Tag Archives: Venezuela

Roundup: Scheer’s own personal Brexit idea

Posted on by

You may have heard the Conservatives making a big push over the past couple of weeks about promising that they would bow to Quebec’s wishes and let them have a single tax return (as in, surrender the federal authority to collect income tax in the province, as opposed to Quebec returning to the system that every other province uses by which the federal government collects all taxes and turns over their provincial share). While the Conservatives portray it as a simple administrative change, and that there wouldn’t even need to be any job losses – just put those 5000 CRA employees in Quebec to work on tax evasion! – it’s really a lot more complicated than that. While Alan Freeman wrote about the history and why it’s naked pandering to Quebec, tax economist Kevin Milligan walks through the complexity, and quite tellingly, notes that this is a Brexit-like proposal from Scheer – bold idea, no proposal of how to implement it. And yes, that is a problem.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093194511260442624

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093195511857704960

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093196146011385856

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093197692530974722

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093198624656306176

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093199538192433153

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093200551653736448

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093205332216541184

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093230785094606848

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093259900912775168

Continue reading →

Roundup: Polling on magical parties

Posted on by

I am not a big fan about reporting on polls, which makes me particularly aggrieved that we saw a few stories today about the latest Angus Reid poll that postulated a hypothetical “Western Canada Party” and how that would skew the vote for the established parties. Why a poll like this is especially irksome is because when you invite people to vote for a hypothetical that has no leader, or policies, or structure, or even raison d’être, then it simply becomes a repository for unicorns and pixie dust. You’re inviting people from four fairly disparate provinces to join forces, when you have separate grievances with the federal government, and you think you’d make a coherent political force out of it? Really? What exactly is anyone supposed to take from this message, other than people have vivid imaginations?

Of course, the idea is pretty ludicrous on its face – it could never be anything other than a protest party that couldn’t aspire to power by sheer mathematics – and it builds on some particular mythology around the Reform Party that I’m not sure necessarily reflects history. You have people like Deborah Grey who hears this and just sighs about the notion about splitting the Conservative party again (though there is plenty to debate about how we qualify the “reunification”). Should Andrew Scheer read this poll and take it as a warning that his Western base thinks he’s pandering too much to Quebec? We’ve already seen him embrace some outright tinfoil hattery because he’s been spooked by Maxime Bernier and losing those votes – will he crank up his faux-Saskatchewan credentials to eleven for the rest of the election to keep pretending that he’s one of them to bash away at the federal government? Will we hear big and small-c conservatives double down on the faux mythology of Alberta’s conservativism (and if you haven’t yet, please do read Jen Gerson’s exploration of that mythology here). “Ooh, but protest vote!” people will handwave. But BC and Alberta would be protesting against different things – and different parts of BC would have different protests at that. Grievance-mongering is not a path to sustainable politics. Polls like this just confuse issues and make people think that there are magic wands – or in this case, magical political parties that could somehow cure all of their woes by forcing Ottawa to take them seriously, somehow. But that’s not real life, and politics is hard work, which is not something that this kind of polling reflects.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The C-69 battle begins

Posted on by

The Senate’s Energy and Environment committee is slated to begin their examination of Bill C-69 today, which promises to be a right gong show as the Conservatives have been pledging to do everything they can to kill the bill, which could mean attempting to delay things as long as possible – which is one reason why they have been aggressively pushing for the committee to hold cross-country hearings. This is being pushed back against by the government whip – err, “liaison,” and the leader of the Independent Senators Group, but that hasn’t stopped the agitation. Conservative Senator Michael MacDonald went so far as to pen an op-ed in the National Post that says the prime minister is trying to “keep the Senate from the people,” which is absurd on its face considering that Trudeau’s hands-off policy on the Senate is one reason why the Chamber is in a bit of disarray at the moment.

Meanwhile, there will be an effort from non-Conservative senators to see amendments to the bill, which could create its own delays as the debates and votes on those amendments could get drawn out for weeks, while the parliamentary calendar ticks down. (For reference, I wrote this piece last week, talking to lawyers on both the environmental and proponent sides of the issue about the kinds of amendments they would like to see). The bill has its issues, no doubt, but the rhetoric around it has reached hyperbolic proportions, and much of the opposition we hear has become based on myth rather than fact or analysis. That’s going to make the Senate’s deliberations more difficult in the weeks ahead, as people will be howling about non-existent segments of the bill, and we’ll hear the daily demands in QP that the bill be withdrawn, never mind that the current system isn’t working and has been the subject of numerous court challenges. I suspect this will become a very nasty fight before the end of spring.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Backbench lessons

Posted on by

Backbench Liberal MP Greg Fergus is learning the tough political lessons that just because the prime minister says something, it doesn’t mean that changes are necessarily happening. In this case, it’s the declaration by Justin Trudeau a year ago that the government would start to address the systemic barriers faced by Black Canadians, including anti-Black racism, but there has been negligible progress in the meantime, other than a commitment of funds. Fergus’ lesson – that lobbying can’t be a one-time thing, but an ongoing effort.

