Tag Archives: Peacekeeping

The (garbage) Reform Act won’t stop an autocrat

Posted on by

Over the weekend, the Globe and Mail ran a lengthy opinion piece called “It Can Happen Here,” about how we are supposedly more vulnerable to an autocrat taking power in this country, under our rules, than the Americans were with theirs. I am dubious. While I very much respect the professor who wrote the piece, I worry that there were a few fundamental misunderstandings in some of the points he was trying to make. For example, there is a section about how we don’t have an impeachment mechanism in our constitution, and of course we don’t. Our system operates on confidence as opposed to a fixed clock, so we don’t need impeachment. If the government goes pear-shaped, Parliament can withdraw confidence and the government is out. If a caucus loses confidence in their leader, they can vote non-confidence in him or her at any point, and no, they don’t need the (garbage) Reform Act rules to do so.

Our rules can be pretty effective. For example, when Charles Tupper tried to hold onto power after losing an election, the Governor General refused to make any of the appointments that Tupper wanted him to, so he was forced to vacate the office. Oh, but what if the autocratic PM appoints a lapdog GG? People in serious positions tend to take up the seriousness of those positions even when everyone thinks they won’t. Not saying it’s an impossibility, but so far that’s been the case. And yes, some of our rules are “unwritten,” for which he suggests we need a Cabinet Manual to codify them, but I am dubious there too. Codifying those rules in such a manner invites people to look for legalistic loopholes rather than a principles-based system that makes it easier to point out when someone is trying to do through the backdoor what they cannot do through the front. I also find that the piece very much misread and oversimplified what happened with the whole SNC-Lavalin affair as one of the examples of how power can be abused, because in the end, it was Bill Morneau’s office that was lousy with SNC-Lavalin lobbyists and not PMO, and a more pliant Attorney General was not appointed and didn’t result in the deferred prosecution agreement. (In fact, when SNC-Lavalin eventually pleaded guilty, they got a lesser penalty than the DPA would have stipulated).

My biggest problem with the piece, however, is that it treats the (garbage) Reform Act as a kind of panacea that needs to be more widely adopted. It absolutely does not. What it actually does is put up a bunch of unnecessary rules and barriers to what is a simple vote of non-confidence, and more to the point, it tries to convince MPs that they have lost power over time, or that this will “empower” them when in fact it actually disempowers them because of its formalistic barriers. Yes, we do need to beware leaders who can become autocrats, but the Reform Act will not help avoid that in any way, shape or form.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-10T19:08:01.763Z

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I delve into the Alberta case that the Supreme Court of Canada has recently granted leave to appeal about lawyers’ oaths to the Crown.
  • My column points to the things that the sanitized tales of Conservative “infighting” over generational change are ignoring or glossing over.

Continue reading →

On the “need” to be excited about American primaries

Posted on by

I got a lot of comments over Bluesky yesterday after my post about Avi Lewis, so I thought I would make a couple of things clear. First of all, when I was talking about “big money” in Canadian elections, I was referring specifically to nomination contests (because Lewis was speaking about primaries) and elections. I am fully aware that big monied interests lobby the government and try to influence policy. That’s not the same thing as using money to influence election outcomes. You may think they’re the same thing because of the American framing and context, but it’s really not.

Secondly, the fact that he “needs” to be excited about “democratic socialists” making gains in the US is exactly what I was referring to about pandering to the extremely online crowd. He doesn’t need to be excited, because it has nothing to do with Canada. Nothing. The NDP, as supposed democratic socialists or social democrats (depending on which member of the party you ask) already exists here as a separate party from the Liberals. There is absolutely nothing to be gained in Canada by latching onto these supposed gains, which may very well be for naught. (These extremely online NDP voices were also really excited about the “gains” made by Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, and neither of them achieved any power, and the latter broke his own party and set his successor up for failure). In addition, the “democratic socialists” in the States are promising things that are the norm in Canada, like single-payer healthcare, or social programs that we already have. Being excited because they are trying to do things we already have is weird.

