Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: The report and its “legal imperatives”

Posted on by

As expected, the MMIW Inquiry report was delivered in a ceremony yesterday morning, and the prime minister accepted the report at the ceremony and promised that a national action plan would be developed in concert with Indigenous people – but the fact that he didn’t echo the use of the word “Canadian genocide” from the report had everyone trying to make an Issue out of it (though he made a qualified use of the term at a speech later in the day in Vancouver). The overall theme of the report is that there needs to be a “decolonization” in order for things to get better – which is easier said than done. The report’s 231 recommendations are phrased as “legal imperatives,” but some of them are tremendously problematic or impractical. Some of it is useful – suggestions around policing (which the RCMP promises to review carefully), some specific recommendations about the “man camps” that accompany resource development projects in Indigenous territory, more Indigenous prosecutors and judges (but less helpful is the suggestion that they may require a separate judicial system). But far less practical “imperatives” included things like demanding that the government create jobs in Indigenous communities (because we have a command-and-control economy?), or the creation of a basic income for all Canadians (erm, you know how much that would actually cost, right? Right?). How those kinds of recommendations can be phrased as “legal imperatives” is in and of itself a problem.

And then we’re back to the “genocide” issue, which has sucked up a lot of the oxygen. The Commissioners asserted that it’s a different kind of genocide than the Holocaust or what happened in Rwanda (which had Roméo Dallaire objecting), but wanted to remove the qualification of “cultural” genocide that was previously used in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, and which was accepted by pretty much all facets of Canadian society. Expect this particular polarizing language to continue to dominate the discussion in the weeks ahead.

In hot takes, Chantal Hébert worries that the report’s fairly hardline, all-or-nothing approach will be an excuse for people to tune out rather than engage with its findings (much like the apocalyptic language around climate change has not had the desired effect of spurring action). Chris Selley, meanwhile, points out some of the glaring omissions in the report, the lack of some context when it comes to rates of murders of Indigenous men, for example, and some of the contradictory recommendations such as being against mandatory minimum sentences because they disproportionately affect Indigenous people – while calling for mandatory minimums that are punitive if victims are Indigenous women, never mind that most of the perpetrators will be Indigenous men.

Continue reading →

QP: Claiming a piece of the report

Posted on by

Shortly after the final report on the MMIW Inquiry was delivered, the prime minister got on a plane for Vancouver, leaving QP behind. Andrew Scheer led off, and raising the MMIW Inquiry report, wanted more action on human trafficking. Seamus O’Regan stood up and recited their thanks for the report and stated that they would work on a national action plan in response. Scheer the switched to French to lament attacks on the free press, per their Supply Day motion, and wanted the government to stop stacking the deck. Pablo Rodriguez stated that the Conservatives devoted a full day toward attacking journalists, and that the government would support them. Scheer turned to English to whinge about Unifor being on the advisory panel, and Rodriguez stated that they needed to hear from employers and employees in the sector. Alain Rayes took over to ask again in French, and Rodriguez repeated response, and then they went a second round of other same. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he returned to the MMIW Inquiry report, and tried to make it about him by asking the prime minister to join him in responding to it in a list of areas. O’Regan reiterated his previous response with an added list of steps they have already started taking, and when Singh asked again in French, O’Regan read the French version of his script. Singh then turned to a demand that the government adopt his climate change plan, and Jonathan Wilkinson read that the NDP’s plan simply adopted most of what the government said doing already. Singh tried again in English, deploying the “New Deal” terminology, and got the same response from Wilkinson.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mild consequences for an outburst

Posted on by

It took several days, and the announcement happened fairly late on a Saturday night, but Andrew Scheer decided to strip Michael Cooper of his committee duty – but not deputy critic portfolio – after his committee outburst last week, when he lashed out at a Muslim witness who suggested that conservative commentary was in part responsible for radicalizing some white supremacists, including the shooter of the Quebec City mosque. Cooper’s outburst, you will recall, was to attack the witness and quote from the Christchurch shooter’s manifesto, not only naming him (as the New Zealand government has been reluctant to do) and reading part of that manifesto into the record, so that it will forever be part of the archives of the Parliament of Canada. Scheer said that he was satisfied with Cooper’s apology (which was tepid at best), and that he considered the matter closed now that he removed Cooper from the committee. Funnily enough, Cooper described it as “agreeing” with Scheer that he shouldn’t sit on that committee, which doesn’t sound like it was that punitive (and I’m not sure that removing someone from duties is really that punitive. Putting him on permanent Friday House duty would be more punitive than giving Cooper less work to do).

