Tag Archives: Terrorism

Roundup: LEEFF details and mask recommendations

Posted on by

As is becoming the norm on days when there is a special committee sitting, it was the ministers who were out first – specifically Bill Morneau, who was announcing more details for the Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility (LEEFF), and how that was going to work – including more of the attached conditions such as ensuring that there was some kind of beneficial arrangement for the government in the form of warrants, and the possibility of a government observer on boards of directors.

Prime minister Justin Trudeau was up next for his daily presser, wherein he repeated his pleas to employers to use the wage subsidy to re-hire their workers, and for commercial landlords to take advantage of the rent subsidy programme, which would begin taking applications on May 25th. He also said that more assistance for large retailers would be coming.

What made no sense was the Thing that journalists made of the fact that Trudeau has increasingly been seen with a non-medical mask in certain public situations, followed by Dr. Theresa Tam making an “official recommendation” that people wear such masks when physical distancing is difficult. Erm, except she’s been saying that for weeks now, so why this was such a big deal that journalists needed to play up and then dissect the “evolution” of her position is boggling. Nothing has changed – the message has always been that these masks won’t prevent you from contracting the virus, and that you still need to maintain physical distancing and proper hygiene (and more to the fact that these masks can instill a false sense of confidence, and that people are more likely to touch their faces more with them on). But hey, our de facto parental authority figure is telling us this “officially” now, so that obviously has some kind of psychic weight, or something. (Seriously, guys).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Threats over Keystone XL threats

Posted on by

Back from the Victoria Day long weekend, prime minister Justin Trudeau started off his daily presser by announcing that the government had agreed to extend the partial border closure with the US for another thirty days, before he started talking about how the government was working to expand the eligibility for the Canada Emergency Business Accounts so that more small businesses and entrepreneurs could apply for them. He also made a plea to employers to rehire their workers and use the wage subsidy programme, which is why it’s in place, but I guess we’ll see what kind of uptake that will get. In response to questions, Trudeau said that they were trying working to create a national framework around things like testing and contact tracing before the borders could re-open, but this being areas of provincial jurisdiction, it requires that kind of cooperation. On the subject of the resumption of Parliament, Trudeau was dismissive, citing concerns over MPs who may not be able or willing to head to Ottawa (as though accommodations can’t be made). When asked about the comments by Joe Biden in the US that he would cancel the permits for Keystone XL, Trudeau reminded everyone that he supported the project even before he was prime minister.

On the Keystone XL file, Alberta has recently put a $1.5 billion financial stake, alogn with $6 billion in loan guarantees, in completing said pipeline (after they pleaded poverty on keeping teaching assistants on the payroll and refusing other forms of pandemic aid in order to force them into federal coffers), so they’re threatening legal action, and Jason Kenney is promising to file a trade action if Biden is a) elected, and b) revokes the authorizations. But it also many not be that easy, and Alberta could be on the hook for major losses if this comes to pass.

Good reads:

  • Here’s a deeper look into the commercial rent subsidy programme, where the details are still being negotiated with the provinces before it is finalized.
  • The National Post tried to get a picture of Ontario’s preparations for economic re-opening, and there seem to be a lot more questions than answers.
  • The President of the CMHC says that this pandemic could raise household debt levels and cause a drag on GDP growth. (You don’t say).
  • The Royal Canadian Navy is relying on US Navy drones to help locate the wreckage of the Cyclone helicopter that crashed off the coast of Greece.
  • Here is a look at the challenges of running election campaigns in a time of pandemic (but the piece omits that Saskatchewan needs to have an election this fall).
  • The UK has released a preliminary post-Brexit tariff list, which gives Canada a start in terms of what kind of trade deal we will have to work out by the end of the year.
  • A Toronto attack from three months ago has been reclassified as an incel terrorist attack, which is the first time that incels have been branded as such.
  • Apparently Andrew Scheer discontinued his process to revoke his American citizenship, given he was no longer going to be prime minister.
  • Rona Ambrose has joined the board of directors of a vape company.
  • The leader of the Quebec wing of the Green Party is accusing Elizabeth May of having consolidated power through her “parliamentary leader” role.
  • New Brunswick’s legislature is adapting to in-person sittings by having some MLAs sitting in the visitor galleries to maintain physical distancing.
  • Max Fawcett notes the curious silence from the usual “ethical oil” types about the news that Saudi Arabia is investing in the Alberta oil sands as others pull out.
  • Susan Delacourt delves into how closely the Canadian and American governments have had to work to keep the border closed, in spite of their divergent approaches.
  • My column delves into the Procedure and House Affairs committee report on virtual sittings and finds the fix is in to make virtual elements permanent post-pandemic.