I get that there are people who are excited about Zohran Mamdani, but again, there is no possible application that this can have for Canada, particularly at the federal level, because again, we don’t have an intra-party struggle for ideological dominance happening. The NDP and the Liberals are separate parties. In addition, all of that “excitement” about Mamdani has led NDP leaders in different provinces and federally to take the wrong lessons. Mamdani’s success was as much about a campaign about fixing everyday things for ordinary people as it was about leftwing ideological purity. As a mayor, he can fix things that affect ordinary people, and that’s much, much harder to do at the federal level. Instead, we get Marit Stiles trying to emulate his video style, and Avi Lewis talking about government-run grocery stores with absurd levels of subsidies that don’t make any logical sense. This is just trying to ride on coat-tails for the extremely online crowd, but social media is not real life. I’m not sure that anyone with any authority in the NDP federally or in Ontario understands that, which again, is why I make the observations that I do.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-06T19:08:02.228Z

My Latest:

My column notes that with provincial RCMP contracts up for renewal in 2032, this is the perfect opportunity to end those contracts and dismantle the broken, toxic force.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carney visits Kyiv

Posted on by

Prime Minister Mark Carney landed in Warsaw on Saturday for a trip that was announced as being to Warsaw, Berlin, and Riga, when early Sunday morning, he turned up in Kyiv for Ukraine’s Independence Day, along with defence minister David McGuinty. (Photos here). There is a bit of symbolism here because Canada was the first western nation to recognize Ukraine’s independence after it broke away from the Soviet Union. Carney laid a wreath at Ukraine’s national memorial alongside president Zelenskyy and his wife, and also had meetings that included Ukraine’s new prime minister.

Carney announced a new $2 billion aid package for Ukraine—new tranches of supplies of military aid, medical equipment, arms; purchases of items prioritised by NATO including US-made equipment, munitions, and air defence capabilities; drone-counter-drone and electronic warfare equipment; armoured vehicles, as well as more ammunition procured through the Czech process. Carney also said that he was not ruling out Canadian troops being part of any security guarantees if a ceasefire is achieved (not that it’s likely to happen).

Here is a broader look at Canada’s contributions to Ukraine. AP has some photos from Ukraine’s independence in 1991, as well as photos from around Europe to mark this Independence Day.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia captured two settlements in Donetsk on Friday, and another one in Dnipropetrovsk on Sunday. A Ukrainian drone struck the fuel terminal of  Russian nuclear power plant, as we also learned that the US has been restricting the use of long-range missiles against Russia. There was a prisoner exchange on Sunday of 146 prisoners of war on both sides.

Continue reading →

Roundup: At long last, the mandate letters

Posted on by

On what turned out to be the final sitting day of 2021 for the House of Commons, the prime minister finally released the mandate letters for his ministers, nearly three months after the election, and two after they were sworn in to their new jobs. I’m not sure how well I can articulate the utter absurdity of the situation, because there is really no excuse why it took this long (let along why it took him as long as it did to swear in his Cabinet or to summon Parliament). The fact that they were released after the House agreed to rise at the end of the sitting day means that there can be no interrogation of these letters by the opposition until January 31st, which is way too long.

As for the letters themselves, there is a theme among them about building a more inclusive and fair country, and for tangible results to be better communicated to Canadians (you think?). Some of the highlights include:

  • Ordering several ministers to take a harder line on trade tensions with the US
  • Resurrecting legislation on CanCon requirements for the internet and having web giants pay news outlets, as well as modernising the CBC
  • Renewed action to fighting systemic racism, along with a number of initiatives directed toward the Black community
  • Implementing UNDRIP in all decisions
  • Developing a new cyber-security strategy

No doubt more attention will be paid to these letters over the coming days, and we’ll see how much misunderstanding comes from them (recall the line about not creating new permanent spending programmes from Chrystia Freeland’s previous letter which people took to mean all rather than in the context of COVID supports). It also looks like we’re getting talking heads grousing about inclusivity as though it were somehow a distraction from economic growth when inclusive growth is where the country needs to be headed to head off economic challenges plaguing us since before the pandemic.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1471544703212404736

Continue reading →

Roundup: Swift passage, but not for the better

Posted on by

In another surprising move, the Senate passed the bill to ban conversion therapy at all stages yesterday, with no committee study, meaning that it only needs royal assent now, which can happen at any time. But while this is a relief to many, it’s also a tad irresponsible.

The lack of study of the current bill in the House of Commons was a political gambit designed to keep the Conservatives from being trapped by their own social conservative members, and to avoid giving any more media clips about people supposedly overcoming “lesbian activity” and so on. The fact that this version of the bill is different from the one that passed the Commons in the previous parliament is relevant, and there are changes that deserved some actual scrutiny because there were live constitutional questions around them (and yes, I asked the minister about it during the press conference, and I asked other questions about the bill during the not-for-attribution technical briefing, but those are not on the parliamentary record). And yes, this matters because the Senate should have done the work that MPs opted not to do out of political expediency. That’s one of the reasons why the Senate is the chamber of “sober second though”—because they don’t have to deal with the political repercussions and ramifications when the politics wins out in the Commons.