The witness at the receiving end of Cooper’s outburst, Faisal Khan Suri, says Scheer’s response is not good enough, and says that Cooper should be booted from the caucus. And to that end, Scheer made his big point about showing people the door if they don’t believe in equality (and Cooper reading from a white supremacist manifesto would seem to be a line that was crossed), but well, the matter is “closed.” Not that the Liberals will let them forget it, but this is politics these days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Problematic leaked recommendations

Posted on by

On Monday, the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women will give its final report, and judging from the leaked copy, there will be some consternation with the conclusions, particularly that it considers the deaths as the victims of a “Canadian genocide.” While previous inquiries and even statements by the former Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin, have used the term cultural genocide, this report allegedly drops the qualifier. That will likely be a hurdle because there would seem to be an implication that a genocide implies an organised effort – which there was on the cultural side (because it was inconceivable to think that they shouldn’t be converted to Christianity and “civilised” because that was the dominant cultural framework), but I think it will be hard to stretch that to deaths that are more attributable to poverty and intergenerational violence – we can’t forget that the vast majority of perpetrators of these deaths were Indigenous men (and that there are even larger numbers of Indigenous men who have are missing and murdered).

As for recommendations, the headline one also appears to be problematic – that instances of domestic violence against Indigenous women that result in death be regarded as first-degree murder – and that the use of “Gladue principles” be reviewed with cases of deaths of Indigenous women. That again will be problematic because the Supreme Court ruled on those principles as a way of addressing intergenerational violence that leads to higher rates of incarceration for Indigenous people, and again, if the majority of perpetrators of violence against Indigenous women are Indigenous men, does this recommendation then not demand that more Indigenous men be incarcerated? While the recommendation is rooted in the principles of denunciation and deterrence, I’m not sure that’s sufficient given the broader implications. As well, some of the recommendations like making Indigenous languages official and on par with English and French don’t seem to grasp the practical considerations of ensuring that there be federal services provided in 60 different Indigenous languages.

It also sounds like the government isn’t going to readily accept all of these recommendations Carolyn Bennett has been pre-consulting on what she’s been hearing out of the Inquiry, and she’s not in favour of harsher sentences because it goes against evidenced-based policy as to what is effective. She also noted that their bill on changing child welfare systems for Indigenous communities will do more to prevent the intergenerational violence that the current broken system does. We’ll see what the formal report and its apparent 230 recommendations entail, and what the government’s response will be, but this leak and Bennett’s response sounds like they won’t be endorsing the whole thing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Incoming amendments

Posted on by

There are a tonne of amendments coming out in committees in the Senate, and there are likely going to be some fairly major developments and debates on these in the coming days – particularly once the House of Commons starts debating (and ultimately rejecting) a number of them. One of the more unexpected ones for me were the fairly major amendments to the solitary confinement bill. I was fully expecting the committee to recommend the bill not proceed because the courts had already found the bill unconstitutional and the committee was on the road to deeming it unsalvageable. Apparently, they’re going to make amendments instead, so we’ll see where this goes, because they have at least two court decisions on their side already.

The legal and constitutional affairs committee has also amended the Criminal Code revamp bill to ensure that there are tougher sentences for those who perpetrate domestic violence against Indigenous women. The problem? Well, most of those perpetrators are Indigenous men, and there is already a problem with over-incarceration, so this is going to be a tough needle to thread (but we’ll see how they attempt to do so.

Meanwhile, it looks like that major revamp of C-69 – the environmental assessment bill – was left intact at report stage on a vote on division, which means that they didn’t hold a standing vote, but were simply acknowledging that the vote was not unanimous. It’s a bit…suspect that they chose to go this route, considering how many of these amendments essentially gut the bill (and were indeed written by oil and gas company lobbyists, which totally isn’t problematic at all). But what is ultimately happening here is that these senators – and Senator Peter Harder in particular – are going to send this to the House of Commons so that they can reject them, and then send it back to the Senate where they will ultimately pass it after some minor theatrics, because of the will of the elected house, and so on. It’s not exactly the bravest route, and for the opposition in the Senate, it forces Trudeau to wear the decision more directly. There may yet be senators who will try to move amendments or delete some at third reading, but given Harder’s stance, I think the strong impetus will be for them to get the Commons to make the defeats so as to protect their own backsides from the wrath of Jason Kenney and others.