Odds and ends:

https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1262505806664290305

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

QP: Being too cute on parole and Quebec

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in town today, he was nevertheless absent from QP, for whatever the reason. Andrew Scheer led off, and he read a question about whether the government would support their Supply Day motion on committee study of the incident of the murder of a sex worker by a prisoner on parole. Bill Blair reminded him that they have ordered an investigation, and they should wait for answers before jumping to erroneous conclusions. Scheer then read a demand for parole board officers to get sexual assault training as the government plans for judges. Blair reminded him that the judges bill is important, but there was an investigation ongoing. Scheer demanded to know if the parole board officers who made that decision were still hearing cases, and Blair circuitously stated that they weren’t while laying out additional facts. Pierre Paul-Hus demanded the training for parole board officers again in French, got the same response from Blair, and Paul-Hus then demanded that the prime minister fire the parole board members, and Blair responded that the motion contains erroneous facts, but that the government would support it anyway. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc and, thinking he was clever, stated that if the government points to François Legault’s support for the New NAFTA, would they also support his demand for a single tax return form for Quebec, to which Diane Lebouthillier told him no, that was not going to happen. Blanchet then demanded the government respect the Quebec “secularism” bill, and David Lametti reminded him that groups were challenging it in the courts. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and demanded the government stop court challenges of compensation for First Nations children, to which Marc Miller started that they would have a compensation model to propose by February 21st. Singh then raised the strikes in Regina before demanding National pharmacare and dental care, for which Patty Hajdu reminded him they were working on it, and that she welcomed his suggestions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Voting and dreaming big

Posted on by

Despite it being the Thanksgiving weekend, most of the campaigns were in full swing. Andrew Scheer took the day off, but Justin Trudeau was undaunted by the security issue of the previous evening, and went to York to pack Thanksgiving hampers along with the coach of the Toronto Raptors and got his endorsement. During the media availability, Trudeau insisted that the security scare would not change the way he campaigns – even though the whole bulletproof vest was unprecedented in Canadian politics. Trudeau then went to Newmarket where the crowds were so thick they closed the streets, and ended the day in Richmond Hill.

Jagmeet Singh was in Surrey, BC, where he held a rally and told the crowd that strategic voting prevents people from dreaming big. (Counterpoint: Dreaming big is all well and good but implementation matters). Singh also said he’d be willing to enter into a coalition with the Liberals in order to stop the Conservatives, which seems premature at this point in the game.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dubious studies on populism

Posted on by

A study out of Simon Fraser University shows that a rising number of Canadians are only “moderately convinced” that we should be governed by a representative democracy – nearly 60 percent, which is up 15 percent since 2017. As well, 70 percent of those surveyed don’t feel that government officials care about the concerns of “ordinary Canadians,” along with rising support for populism and anti-immigrant sentiments. This shouldn’t really surprise anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to what is going on in the world, but let’s first of all get out of the way that these percentages are fairly shoddy reporting once you dig into the study, which finds that Canadians are still very much in favour of democracy, and that the representative democracy still figures better than the other alternatives (direct democracy, rule by experts, strong ruler, military rule), and much of the reporting on the anti-immigrant sentiment is fairly torqued.

To be clear, I have a great many concerns about the methodology of the study, which offers some fairly torqued binaries for participants to choose from and then tries to draw conclusions from that, leaving no room for the kind of nuance that many of these positions would seem to merit. As well, their definitions of populism are too clinical and don’t seem to really reflect some of the attitudes that those who respond to the sentiments, so I’m not sure how much utility this methodology actually has in a case like this (or in this other study which looks at pockets of “forgotten workers,” which at least admits there are no obvious answers to stemming the tide of this sentiment). Nevertheless, there is some interesting regional breakdowns in where certain attitudes are more prevalent than others, and which identified populist sentiments register more strongly in some regions over others.

This having been said, the questions on people feeling frustrated with how democracy works are pretty much why I do the work that I do, particularly with the book that I wrote, which is all about identifying where things are breaking down (reminder: It’s not structural, but rather the ways in which people are not using the system properly), and showcasing how it should be operated, which is with the participation of voters at the grassroots levels. But if we’re going to get back to that system, that requires a lot of people at those grassroots demanding their power back from the leaders’ offices, and that also means needing to get out of the thrall of the messianic leader complex that we keep falling into, going from one messiah to another once the current one loses their lustre (which I do believe also feeds into the populist sentiments, who also latch onto messianic leaders). This can’t just be people complaining about the quality of the leaders out there – it’s about how we feed the system. If we input garbage, we get garbage out of it, and this hasn’t connected in the brains of enough voters yet. One day, perhaps, it might, but we don’t appear to be there yet, and the torqued binaries of a survey like this don’t help us get any better of an understanding of what it will take for people to wise up and get serious about our democratic system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Importing the culture war

