Tag Archives: Venezuela

Roundup: A horrific report

Posted on by

The theme of the day was set from the start of prime minister Justin Trudeau’s daily presser – that the military deployed to long-term care in Ontario had found troubling cases of abuse and neglect, and that Trudeau immediately forwarded on those concerns to premier Doug Ford. Trudeau then went on to talk about their contract with GM in Oshawa for more face masks, and spoke about the other partnerships for things like more ventilators and other equipment. Trudeau also spoke about funding up to 700 youth jobs in the agriculture sector, and that he was convening a meeting with the UN Secretary General and the prime minister of Jamaica as part of an international push to ensure poverty reduction as a result of the pandemic. During the Q&A, Trudeau was asked repeatedly about the request to fast-track the claims of asylum seekers who were working in long-term care facilities, and he spoke about trying to find flexibility (but apparently not about the fact that it’s hugely problematic that facilities are hiring these extremely low-wage and largely untrained workers). When asked about the pending Meng Wanzhou extradition verdict, he said that the great thing about our justice system is that governments don’t have to apologise for it. And when asked further about the report on those long-term care facilities, Trudeau reiterated that this was a provincial matter, but that the federal government needed to be “part of the conversation” going forward.

A short while later, Doug Ford released the report, then wrung his hands about how terrible it was, and how he vowed he was going to take action – kind of like he promised that they would ensure there was an “iron ring” around these facilities, and well, that didn’t exactly happen either. And he talked tough, saying that the people who ran these facilities could face charges, but his government did cut back on inspections, so he has to wear that one too. And while he mouthed the words about taking responsibility for the situation, in the same breath Ford blamed his predecessors, and then said he was going to need “federal help,” which translates to “I don’t want to have to pay to fix this,” and he wants to put this on the federal books instead of his own. Because that’s what always happens. The NDP opposition in Ontario was also making itself useless by demanding a full public inquiry, which won’t tell us anything we don’t already know, especially as we’ve just had another public inquiry on long-term care home deaths in this province, and it will simply be a justification to delay action, possibly permanently.

Meanwhile, the NDP and Greens voted in the House of Commons to prop up the Liberals’ motion to carry on with the useless “special committee” hearings rather than proper sittings of the Commons, which also included provisions that means that they will rubber-stamp some $150 billion in spending on June 17th without a proper legislative or committee process, essentially abandoning their fundamental duties as MPs. Slow clap, guys. Slow clap.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Will the RCMP’s pledge be enough?

Posted on by

The question as to whether or not there was progress on dismantling the protest blockades is a rather fraught one, as the news that the RCMP in BC had announced their plans to withdraw their forces from the pipeline site with the proviso that the company be allowed access, which doesn’t sound like it sits well with those hereditary chiefs, because they insist that their eviction notice for Coastal GasLink stands. However, if removing the RCMP from Wet’suwet’en territory is the condition for the sympathetic protests blockades to come down, then we’ll see if that has the promised effect – we may not find out until the four hereditary chiefs who have travelled to Mohawk territory in Ontario have their meeting. In the meantime, Justin Trudeau had a teleconference with the premiers, who expressed frustration but had no consensus on how they would solve the impasse – though François Legault is threatening to send the police after the blockade near Montreal (though we’ll see if the police there respond to political direction, because that would be a violation of police independence). Oh, and while a lot of people are claiming that CN is blaming previously announced layoffs on the current blockade situation, the Teamsters has come out to say that these current (temporary) layoffs are different from those previously announced, so there goes another talking point.

Meanwhile, there has been increased reporting about those Wet’suwet’en voices who are both in favour of the pipeline, as well as those who are don’t appreciate the protesters invoking them, given that they say the dispute is none of their business. As part of that, here is a lengthy thread that tries to get a better sense of the house and clan structure of the Wet’suwet’en, along with trying to get some clarity as to the status of hereditary chiefs, while this thread explains a bit more of their decision-making structure, and what may be an issue at present with some of the politics with the anti-pipeline factions. It’s complex, and resists easy narratives.

I would add that what I wrote yesterday still stands – that the company still needs to act here, because the reporting on the timeline of the decision-making and consultation seems to indicate that they cut the corners around consultation with the hereditary chiefs, and until they pull back and go through that process, then some of these problems won’t get resolved, and the current situation will drag on until things get really uncomfortable, and people start demanding drastic action, which will only hurt the cause for everyone.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Holding off on enforcement

Posted on by

Indigenous protests continue across the country in support of those protesting the Coastal GasLink pipeline, with not only rail disruptions, but also blockades around legislatures and city halls (Halifax city hall being a target that nearly kept Chrystia Freeland from the building). Thus far, police have not cleared any of them despite warnings that enforcing the various court orders will be imminent, and even some Indigenous leaders are calling on their people to end the blockades. That doesn’t seem to have persuaded any of them just yet. (The Star hears from protesters themselves here).

