Tag Archives: Richard Wagner

Roundup: Another shooting, another investigation

Posted on by

The conversation about systemic racism in policing continued over the weekend with news of another fatal shooting by policing of an Indigenous man, again in New Brunswick for the second time in a week. Both incidents seem to involve a mental health crisis situation (and a knife appears to have been involved in both cases), but it continues to point to the fact that the police are not the right people to call in such a situation because they don’t have adequate training to deal with these cases. There is a question as to why the crisis intervention units that are available in the province weren’t called in to deal with the situation – whether there is a lack of training or awareness, or if this becomes a situation where the police culture of trying to seek dominance in a situation kicks in rather than thinking it through (with especially fatal consequences for Black and Indigenous people). Nevertheless, the fact that there were two incidents in a single week should be proof enough for anyone who remains unconvinced by the scope and magnitude of the problem that this is something that needs to be addressed.

Meanwhile, it looks like Bill Blair had a conversation with RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki before she changed her tune about systemic racism in the ranks, but that changed tune and the damage control that flowed from it has now angered the association of RCMP veterans, which is falling back on the same lines about good people being tarred, because they apparently haven’t kept up with the pace of the conversation and what everyone has been pointing out to them the whole time. And while AFN National Chief says that we need to move beyond questioning whether systemic racism exists and act on eliminating it, I think we need to recognize that it’s important that we are finally calling it what it is – and this as we have pundits muttering about how we shouldn’t spend so much time on labelling it than on combatting it, but if we can’t call it what it is, then we can’t do what needs to be done to actually fix it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Foreign aid announcement a house of lies

Posted on by

On what was supposed to have been the date of the Munk debate, Andrew Scheer was in Toronto to have a big press conference about his foreign policy plans, which were conveniently leaked to the Globe and Mail Monday night so that they could dominate the news cycle first thing in the morning – much to the ire of everyone on the campaign bus who pay for the privilege of being there. Scheer’s big headline was his plan to slash foreign aid spending – a blatant pander to the nativist sentiment that falsely has people claiming we should take care of our own before sending “so much money” abroad. After a lengthy diatribe that distorted, misconstrued and outright lied about the Liberal record on foreign policy, Scheer then laid out his four priorities – the slashing of legal aid (allegedly to focus on children in war-torn and poor countries while using more of the money to spend on their other domestic programmes); strengthening our alliances with our “traditional allies” (I’m guessing that means the UK, Australia, and New Zealand) and sending more military aid to Ukraine; targeting regimes like Iran with Magnitsky legislation; and “depoliticizing” military procurement. (Oh, and securing a UN Security Council seat isn’t going to be a priority for him either). But as it turns out, Scheer’s figures about what we are spending on foreign aid right now was one giant lie (and more context in this thread), and one notable example where Scheer couldn’t get a handle on his facts was that money that was sent to Italy was for relief after an earthquake there. His whole part about “depoliticizing” military procurement was just a wholly fictional accounting of the Mark Norman affair and the procurement at the heart of that situation (which was initially a highly political sole-source contract that was designed to save Steven Blaney’s seat). And to top it off, it was clear from this press conference that Scheer has an adolescent’s understanding of foreign aid – and foreign policy in general. But it should be alarming to everyone that someone who is running on “trust” went to the microphones and lied his way through an entire press conference on a policy platform that is in itself a house of lies. This election is getting worse with every passing day.

In Richmond Hill, Justin Trudeau met with some suburban mayors in the GTA to talk about gun control, but just reiterated their existing platform promises around banning assault rifles and finding a way to let cities further restrict handguns (even though these very same mayors all wanted a national handgun ban – so, own-goal there, Liberals).

Jagmeet Singh, meanwhile, remained in Vancouver to talk childcare some more, and this time pledged to let new parents retain full benefits if they take less time for parental leave than is usually allotted.

It’s the TVA debate tonight, so expect a quiet day on the campaign trail in advace of that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Closing it all down for the summer (and the election)

Posted on by

The House of Commons rose yesterday, earlier than expected after news that Conservative MP Mark Warawa died of cancer. Business was truncated, all remaining bills passed swiftly, and a few tributes were made to Warawa before adjourning the House, ostensibly until September, but the writs would be drawn up for the election before then. There is a chance that Parliament will be called back in the summer to deal with the New NAFTA implementation bill, which was not passed, but apparently they’re waiting on the Americans before we go further.