Posted on by

We’re not even in the writ period, and the imported culture war bullshit is already at a fever pitch. In order to capitalize on it being Ottawa Pride this weekend, the Liberals started passing around a video of Andrew Scheer’s 2005 speech denouncing same-sex marriage, under the rubric of Ralph Goodale calling on Scheer to attend his hometown Pride in Ottawa this weekend. (Note: We’ll see if Trudeau makes it to Ottawa Pride this year, as he may not be back from the G7 meeting in France. Trudeau has only ever appeared at Ottawa’s Pride parade once). And off they were to the races. Scheer’s director of communications said that Scheer “supports same-sex marriage as defined in law,” and would uphold it as prime minister – and then proceeded to name Liberals who previously voted against it.

What’s particularly cute about this defence of Scheer is that it does not say that Scheer’s views have evolved, and the use of “as defined in law” is that the law was a result of a Supreme Court of Canada reference, so there is no way that any government could try to repeal it without invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to escape a Charter challenge. But beyond that, Scheer’s people have not offered any kind of defence that he voted against the trans rights bill in 2016, which is more current and pressing of a rights issue than where we are with same-sex marriage. But it’s not really about same-sex marriage at all – it’s all about our political class being high on the fumes of the American culture war that they’ve been inhaling, and are trying desperately to recreate here because they all think it’ll be a political winner for them, rather than the fact that it will simply burn the house down around them.

In amidst this, Jagmeet Singh decided that he wanted to get in on the culture war action and declared that he wouldn’t prop up a Conservative government in a hung parliament based on this (fourteen-year-old) homophobia – which essentially means that he’s conceded that he’s not running to be the prime minister in the election, but is content to stay as the third party. There’s realism, and then there’s bad strategy. Singh then went on to list all of the Liberal failures on the LGBT file – except most of the ones he listed are in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Oops. This election is already so, so very stupid.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unserious knee-jerk suggestions

Posted on by

As expected, some of the sillier suggestions for avoiding future SNC-Lavalin-type Affairs have started cropping up, and yesterday, Policy Options hosted one from the head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. His suggestions? Splitting the role of Attorney General and Justice Minister, and to ban omnibus bills.

On the former, it’s clear that he didn’t actually read the McLellan report beyond the headlines, because he would have seen – as Paul Wells pointed out so ably in his own piece – that the guidelines that McLellan puts forward in the report would have prevented this whole sordid affair before it got off the ground. (Side note: It may not have prevented Jody Wilson-Raybould from being shuffled, given the lack of competence she had demonstrated in the role overall, and Scott Brison was going to retire regardless, so that likely would have happened, but the fallout may not have gone quite the same way). There is no reason given in the Policy Options piece for rejecting McLellan’s advice – just that the whole Affair has damaged the public confidence. So that gets a failing grade.

As for the suggestion to ban omnibus bills, he doesn’t quite grasp the magnitude of the suggestion. He claims, not incorrectly, that they exist for the sake of efficiency, but that efficiency is largely because there are many pieces of legislation every year, where if you introduced individual bills for each component – such as around technical changes in a budget implementation bill – Parliament would grind to a halt. There is a time and a place for omnibus bills – the difference is when they are being used abusively. The Conservatives stuffing changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act into a budget implementation bill? That’s abusive. The Deferred Prosecution Agreement provisions being put into the budget bill? It’s borderline, but it wasn’t hidden or snuck through – it was in plain sight, the committees in both Houses each saw it and dealt with them (albeit less effectively on the Commons side), and the Commons has new rules to deal with splitting up votes on omnibus bills. Ironically, if the DPA legislation had been put forward as a separate bill, it likely would have languished until swallowed up by an omnibus justice bill, as happened to several other criminal justice reform bills over the course of the last parliament (speaking of Wilson-Raybould’s ability to manage her own bills). But the suggestion to simply ban all omnibus bills is unserious and jejune, and a perfect example of the kind of knee-jerk suggestions we’re going to see plenty of in the days ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clarity on “partisan” ads

Posted on by

That report that climate change advocacy could be considered “partisan” during the writ period had a lot of people talking yesterday – but the problem is that it seems to have been a bit overblown, which I’m chalking up to Environmental Defence overplaying the advice from Elections Canada, and The Canadian Press reporter not getting enough context around that advice. In any case, Elections Canada was playing some damage control, specifying that it had to do with paid advertising and not advocacy writ-large, while various party leaders took shots at the absurdity of it all. And to walk through some of it, here’s Jennifer Robson to allay some of your fears.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Narratives about radicalization ahead