Unfortunately, politics also won out in the Senate (which should be an indictment of its supposed more “independent” existence these days). Acting Conservative leader in the Senate, Senator Leo Housakos, in his speech to give the bill swift passage, said that this issue shouldn’t be made into a political wedge like the Liberals were doing. Which is ironic because it wasn’t the Liberals who were holding up the bill previously by slow-walking it, refusing to let debate collapse, and by putting up speaker after speaker to offer the same concern trolling. That wasn’t the Liberals being political—it was 100 percent on the Conservatives for that, and now they’re trying to shift that blame. Yes, passing this bill at all stages was the expedient thing to do, but from a process and a parliamentary perspective, it was not the right thing to do, and it’s going to make the courts’ jobs that much harder when this inevitably gets challenged and they have little on the record to go by.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Who they gave succour to

Posted on by

Cast your minds back to summer of 2018, when prime minister Justin Trudeau attended a Liberal rally in rural Quebec and encountered a woman heckling him about refugees crossing the border at irregular points of entry. As part of this, she demanded to know when Trudeau would support “Québécois de souche,” a term tinged with racism as it applies only to those who descended from the early French settlers, essentially considering anyone without those particular roots to be some kind of contagion upon the state. Trudeau called out her intolerance, and she tried to sue for defamation.

A Quebec Superior Court judge dismissed her case, and pointed out the fact that she had tried to use the incident to make a name for herself among far-right circles, all while claiming that she has empathy because she’s a nurse, and will treat anyone. More to the point, the judge pointed out that she was deliberately trying to provoke the prime minister, and was thus the author of her own misfortune, and in dismissing the case, ordered her to pay legal fees.

So why bring this up? Because if you also think back to when the House of Commons returned shortly after this incident, the Conservatives all rushed to give succour to this woman, and tried to frame her aggressive questions and demands as though she was “just asking about the budget.” No, seriously. Conservative after Conservative stood up in the House of Commons to whine that “if Trudeau doesn’t like your questions, he calls you a racist.” Because in their minds, being called a racist is a worse crime than the actual racism that the woman was displaying. And it goes to show what the party is willing to stand up for, and who they are willing to protect if they think they can score points from it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Nail-biter by-elections

Posted on by

The Liberals won the two Toronto-area by-elections last night, but with far less comfortable margins than before. While Marci Ien won Toronto Centre, Green Party leader Annamie Paul came in a not-too-distant second place, which was a surprise showing for her considering she was a far-distant fourth in the previous election. In York Centre, Liberal Ya’ara Saks pulled ahead at the very end, but it was a constant dance with the Conservatives most of the evening, and very close (and close enough there may yet be a recount). While it’s not good to read too much into by-elections, one supposes that this should be a bit of a warning to Justin Trudeau about going to a snap election, given how close it was. There should also be a warning for Trudeau in here about engaging his own party membership – one suspects that there are a lot of angry Liberals who are incredibly unhappy about the way that Trudeau short-circuited the nomination process and simply appointed candidates in both ridings, cutting out the grassroots membership to the detriment of democracy as a whole. Erin O’Toole will crow that he made progress in the GTA with nearly winning York Centre (though the Conservative candidate was almost a non-entity in Toronto Centre), though Maxime Bernier’s entry into the race in that riding ostensibly took enough votes away from O’Toole to lose the race. Hopefully O’Toole won’t take that as a cue to go even more extreme to try to attract those voters.

Fiscal anchor

At a talk for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, prime minister Justin Trudeau said that the government wouldn’t be setting a new fiscal anchor while the pandemic was still ongoing – but that there would soon be a “robust” fiscal update presented. This immediately gave the whole it’s-1995-and-will-always-be-1995 crowd the vapours, but there is credible economic thought that this isn’t the time for a fiscal anchor because it would simply be a signal to cut spending at a time when that spending is building resilience into the economy and is giving us a leg-up on recovery over other countries. Erin O’Toole followed up and handwaved that if his party was in charge, they would have done everything better, offering no evidence to that end.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1320794340747194369

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding an answer on provincial measures