While Jagmeet Singh is calling on Justin Trudeau to return from his foreign trip early to deal with the situation, and Andrew Scheer hinting that he wants politicians to direct the RCMP to enforce those court orders right away (which is a very bad idea and has led to past flashpoints with Indigenous communities), Trudeau says he and his Cabinet are monitoring the situation but are content to let the provinces continue to handle those issues that are within their jurisdiction – as well he should. I suspect that one of the reasons why the RCMP and OPP are holding off on any enforcement actions just yet are because moving too soon will simply generate more sympathy for the protesters and possibly escalate the situation across the country, whereas waiting another day or two will lose those protesters any sympathy as the inconvenience becomes too much for most Canadians, and that most of the protesters will get bored and go home on their own before too long.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt remarks on the impossible situation that Justin Trudeau has been placed in by this situation, while Chris Selley wonders how we can be considered a grown-up country if we can allow the disruptions to continue without treating it like a serious situation that it is for many people affected by it. As well, here is an explainer from last year about the dispute within the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, and how that affects the duty to consult.

Teck Frontier mine

I wanted to point you to this piece, written by energy economist Andrew Leach and environmental law professor Martin Olszynski, which puts a lot more facts and context on the table regarding the Teck Frontier mine application and what is really being considered by Cabinet. In particular, because market conditions have changed so much since the project was first proposed in 2011, and the (flawed) economic impact analysis along with it, it means that the expected economic benefits are far, far less than what was initially promised (when they assumed oil at $95/barrel; it’s currently hovering around $50/barrel), and that will have to weigh in on the government’s decision. After all, the decision tends to boil down to how much economic benefit is worth the significant adverse environmental impact of the project – and it will be significant. And if the benefits are far below what they were initially sold to be, does that make it worthwhile to approve the project knowing that the benefits won’t necessarily outweigh the impact. It’s certainly worth thinking on – especially as the provincial government is now casting aspersions on the First Nation that is balking after the lack of ongoing engagement, and the rhetoric continues to heat up to outsized proportions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: “True Blue” O’Toole

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole made his official entry into the leadership race yesterday by way of a video that takes swipes at “cancel culture” and celebrity activists – the kinds of keyboard warrior buzzwords that are pretty much the domains of O’Toole’s new campaign staffer, Jeff Ballingall, of those “Canada Proud” etc. sites.

At a rally in Calgary later in the evening, O’Toole said that Peter MacKay would turn the party into Liberal-lite, which I have yet to see any actual evidence of (MacKay is not really a Red Tory, guys – he’s not. Stop pretending he is). It also struck me that he kept reiterating the kinds of comforting lies that the party likes to tell itself about issues like the plight of the energy sector, where the woes are blamed on the Trudeau government and not changing market forces (seriously, the shale revolution in the US is a pretty big driver of these changes). He did say that he would march in a Pride parade, and justified it with his military background, which is a bit funny given that he hasn’t marched in one to date, which makes his sudden conviction around it mighty suspect. His opposition to carbon pricing continues to dig the party into its current environmental rut, and his talk of deficits remains completely economically illiterate – all doubling down on the party’s current positions, because that’s apparently what will make him a “true blue” Conservative. I’m not sure how this grows the party’s base, but what do I know?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Coronavirus case in Canada

Posted on by

We can expect a bunch of questions around the first two suspected cases of coronavirus being treated in Toronto when the Commons returns for Question Period tomorrow, and it’s a question of how much we’ll see any kind of politicking being played around it. The line is that we’re not expecting an outbreak in the country – but we’re already at a situation where the suspected case was symptomatic on a flight so that means tracking down the other passengers.

Over the past week, we’ve seen a lot of interviews with former officials, political or bureaucratic, who dealt with SARS and MERS, and they insist that lessons have been learned in Canada, even though we don’t know how this coronavirus will compare. That said, the Ontario government already slashed Toronto Public Health’s funding, so that just may come around to bite them in the ass.

Amidst this, Matt Gurney is decidedly more pessimistic about the preparations and says that the facts we know around this suspected case mean that the system didn’t work, and that’s going to be a problem going forward. He has a point, but we’ll have to see how the response changes 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: 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: A victory for carbon prices

Posted on by

In a 3-2 decision, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has ruled that the federal carbon price backstop is not only constitutional, but it also qualifies as a regulatory charge and not a tax, which means that the way it’s being applied is also constitutional. Predictably, Scott Moe has vowed to take this to the Supreme Court of Canada (and a 3-2 decision made this a certainty if the political element wasn’t there already), while Catherine McKenna, predictably, called it a victory for the planet.

