative caucus, with the MPs being in favour of the bill (much of it having been copied from a bill that Steven Blaney tabled), but then again, the Senate is more independent than people like to give it credit for.

So now the justice minister says that this is unacceptable, that it guts the bill (not really true – the marijuana provisions are all still intact I believe, which is why this bill was a companion piece to the marijuana legalisation bill in the first place), and she won’t have these amendments. We’ll see whether the full Senate votes to adopt these amendments or not – there’s been a lot of talk from the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, that they shouldn’t vote down bills of dubious constitutionality because that should be the role for the courts (I fundamentally disagree with that – it’s actually the Senate’s job), and we’ll see how many of the new Independents are swayed by Harder’s arguments. But it’s one more bit of drama to look forward to.

Continue reading →

QP: Elections, Hamas, and subsidies

Posted on by

On a pleasant Wednesday afternoon in the nation’s capital, the benches were full in the Commons as MPs gathered for what was not only Question Period, but the practice of proto-Prime Ministers Questions, something that has never quite worked out in practice. Andrew Scheer led off, concerned about the electoral reform bill, and the fact that it would allow for American-funded groups to campaign and that the government could make announcements on taxpayer’s funds. Trudeau reminded him that most of those changes were recommendations from Elections Canada, and the previous government tried to ruin our electoral system. Scheer then asked why the government didn’t choose their first candidate for Chief Electoral Officer, to which Trudeau took up a script to read about how great the chosen candidate is. Scheer then changed topics to demand that Trudeau walk back on his statement about the shootings in Gaza and blame Hamas, to which Trudeau said that he spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu about the incident and the fact that a Canadian civilian doctor was shot by an Israeli sniper, and that demanded an investigation. Scheer took exception to this, insisting that Israel goes out of its way to protect civilians, and Trudeau chastised Scheer for politicising the Israeli question. Scheer railed that Trudeau was not condemning Hamas and that they were the ones who politicised the situation, and Trudeau responded by regaling him with Conservative protesters picketing the home of a Toronto Jewish leader who openly supported the Liberal party in the last election. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, demanding an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and Trudeau took up a script to say that they were working on their plan to phase out emissions and that Trans Mountain was part of that plan. Caron demanded to know the ceiling for the “subsidy” to Kinder Morgan, and Trudeau responded off the cuff that they have strengthened measures to ensure that Kinder Morgan got their approval and that it sends a signal that projects could get built. Jenny Kwan took over in English to reiterate the same questions, and Trudeau took up his script to reminder that the G7 plan was by 2025. Kwan railed that the government had no intention to phase out the subsidies, and Trudeau reiterate their commitment to growing the economy while lowering emissions. 

Continue reading →

QP: One of sixty first cousins

Posted on by

On the return of Parliament after a break week and Victoria Day, it was almost a pleasant surprise to see all of the leaders present – something that’s become increasingly rare of late. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he read some great concern that the prime minister had “ordered” Elections Canada to implement the changes of the electoral reform bill before it had even had any debate in the Commons. (Note: I don’t think the PM can issue such an order, because Elections Canada is arm’s length from the government). Justin Trudeau took up a script to read about how they were looking to reverse the changes that the previous government made to make it harder to vote. Scheer demanded that the government commit to not make any spending announcements during the pre-writ period, and this time Trudeau replied extemporaneously that the previous government made changes that were for their own benefit rather than making it easier for Canadians to vote. Scheer then read about the Dogwood initiative getting American funds, and how that was foreign funding interfering in Canadian elections, and Trudeau reminded him that they believe in things like freedom of speech and that they don’t brand groups as eco-terrorists. Scheer then changed tactics to ask about the carbon tax in French, citing disingenuous numbers about the impact on the GDP, and Trudeau reminded him that 80 percent of Canadians already live in jurisdictions with a carbon price. Scheer switched back to English to decry the increase in taxes on hard-working Canadians, and Trudeau reiterated that they are working with the provinces to have their own approaches to pricing carbon, and that the respect for provincial jurisdiction was lacking from the previous government. Guy Caron was up next, and concern trolled that the government hadn’t abolished subsidies for oil companies, and Trudeau didn’t so much respond as say that they promised to grow the economy while reducing emissions. Caron then equated any investment in Trans Mountain to a subsidy and demanded to know how much they would spend on it, and Trudeau reminded him that they don’t negotiate in public. Rachel Blaney reiterated the question in English, insinuating that the government were no longer forward-looking, and Trudeau reiterated his response before adding that they strengthened the process around Trans Mountain. Blaney made the link between billons for Kinder Morgan and boil-water advisories on First Nations, and Trudeau reminded her that they are on track to ending boil-water advisories, and the NDP should listen to those First Nations that support the pipeline.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unnecessary proposal to cover for abdicated responsibility

Posted on by

When Parliament resumes next week, and the final push of legislation before the summer break starts, I can pretty much guarantee that there will be some gnashing and wailing of teeth in the Senate about the crush of bills headed their way, and the fact that there isn’t a plan to manage it. And from Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, we’ll get a reminder that he’s proposed a business committee to do said managing of the Order Paper. And lo, in Policy Options yesterday, we got an endorsement of the notion of a business committee from a former political science professor, Paul G. Thomas, which read a lot like it was could have been commissioned by Harder’s office.