Posted on by

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

Continue reading →

Roundup: Looking for the path forward

Posted on by

The day in protests and rail blockades did not improve much, with more temporary layoffs announced, and new blockades were erected across the country, one of them near Edmonton, which sparked locals going in to try and dismantle it themselves – the kind of escalating behaviour that could get out of hand very quickly, and yet several prominent Conservative voices were either cheering on that kind of behaviour, or “warning” that more of this would happen because people were “frustrated.” Meanwhile, in Parliament, Andrew Scheer threatened to move a vote of non-confidence as part of the Conservatives’ Supply Day today, but decided to withdraw it late in the day, planning instead on a motion to condemn the current handling of the blockades. One suspects he may have overplayed his hand by threatening non-confidence, but the performative outrage continues to roll along. The premiers are also agitating for a teleconference with Trudeau, which could also happen today, for what it’s worth. As for Jody Wilson-Raybould, she continues to insert herself into this discussion, as though anyone would trust her.

As for the underlying situation, here is look over the history of the consultations with the Wet’suwet’en, and how the company appeared to have cut some corners when it came to the hereditary chiefs and their concerns. Here is a look over some of the issues with the different types of chiefs, and what is known about the agreements with the elected chiefs, as well as some additional context on how Indigenous law interacts with Canadian law. As for the RCMP presence, the hereditary chiefs want them and any company personnel gone from the work site before they hold any negotiations, citing that their presence acts as duress otherwise, and no, replacing the RCMP with some kind of Indigenous police force would not change that situation. What could also complicate things further is that four of the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have arrived in Ontario to meet with the Mohawks leading the blockades here (while the one Mohawk grand chief who counselled them to dismantle the blockades has now publicly walked back his comments).

So where to from here? It seems to me that given that the government cannot order the RCMP or other police forces to clear the blockades – particularly without escalating the situation and creating a series of Oka or Ipperwash crises across the country – nor can they order the RCMP to withdraw from Wet’suwet’en territory, it means that it’s up to Coastal GasLink to swallow the losses and go to the court to withdraw the court order that the RCMP went in to enforce that touched off this whole mess. One has to wonder whether anyone is counselling them to that very effect, but if that’s the way out of this situation, then they may have to take their lumps and do their part to walk the country back from the brink, because there don’t appear to be any clear paths out of this particular mess otherwise. It should also be a warning to other developers that they can’t keep cutting corners, particularly with regards to Indigenous peoples. CGL should have consulted the hereditary chiefs as well as the elected ones, provided proper reassurances that no, this was not a stealthy way to put a bitumen pipeline through their territory (because yes, that conspiracy theory is floating around), and done that work ahead of time. The days of cutting these corners has to stop, or we’ll keep going through this exercise time and again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Waiting – or not – for a Cabinet call

Posted on by

One of the more interesting stories that was out first thing Friday morning was that of new NDP MP Heather McPherson, the party’s only Alberta MP, who mused openly to the CBC that she would be willing to take on a Cabinet position if prime minister Justin Trudeau offered it – but she wouldn’t cross the floor for it. Hours later, she backtracked on Twitter, saying that she obviously wouldn’t take a Cabinet position – likely because it was pointed out to her what that would entail. While this is obviously a rookie mistake, it might be worth delving into a bit more for the sake of everyone’s edification.

First of all, having an opposition MP in Cabinet – who remains an opposition MP and who hasn’t crossed the floor – is pretty much a coalition, even if you don’t want to call it that. Being in Cabinet, she would be bound to Cabinet confidentiality and solidarity, meaning that she would have to vote with the rest of the Cabinet, even if the rest of the NDP were opposed; and confidentiality could be a very sticky issue if they want to ensure that she’s not going to divulge Cabinet secrets to her caucus colleagues behind the closed doors of the caucus room (which in and of itself has its own confidentiality convention that, like Cabinet confidentiality, is intended to let the members have free discussions without then being picked off by media when their views are off-side from the rest of the Cabinet or caucus, as the case may be). Now, there are exceptions to how this can work, such as in New Zealand where they have developed a system where they could swear her in as a member of the Privy Council and bring her into Cabinet discussion where appropriate by not make her a full member of Cabinet (as they do with Green MPs in that government), but I’m not sure what the utility would be in this case, when there are better options available to Trudeau (such as appointing a Senator, which is more in keeping with our own traditions and one of the reasons why our Senate exists in the way it does). Regardless, the point is moot, and that’s as far as the thought exercise extends.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1190232873477058562

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1190247532246556672

Continue reading →