In terms of analysis, here is the long thread from economist Andrew Leach’s reading fo the decision, and his commentary on what the dissenting judges got wrong is particularly illuminating. As well, economist Lindsay Tedds’ wheelhouse is the whole difference between taxes and regulatory charges, so she has some comments here. I would note that the majority decision is going to be some of the precedent that Ontario’s Court of Appeal will look at as they’re drafting their own ruling on the Ontario reference, and if New Brunswick, Alberta, and Manitoba proceed with their own challenges, it will help to inform them as well. But with it headed to the Supreme Court of Canada – as Ontario’s will inevitably as well, and everyone knows it – it may not make any more sense for those other provinces to carry on their own challenges as it’s unlikely that they’ll make any more novel arguments, and it would seem to be swifter for all involved to let the SCC process happen sooner than later (though it certainly won’t happen before the next election, and there is a hope among opponents that a Conservative win will render the whole issue moot if they scrap the federal law beforehand).

Jason Markusoff notes that while the court victory is a modest win for the Liberals, the continued carbon tax crusading by Kenney and Ford isn’t winning them much applause from the blue-chip Toronto corporations that they’re looking to attract with their “open for business” shtick. (Here’s a hint: Stop creating uncertainty by cancelling established environmental plans and creating political risk by cancelling projects and immunizing yourselves from litigation). Andrew Coyne, meanwhile, asserts that the ruling is a victory for common sense – as well as the planet.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A trio of justice issues

Posted on by

There were three major law-related stories in the news yesterday, starting with the announcement that Supreme Court of Canada Justice Clement Gascon has opted to retire early, citing “personal and family reasons.” This was quickly followed by Justin Trudeau announcing that a replacement process would be launched, and would again be headed by Kim Campbell, while the Conservatives followed a few hours later with a demand that this process not go ahead until the leak from the previous process was investigated (though the Privacy Commissioner is already on that case). The thing to remember of course is that there is something of a deadline here, being the election, and it’s more than possible that the Conservatives want this delayed so that they have the possibility of naming the next judge if they should happen to form government in October. For what it’s worth.

The second story was that of the carbon tax reference at the Ontario Court of Appeal, which was live-streamed for the first time in its history. The province’s argument apparently is that if the federal government is allowed to impose a carbon tax, that they’ll start intruding into other areas of provincial jurisdiction, which is…dubious. And it sounds like the judges weren’t having much of that line of reasoning either.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1117808109802663938

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1117809485395816451

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1117811576940060673

The third law story of the day was the revelation that the directive around civil litigation involving Indigenous people that Jody Wilson-Raybould instituted as one of her last acts as justice minister has been fiercely contested within the department because it many cases, it amounts to litigating badly and not actually getting the courts to resolve the legal questions that are at issue, which they argue doesn’t actually help reconciliation because you’re not dealing with underlying issues that require resolution. The piece also noted the frequent and direct political interference that Wilson-Raybould exerted on civil litigation (which she can do as Attorney General, unlike the arm’s length nature of criminal prosecutions), sometimes undermining the arguments that Crown attorneys were trying to advance in the middle of cases. It’s fascinating reading and yet more insight into what was going on with Wilson-Raybould in the lead up to her being shuffled.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A plan to run again

Posted on by

In her first media remarks since her testimony to the justice committee last week, Jody Wilson-Raybould told her local newspaper that she feels “overwhelmed and grateful” for the response from thousands of Canadians over the past week, and that she fully intends to run again for the Liberals in the fall. Mind you, people keep asking Trudeau if he’ll let her stay in caucus, and he says he’s still thinking about it, but Wilson-Raybould did secure her nomination last year. Granted, things have changed in the time since, and her riding association may feel differently about her now than they did then, which is certainly one danger from holding nominations too soon. This said, it’s a bit of a dilemma for Trudeau, who likely feels pressure from MPs who feel betrayed by her – though, as John Geddes discusses in this examination of the situation, it has been remarkably free of acrimony compared to previous examples of exits. Trudeau likely also feels the need to appear magnanimous and that there is room for dissent in the Liberal party. Of course, there was already one columnist who said over the weekend that if Trudeau lets her stay in, he appears weak – because why bother having a whip that enforces caucus discipline when you have the media to do it for you? Cripes.

Meanwhile, David Lametti says there may be contexts where it may be appropriate for a government to interfere in a criminal prosecution, but because it’s a TV interview, he didn’t explore that further, and that will likely be spun completely. It’s also being noted in Halifax that Lametti ordered a new trial for a Halifax man who was found to be falsely convicted for a murder he didn’t commit, but that Wilson-Raybould sat on the recommendation for a new trial for a year-and-a-half, whereas Lametti ordered the retrial within a month-and-a-half (and that re-trial lasted five minutes because the Crown had no evidence to offer).

Continue reading →