To wit: One of the reasons why I object to the creation of a business committee is because it will create a powerful clique that will determine the legislative agenda of the chamber in a manner that has the very real possibility of trampling on the rights of individual senators in the name of expediency. Currently the rules allow for any senator to speak to any item on the Order Paper on any day – something Thomas notes has the potential to delay business, but under most circumstances, this can be managed through negotiation, and if abused, a vote can be used to clear that obstruction. But what Thomas’ glowing endorsement of the notion of a committee ignores is the fact that sometimes, it can take time for a senator who sees a problem with legislation to rally other senators to the cause. We have seen examples of that in the current parliament, with bills like S-3, which wound up getting majority support from senators to fix the flaws in the bill, or even with the amendments to the omnibus transportation bill last week, where Senator Griffin’s speech convinced enough senators that there was a real problem that the amendment was meant to correct. Having a business committee strictly lay out timelines will stifle the ability for the Senate to do its work when sometimes it needs time to do the work properly.

One of the reason why this kind of committee should be unnecessary is because the Senate has operated for 151 years on the basis of the caucuses negotiating the timelines they need at daily “scroll meetings,” but it requires actual negotiation for it to happen, and since Harder took on the role of Government Leader, he has eschewed his responsibilities to do so, believing that any horse-trading is partisan. Several of the new Independent senators follow a similar mindset, which is a problem. And while Thomas acts as Harder’s apologist in trying to downplay the criticism that a business committee will simply allow Harder to stage manage the legislative process – and it is a possibility that he could, but only in a situation where there are no party caucuses any longer, and that the Senate is 105 loose fish that he could co-opt as needed – my more immediate concern is that he would use the committee to avoid his actual responsibilities of negotiation and shepherding the government’s agenda, more so than he already has. We already don’t know what he’s doing with this $1.5 million budget and expansive staff, so if he is able to fob off even more responsibility onto this clique, what else does that leave him to do with his budget and staff? It’s a question we still don’t have any answers to, and yet another reason why the creation of such a committee is likely to lead to more problems than it does solutions that aren’t actually necessary if he did his job.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The problem with coalition speculation

Posted on by

We’re only a few days into the Ontario election campaign, and we’re already hearing far too much of the c-word for my liking. And by c-word, I mean “coalition” (though I have no doubt that the other c-word is being uttered by trolls over social media). And it’s so utterly frustrating because most of the time, the talk isn’t accompanied by any particular understanding of how Westminster governments work so you get a ham-fisted attempt to force coalition talks into the early days of a campaign, during which the polls could easily swing (and have in the past). And yet here we are.

Paul Wells did a great service by calling out this kind of talk in Maclean’syesterday, reminding everyone – and especially We The Media – that this kind of talk, especially on the back of torqued headlines, doesn’t really help anyone. Why? Because, aside from the fact that it’s just pure speculation, and that it distracts from actual issues at play, it also forces leaders to start ruling out hypotheticals that aren’t in play but one day might be. He also makes the salient point that post-election, things are not on a level playing field – the incumbent government is still the government, regardless of how many seats they won, and it sets up interesting scenarios if the seat counts are close, as what happened in BC last year. And time and again, media commentators seem to utterly forget that fact, which becomes extremely frustrating as they give authoritative commentary about things that are in contradiction to the realities of how the Westminster system operates.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/996229744285794304

Now, I sort of appreciate what Wherry is saying there, but the problem is that unless and until our media commentators bother to learn how the system operates, we will continue to trade in misinformation, that gets torqued for the sake of headlines, and it will exacerbate the situation and make it worse. Remember the prorogation crisis of 2008 that was precipitated by a potential coalition government willing to step in if they defeated the Harper government on a vote of non-confidence? And how the government’s talking heads were giving all kinds of nonsense answers about it being “anti-democratic,” or that they were going to “go over the head of the Governor General” and incite civil unrest if she let Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton form government? Don Newman was the only journalist who challenged these statements to their faces at the time, and, well, Don’s retired from the news business, and the rest of the pundit class hasn’t learned much since then, unfortunately, so I really am not confident that there would be pushback to wrong notions that will get promulgated if a coalition does become a reality in Ontario post-election. But as Wells pointed out, this kind of pointless speculation is the kind of empty calories and time-wasting that is irresistible to the media landscape. Meanwhile, I’ll be right here, head exploding.

Continue reading →