Posted on by

One of the sub-plots from the 2015 election is about to get a rerun as the UK decided to revoke citizenship from “Jihadi Jack” Letts, who has joint-UK and Canadian citizenship. That essentially leaves him with only Canadian citizenship – dumping their problem on our laps (likely in contravention of international law, incidentally). And that means a return to Trudeau’s decision to revoke a Conservative law that would have had a similar effect in Canadian law, because as you may recall, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

Where this will be compounded with the Conservative talking points that Trudeau thinks that returning fighters are “powerful voices” that can be reformed with podcasts and poetry lessons – which is a gross distortion of both Trudeau saying that people who were de-radicalised (not returning fighters) could be those powerful voices in their communities, and de-radicalisation programmes themselves, which again, are not for returning fighters but preventing people from taking that step once they’ve been radicalised. And lo, they will talk about how “naïve and dangerous” the notion that returning fighters can be de-radicalised is, when all of the things they point to are about de-radicalising people before they leave the country or do something violent here. But why should they let truth get in the way of a narrative?

Meanwhile, Letts’ parents are imploring the Canadian government to do something, and they are prepared to move here if that helps, but it also leaves questions as to what Letts may be charged with – though there is no evidence he was actually involved in any fighting. Nevertheless, it’s a problem the UK dumped on us that will become a partisan election issue, with all of the nonsense that entails.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Conspicuous silences

Posted on by

While responses from Canadian politicians and civil society was swift to the mass murder in New Zealand by an alleged white nationalist, Andrew Scheer’s initial tweets didn’t mention the fact that the victims were Muslims, or that they were killed in a mosque. He later put out an official statement that mentioned these things, but didn’t recant any of his winking to white nationalists with “globalist” conspiracy theories, giving succour to racists in order to “own the Libs,” or his wilful blindness of the racist and xenophobic elements of the “yellow vest” protesters that he recently addressed on the Hill (alongside other famous white nationalists, without denouncing them).

Ahmed Hussen said that people who are silent about hateful online comments feed into the narratives that lead to violence, which had Scheer’s office sniping that he was trying to score political points off of a tragedy, but it’s notable that Lisa Raitt and Michelle Rempel were calling out people posting racist responses to the news of the tragedy. (Notably, only Michael Chong called out the white nationalist problem in Canada). Here’s Carleton University professor Stephanie Carvin providing some national security and intelligence context, along with some analysis of how social media feeds this problem.

Andrew Coyne points out Scheer’s continued inability to do the right thing, not only with his poor first statement this time, but his inability to confront racists and for buying into populist conspiracy theories (and he even missed a few other examples).

Jody Wilson-Raybould

As the next Liberal caucus meeting draws closer, and a decision as to whether Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott should be allowed to remain in caucus becomes more immediate, Wilson-Raybould published an open letter to her constituents to reiterate her commitment to being a Liberal, but it was more than that. Rather than just a simple statement about serving her constituents, or some feel-good language, she went on about being new to party politics and wanting to bring change to reject the culture of conflict, empty partisanship, and cynical games. Except this reads a lot like a cynical game in and of itself because it’s both a dare to the prime minister to keep her (and Jane Philpott) in caucus – Justin Trudeau saying he hasn’t spoken to either of them, and that he had no comment on this letter – and it sounds a lot like a challenge to Trudeau and his authority. You know, like she did with her refusal to turn over relevant information about recommendations for judicial appointments, and her refusal to be given a different Cabinet post. It remains to be seen what her endgame is, but this seems to be looking more like a future leadership bid, albeit in a way that hasn’t been done by those who have done so in the past. But that said, I think it’s pretty hard to ignore that Wilson-Raybould has an endgame in mind.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1106587109429641216

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have decided that they’re going to begin a new round of procedural warfare over the demands to get Wilson-Raybould to testify again at the Justice committee, and they’re going to demand all-night line-by-line votes on the Supplemental Estimates. But…we’ve seen this show already. It’s a poor procedural protest because these votes have zero to do with the Wilson-Raybould situation, and when they vote against line items, it opens them up to attack from the government – just like the last time they attempted this and voted against things like veteran benefits allocations. It’s not smart strategy, and it’s premature because the committee hasn’t decided if they’re going to hear from Wilson-Raybould again or not. And then they’ll cry foul, like “You’re making us inconvenience everyone!” when no, nobody is making you do anything. Try again.

Continue reading →