Over on the Senate, side, a number of bills passed through swiftly, including the reforms to the Access to Information legislation, but the ones that caught the most attention were Bills C-48 and C-69, being the west coast oil tanker ban and the environmental assessment legislation. Immediately after those were passed, Alberta premier Jason Kenney thundered over Twitter about how he was going to challenge them in court – which you can expect the courts to tell him to go pound sand, just as they will with his challenge to the federal carbon price that will be imposed on his province come January. The Senate won’t be passing a number of private members’ bills, including some prominent ones like Rona Ambrose’s bill, but it was a bad bill anyway and deserved to die on the Order Paper. (The Liberals also promised to revive the bill in the next parliament, which…isn’t great, frankly, because it’s either unconstitutional in its original form, or largely symbolic in its amended form).

This means that all that’s left is a royal assent ceremony, which will happen this afternoon, and it’ll be the first time that they’re going to attempt a ceremony with the two chambers in separate buildings. It’s been suggested previously that the Usher of the Black Rod will take a limousine to West Block to knock on the Commons’ door to deliver the message that Her Excellency requests their presence in the Senate, at which point the Speaker and a token few MPs will head over – possibly in limos or little parliamentary busses – to the Senate for the ceremony. We’ll see how it all unfolds.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Backlash from the tape

Posted on by

Following Friday’s release of the documents and audio tape provided by Jody Wilson-Raybould, and now comes the backlash. Which at this point I think is the backlash to the backlash to the backlash to the backlash, or something. It’s like they’re ships firing broadsides at one another endlessly, and they’re all taking on water, but nobody will stop, and it’s just so exhausting. But here we go (again).

To begin with, Bill Morneau’s office is disputing the characterisation of conversations their staff had with Wilson-Raybould’s staff, and Gerald Butts tweeted that he’s submitting more of his documents to the committee, which will be released publicly when they too are translated. Michael Wernick’s lawyers are saying that Wernick didn’t brief the PM on the call with Wilson-Raybould because of holidays and the fact that Scott Brison’s announced resignation consumed matters subsequently, and that they didn’t talk about SNC-Lavalin until the Globe and Mail story came out (which one former staffer says is entirely plausible, though not everyone is buying it). Patty Hajdu went on television to say that Wilson-Raybould’s recording of that conversation was unethical, and that she doesn’t think she can trust her in caucus not to record their private conversations any further, though she’ll leave any decisions about ousting her to the caucus itself. And then there was a whole tangent arising from those documents about whether Brian Mulroney directed Kim Campbell as justice minister regarding the David Milgaard case, which led to competing versions of what happened in Mulroney’s memoir’s versus Campbell’s (and she tweeted out more clarifications over the weekend).

As for Wilson-Raybould, she says she’s “absolutely ready” for whatever happens next, and insists she was doing her job and “speaking her truth.” She also stated that Jane Philpott didn’t resign for her benefit, but because of Philpott’s own sense of integrity (which may be a way of trying to shield Philpott from the inevitable calls to have the pair of them booted from caucus, which will only intensify after the revelation of the recording). But a lot of things will now circle back to that recording, something that BC’s former Attorney General says speaks to a “deep fracture” at the heart of the Liberal Party. And he may be right, and it may also be a consequence of doing politics differently, given that one former national director of the party says has a lot to do with Trudeau’s refusal to put any heads on (metaphorical) spikes, which may now cost him in the long run.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Equalization, feigned outrage, and outsourced research

Posted on by

Apparently, we’re talking equalisation again after it was “revealed” that the current formula was renewed for another five years in the budget implementation bill and nobody cottoned on to the fact. Err, except that it was right there for everyone to see. And so you have a bunch of performative outrage from the likes of Jason Kenney about how this was the “deceitful scrapping of Equalization Renegotiation talks,” which is of course, utter bullshit but he need to create outrage that will drive his base – because if there’s anything that will be guaranteed to drive outrage in the West, it’s the deliberate lies being spread about how equalisation works in order to make themselves look like the victims in all of this (never mind that even in the depths of the recession they had the highest fiscal capacity in the country, and the fact that they have a deficit because they made the political choice to keep taxes low and not implement a PST in Alberta). But why be truthful and talk about the system honestly when you can foment outrage with lies? Way to go there. Sure, you can make the point that there could have been more public discussions around it, but there were discussions at the federal-provincial level, despite what Kenney claims.