Continue reading →

QP: Let’s not open Pandora’s Box

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was across the street meeting with Grand Moff Tarkin — err, US vice-president Mike Pence, Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh were both absent. Candice Bergen led off, and she accused the government of capitulating to the American demands in the New NAFTA, to which Marc Garneau mocked the Conservatives’ original advice to capitulate and then listed the things they achieved in it. Bergen claimed the government agreed to hidden quotas in the steel and aluminium agreement, and Garneau again chided that the Conservatives wanted capitulation instead of retaliatory tariffs that got results. Bergen said that Trudeau got a bad deal, and Garneau expounded on the importance of the deal and the Liberal record on jobs. Gérard Deltell took over in French to lament the deal, and Garneau reiterated his previous response on Conservative capitulation in French. Deltell then turned to the alleged deal that CRA signed with KPMG, to which Diane Lebouthillier listed off the measures that they took to combat tax evasion, but also stated that she asked the department to review their processes for entering into agreements in the name of transparency. Ruth Ellen Brosseau read off for the NDP, and she demanded the New NAFTA be reopened, to which Garneau stated that the NDP was asking to open up Pandora’s Box. Brosseau then wanted guarantees to women getting healthcare that they choose — meaning abortions — for which Ginette Petitpas Taylor assured her that the government did support a women’s choice to have an abortion. Tracey Ramsey took over in English to demand that the New NAFTA be reopened, and Garneau repeated the line about Pandora’s Box. Ramsey went a second round, and Garneau read about how important the deal was.

Continue reading →

QP: Jerry Dias says hello

Posted on by

Wednesday, caucus day, and the benches were full as all of the leaders were present for the day. Andrew Scheer led off in French, accusing Justin Trudeau of being the best thing that could have happened to Donald Trump, and called the New NAFTA a “historic humiliation.” Trudeau reminded him that the Conservatives first demanded capitulation, then praised the deal, and now they were all over the map. Scheer suggested, in English, that the steel and aluminium tariff deal contained a hidden quota, and Trudeau reiterated that the Conservatives had no consistent position. Scheer insisted that any better would have been the one that Trudeau got, and Trudeau reminded him that they couldn’t get other trade deals like CETA done while he did. Scheer then pivoted to the question of Unifor’s presence on the media bailout advisory committee, and Trudeau reminded him that the panel needed to hear not only from media owners but also the employees, while the Conservatives have a history of attacking labour. Scheer tried to carry on, and he rambled about spending limits, when Trudeau brought up the Conservatives’ changes to the Elections Act. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he demanded that the federal government join BC’s lawsuit against drug companies for the opioid crisis, and Trudeau took up a script to list actions the government has been taking. Singh tried again in French, and got the French version of the same script. Singh then demanded the government join US Democrats to fix the New NAFTA, and Trudeau took up a new script to read that the NDP criticised the deal in the House of Commons but privately praised it. Singh changed to English to accuse Trudeau of using misleading quotes, and Trudeau read some more quotes in response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A few straw men and some rhetoric about immigration

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer gave another one of his “economic vision” speeches yesterday, this time on the subject of immigration policy. And while it was all “yay economic immigrants,” there were still a few questionable pronouncements throughout. It should be pointed out that off the top, he made a big deal about how they don’t want racists or xenophobes in the party (in apparently contradiction to the succour they gave avowed racists when they thought they could use them to paint the Liberals as the “real” intolerant party), and invoked his belief that we’re all God’s children so nobody is inferior regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation, and if they didn’t like that, the door was that way. So there’s that.

As for the policies, they were not only deficient when it comes to detail, but there was some of his usual problems of straw man arguments and hollow promises. For example, he repeated his usual argument that privately sponsored refugees do better than government-sponsored ones, but nobody is disputing that, and nobody is arguing against private sponsorship, but there is a place for government sponsorship which has to do with the most vulnerable who need more timely relocation and who may not have private sponsorship lined up. And yet, it’s part of his dichotomy about private groups being better than government. He also vowed to stop irregular border crossings, and good luck with that, because it’s always going to happen, and unless he can also stop Donald Trump from threatening immigrants and refugees in his own country, it’s not going to stem the flow coming into Canada irregularly – it’ll just push them to more dangerous crossings. He also didn’t stop the usual rhetoric that pits immigrants against asylum seekers that this kind of vow just exacerbates, so that’s not exactly turning over a new leaf. He also promised that economic migrants would get their credentials recognised in Canada faster, but good luck with that because credentials recognition is a provincial responsibility, and the federal government has precious few levers there, and successive federal governments have tried to deal with this situation in the past and not had much success, ensuring that his promise is empty. But what was perhaps most frustrating was his talk about intake levels – and while he took a dig at Maxime Bernier for calling on them to be reduced, he also said that the level should change every year based on “Canada’s best interests,” which is a giant loophole for that same kind of talk about reducing levels for bogus reasons.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1133506929442131971

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1133508491438624769

Meanwhile, the IRB says they need more funding if they’re going to tackle the asylum claimant backlog (which again, they inherited from the Conservative government) rather than just stabilize growth, which is what they’re projecting currently – but the real kicker here is that they’re still relying on faxes and paper copies rather than emails or electronic files, because they can’t share information effectively with CBSA, which should boggle the mind. And this problem was identified a decade ago (as was pointed out by Liberal MP Alexandra Mendès at Public Accounts), and it’s still a problem. I’ve talked to immigration and refugee lawyers who say that it’s a huge frustration for them that until recently, they couldn’t even schedule hearings by email. The IRB say they’re seized with the issue, but cripes, this should be embarrassing.