Which brings us back to the issue of whether or not this change in the budget implementation bill was done underhandedly. Obviously the fact that it was a) in the budget; b) in the budget implementation bill for all to see; and c) raised at committee, clearly it wasn’t being hidden very well if that was the intention. Add to that, there have been ongoing consultations at the ministerial level for months, which again, not exactly being done sneakily. Paul Wells dug into the paper trails and found all of the receipts. And yet it’s being decried as having been done in some underhanded fashion. Why? Because the Globe and Mail reported that this was done “quietly.”

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1010183605581164545

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1010186623366164480

If this is indicative of any problem, it’s the fact that our opposition parties are not doing their jobs. The Conservatives have long-since outsourced their opposition to the Globeif their QP questions are anything to go by (and confirmed by this latest “outrage”), not to mention the outsourcing of yet more homework to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and more to the fact, rather than doing their jobs of scrutinising the legislation and the budget, they spent the entire spring session railing about the India trip, inventing much (though not all) of the outrage out of whole cloth, and demanding the “costs” for the carbon tax where much of the data is already publicly available or does not exist where provinces have not yet come up with their plans. But instead, they spent their time trying to invent smoking guns that would “prove” that this government is out to raise taxes to pay for their deficits (again, ignoring that the funds from carbon prices all get returned to the provinces). If you’re the Official Opposition and can’t do your own homework, then what exactly are you doing? You’re in parliament to do a job – not to generate outrage clips for social media. And yet here we are.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1010195426396422144

Continue reading →

Roundup: Romanticizing a political “success” story

Posted on by

It’s not a secret that Globe and Mail editorials have a tendency to be terrible, but one yesterday was particularly misinformed to the point of being criminally negligent. The subject? That politics needs more Ruth Ellen Brosseaus. The thrust of the piece is that politics doesn’t need more lawyers or titans of industry, but plucky individuals with a common touch. What they completely ignore is how much support the party gave Brosseau to turn her from the assistant manager of a campus bar who spent part of the campaign in Vegas (who never actually went to her riding during the campaign) into the eventual NDP House Leader that she is today.

To wit, after the 2011 election, the party sequestered Brosseau, put her through intense French immersion to get her proficiency in French back up to an acceptable level for the francophone riding that she was accidentally elected into during the Orange Wave, and then carefully kept her away from the media except for select clips to show how great her French was. Her early interventions in the Commons were brutal – I recall one particularly memorable nonsense question in QP about how, as a busy single mother, she didn’t have time to worry about all of the Conservatives scandals. Riveting stuff. She was given a deputy portfolio that kept her very constituency bound, and again, she was largely kept away from the media spotlight for four years, and when she was in the media, it was for personality pieces and not policy. During the last election, the party put her forward to every outlet conceivable to showcase her personality and endear her to voters, and she did win again. And good for her.

But what the Globe piece misses entirely is that plucky everywoman Brosseau was given a hell of a lot more support than any other candidate or MP gets, because they wanted to rehabilitate her image, and to demonstrate that they didn’t make a mistake in putting her name on the ballot in the manner that they did. And sure, maybe we need plenty of everyperson candidates, but we also do need lawyers and corporate types who have policy experience as well, because part of the danger of just nominating your everyperson candidate is that it puts them in the position to be the puppets of party apparatchiks run out of the leader’s office. We already have too much central control in politics, and there is a real danger that candidates who are unprepared for political life will become fodder for those machinations, which will do no favour to our political system. So sorry, Globe editorial board – maybe you need to do a little more homework before you file a piece like this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More dubious Senate suggestions

Posted on by

Over the weekend, there was a piece on Policy Options from University of Manitoba professor emeritus Paul Thomas about the “new” and improved Senate. While most of the piece was a recounting of what brought us to the current set of circumstances in the Upper Chamber, it ended with a series of recommendations of what Thomas thought the Senate should adopt going forward as it enters into this uncharted territory. But I’m not entirely convinced by his particular reasoning. To wit:

  1. The Senate should only engage in “judicious combativeness” by rarely seeking to defeat or fundamentally alter legislation, but use more subtle means of altering policy over the medium and long term. Which is fine on the surface, but legislation is contextual, and the Senate has long engaged in long-term policy development through committee studies that are usually of some of the top caliber in the country, doing more than Royal Commissions could on a more cost-effective basis. This suggestion is not much of a change from the status quo.
  2. More pre-study of regular legislation. I’m a bit dubious of this because while pre-study makes sense with some bills that are more complex or time-sensitive, it defeats part of the purpose of the Senate to do the work after the Commons has in order to look for things that the Commons missed and addressing it then, rather than trying to run committee processes in parallel. Meanwhile, there was a time when the Senate did a lot more pre-study of bills, and were subsequently accused of just rubber-stamping legislation when it made its way to the Senate, and bitter feelings erupted.
  3. Including timetables with legislation. Nope. Nooooope. This is the kind of nonsense that Senator Peter Harder is trying to bring in with his business committee nonsense, and it goes a long way to defeating the purpose of the Senate. Sometimes sober second thought takes time. Sometimes it takes a while for senators who see problems with legislation to convince the rest of the chamber, and including timetables from the start not only create a largely unnecessary sense of haste (and the Senate generally passes legislation more swiftly than the Commons, with few exceptions already) means that you’re applying unnecessary pressure that gives the message that you would rather a rubber stamp than sober second thought. And like I said – legislation is contextual, and no two bills are the same, so to have someone come in from the start and start assigning timetables lacks any sense.

I get that there’s a mood to pre-emptively start reining in a more activist upper chamber, and I have my own concerns with some of the newer appointees and their sense of self, which is all well and good. But to start demanding rule or process changes is foolhardy, and will almost certainly result in unintended consequences. The “new and improved” Senate is working, and they’re responding to the signals that the government is sending them when it comes to their willingness to accepted amended bills. There’s no problem to fix, and I wish that people would leave well enough alone.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cyberwarfare oversight concerns

Posted on by

The University of Toronto’s CitizenLab issued a report on Bill C-59, and the powers that it gives the Communications Security Establishment to engage in offensive cyberwarfare operations, rather than just sticking to being on the defensive. According to their report, these kinds of activities wouldn’t require any kind of judicial oversight – just the sign-off from the ministers of foreign affairs and national defence – and will have little other oversight other than the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. And as Stephanie Carvin explains below, that’s actually not a bad thing, because offensive capabilities are not the same as intelligence gathering – one of CSE’s other activities.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/942720569648340992

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/942721438150209536

And this is pretty much the point – a Crown prerogative doesn’t require the same kinds of oversight, and does not necessarily bind the activities to being Charter compliant because it’s not directed at Canadians, thus is not concerned with their particular rights and freedoms. And as Carvin points out, these kinds of operations have their own particular oversight mechanisms, which are simply different than the once that CitizenLab identifies. It’s perfectly fine to wonder if CSE is really the agency to be doing this kind of work, but that also means asking who else would be doing it, and if the answer is to build new capabilities within the Canadian Forces, is that the best use of scarce resources? Perhaps, perhaps not. It’s certainly a topic worthy of debate, but “no judicial oversight” is not right argument to be making in this case.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A new Chief Justice

Posted on by

The justice minister announced yesterday morning that the prime minister would be naming Justice Richard Wagner as the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, thus both respecting the tradition of alternating between a Common Law and a Civil Law judge as the Chief, as well as picking an accomplished jurist who has 15 years left on the bench, ensuring that there is a long enough period of stability on the Court. Wagner is well respected in the Quebec courts, where he hailed from, and it is noted that he doesn’t really fit into the left-right divide – something that is not only indicative of our Canadian system, but is one of those things that people point to when they note how a Liberal PM can elevate a judge chosen by his Conservative predecessor.

A trip to the Maclean’s archives finds this piece by Paul Wells on the day that Wagner was named to the Supreme Court was also the day that Justin Trudeau threw his hat into the ring for Liberal leadership, and that both men had famous fathers in political circles. Tasha Kheiriddin notes the choice of Wagner is a safe one.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/940602693633974275

https://twitter.com/alisoncrawford5/status/940598938322788352

It’s also worth noting that Wagner also becomes Deputy Governor General with his elevation to Chief Justice, and he can grant royal assent to bills in the event that the GG herself is ill or absent; he opens Parliament before a Speaker is elected; and he will head the committee in charge of nominating people to the Order of Canada. The practice since 1939 also used to be that the Chief Justice would close a session of Parliament instead of the Governor General following some particular manoeuvring by Mackenzie King while the GG was out of town, until the government stopped with prorogation ceremonies. (If you ask me, they should restore the ceremonies, but with the GG doing them).

Continue reading →