Continue reading →

QP: Organized labour versus the media

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was present today, Andrew Scheer was not, for whatever reason. Lisa Raitt led off and she concern trolled about Unifor being on the advisory panel to name the panel that would determine the media tax credit, to which Justin Trudeau stated that they wanted views from employers and employees, and they wanted to save the media rather than Scheer, who wanted to destroy the CBC. Raitt railed that Trudeau was undermining the credibility of journalists, to which Trudeau reminded her of the job of media, which was why both employers and employees needed to be part of the panel, before accusing the Conservatives of hating organised labour. Raitt took exception to that characterisation, and demanded to know why he didn’t do better with this file, and Trudeau reminded her of the anti-union legislation her government passed before repeating his lines about hearing from employers and employees on the panel. Alain Rayes took over in French and he repeated the demand to remove Unifor from the panel, to which Trudeau repeated his lines in French. When Rayes listed Quebec journalists “uncomfortable” with this bailout, Trudeau repeated that the Conservatives hate unions. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he railed about public service spending levels versus corporate funding, to which Trudeau wondered why the NDP voted against the Canada Child Benefit, which has lifted tens of thousands out of poverty. Singh tried again in French, and Trudeau listed measure they took like raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the Middle Class™. Singh then demanded to pressure the American government to change the New NAFTA per the American Democrats’ demands, and Trudeau stated that they got a good deal and quoted Unifor President Jerry Dias’ praise for the deal — which led to peals of laughter from the Conservatives. Singh tried again in English, and Trudeau repeated the praise, adding in Alexandre Boulerice’s closed-door praise of the deal.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Independence and admissions of political ignorance

Posted on by

Somewhat unexpectedly, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott each announced that they would be running as independents in the next election, eschewing the Green Party (even after Elizabeth May said that she would even step aside as leader if Wilson-Raybould was interested in the job). Both of them made speeches that were variations of the same theme – that they want to “do politics differently,” that they were tired of parties, and wanted “non-partisan” ideas and to do things by “consensus” – all of which betrayed an ongoing naiveté and lack of understanding about Responsible Government and Westminster parliaments. Talking about “cooperation” and “non-partisan” ideas, or “consensus” sounds good, but it doesn’t understand how things actually get done. Partisanship when done properly (as in, not devolved into tribalism) is about having competing ideas – which is a good thing. Add to that, “consensus” may work in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut where you have small assemblies and a cultural predisposition to it, but it’s not the same in the House of Commons with 338 MPs – not to mention that consensus demolishes the ability to hold governments to account. When everyone is responsible, then no one is accountable. And sure, the pair might decry that there is “too much power in the centre,” but I’ve said time and again that the cause and solution of centralised power in our parliament is about the way in which we choose leaders, and done in a way that gives them an imaginary “democratic mandate” that they then abuse. Having more independent MPs won’t change that – assuming that they can get re-elected on their own. (Celina Caesar-Chavannes, incidentally, said that their speeches were “inspiring” and she too is now considering running again as an independent after previously saying she planned to bow out of elected political life).

In hot takes, Andrew MacDougall assesses what kind of stars would need to line up for either Philpott or Wilson-Raybould to win as independents, with Éric Grenier crunching the numbers of past independent MP victories. Chantal Hébert considers the long-game implications for the decision to run as independents, and how it lines them up for future moves or influence if the next election results in a hung parliament. Paul Wells looks to both history and Jerry Macguire to look at the lessons that this whole quixotic independent run amounts to, and how the lessons for other MPs may just be the opposite of what Philpott and Wilson-Raybould intend.

Meanwhile in Alberta, the UCP’s House Leader wants to ban floor-crossing in the legislature, which is complete patent nonsense and an affront to our Westminster system of government. Our system is predicated on how we elect individual MPs/MLAs as individuals, not as party ciphers – no matter what your calculus is in the voting booth. That’s why we don’t elect party lists or the likes. If the UCP can’t understand that, for as much as they like to talk a big game about respecting democracy and traditions, then it shows how craven they really are. All this move does is demonstrate that they view their own party members to be drones for the leader, at which point you may as well replace them all with battle droids and be done with it.

A reminder to Philpott, Wilson-Raybould, and Nixon – all of you may want to read my book in order to get a proper grasp of how Westminster democracies actually work.

Continue reading →