It’s certainly true, and he’s learning that the hard way – it’s easy to make a declaration, but you need to hold the government’s feet to the fire in order to ensure that things happen, particularly a sclerotic bureaucracy that doesn’t like to change the way it does things (and to be fair, you can’t just turn the way a bureaucracy does anything on a dime – it takes time, and it takes capacity-building, which can’t be done overnight). If anything, Fergus is getting a lesson in being a backbencher – that it’s his job to hold government to account, especially when it’s his own party in power. They can promise a lot of things, but you need to ensure that they actually do it, which is part of why Parliament exists, and why we need good backbenchers who want to do their jobs, and not just suck up to the prime minister in order to get into Cabinet. Hopefully we’ll see an invigoration in the way Fergus and others agitate to ensure that the government keeps its promises, because seeing the backbenchers doing their jobs is always a good thing in any parliament.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The myth about the tweet

Posted on by

At a townhall event in Surrey, Andrew Scheer made a very big deal about the border and the “integrity” of our immigration system. At the centre of it is his invention is the mythology that the #WelcomeToCanada tweet two years ago somehow opened the floodgates. It’s ridiculous on its face, and it ignores the context during which that tweet happened – the recent election of Donald Trump, and the talk of the “Muslim ban” that was ramping up tensions and causing a spike of panic among asylum seekers and refugee claimants in the States, as well as a demonstrable rise in hate crimes. And we can’t forget that within days of this tweet, the Quebec City mosque shooting happened, from which there was a direct correlation drawn to the rhetoric of Trump and his surrogates around Muslims. Trudeau was attempting to take a different approach, and to highlight the decision to bring over Syrian refugees when Trump and his surrogates were insisting that it would be bringing in terrorists (recall the “poisoned Skittles” meme), but Scheer is choosing to ignore all of this.

And then there’s the entire mischaracterisation of the immigration and refugee determination systems, and the very deliberate conflation of the two. They’re separate, and are resourced separately, which makes the constant attempt to portray asylum seekers as somehow disadvantaging “legitimate” immigrants a deliberate attempt to turn immigrants against refugees and asylum seekers. Scheer will then insist that he’s not anti-refugee – that he’s met people in refugee camps who don’t understand why other people can cross the border and “jump the queue” – except of course that there isn’t an actual queue, but rather a process. In fact, those in the camps are usually chosen for resettlement by the UNHCR, and often done by private sponsorship – something that Scheer is a big fan of. In fact, during the Harper era, they reformed a lot of the refugee system to try and offload as much responsibility for resettlement onto the UNHCR, and to more heavily weight private sponsorship over government. (Note that Maxime Bernier is making a big deal about taking more responsibility for refugee determination away from the UN, which could create a wedge, or push Scheer to up his tinfoil hattery around the UN’s processes). Again, asylum seekers who cross the border are separate from those processes, and don’t have the same system impact, because it’s not Canadian officials doing most of the work. It’s another artificial dichotomy that ignores the context of the situation of these asylum seekers and seeks to again create divisions between people involved in those separate processes. Nothing about refugee claimants or asylum seekers is actually impacting the “integrity” of the immigration system – it’s a false dichotomy.

But it’s a wedge, and one built on lies, which is what Scheer is hoping for. Is there a cost to asylum seekers? Yes, absolutely. But we also need to remember that Canada is getting off extremely lightly by sheer virtue of our geography, surrounded by ocean on three sides and the US border on the other, which filters out the vast majority. Scheer shouldn’t expect sympathy from anyone about the influx we’ve seen (which, I remind you, is not out of step with historic norms). In a world facing a migrant crisis, with more displaced people since the Second World War, there are far more who would argue that Canada isn’t doing enough, and telling lies to make it look like we’re under siege because of a single tweet is more dangerous than he realizes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: We join you now from West Block…

Posted on by

And so, the Big Move is complete, and the House of Commons has settled into its new home for the time being. Many MPs were still trying to find their way around the new building, going through wrong doors, coping with more cramped quarters, but they did make some history with the first instances of simultaneous interpretation of Cree in the Chamber thanks to Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette. The changes were all cosmetic as the partisan rhetoric on both sides largely remained the same dichotomy of pabulum from the Liberals, and lies from the Conservatives.

Just what kinds of falsehoods were being peddled? For one, the Conservatives leaned heavily on the notion that the Liberals had “raised taxes” on most Canadians, which isn’t actually true – it’s torque that comes from a Fraser Institute report that considers increased CPP contribution taxes (they’re not), and similarly calls the cancellation of non-refundable boutique tax credits in favour of the (non-taxable) Canada Child Benefit to be “tax increases.” Scheer lied that the government the government’s “own documents” show that they plan to raise the carbon tax to $300/tonne, which is also false, and as Alex Ballingall debunks here, it’s based on redacted documents that point out that higher prices will be needed to meet emissions targets, but don’t say that they are actually planning to do so. And Michelle Rempel also tried to make partisan hay of the fact that the government’s yearly quota of applications for family reunification immigration spaces was open for the space of eleven minutes before it maxed out and tried to equate this as somehow being the fault of asylum seekers who cross the border irregularly – another complete falsehood that Althia rage debunks here, and more to the point, Rempel is engaged in concern trolling – her own government did not prioritize this immigration stream and limited to 5000 cases per year while the Liberals increased it to 20,000. (They also tried to make the small number of spaces “fairer” by attempting to do it on a lottery system rather than one where high-priced immigration lawyers were able to get their files in faster, but that lottery system was abandoned this year). So yeah, the House was mired in bullshit today, but would the government refute most of this on the record? Not really – we got plenty of bland talking points instead that allowed most of these distortions to remain on the record. Slow clap there, Liberals.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert enumerates the government’s many self-inflicted wounds as the new sitting gets underway. John Ivison notes the same old fear and division being peddled by both sides despite the new digs. Paul Wells makes us feel bad for thinking that things might be different in the new locale. I was on Kitchener Today yesterday to talk about John McCallum, China, and the return of the House of Commons.

Continue reading →

QP: New Chamber, same talking points

Posted on by

On the first day in the new Chamber, everyone was trying to find their way through the new building, yours truly included. After introducing the newest Conservative by-election winner, Andrew Scheer led off, decrying the government’s foreign policy as a “disaster,” listing a number of dubious points to bolster his case. Trudeau stood up, assured Scheer that he would get to his question in a moment, but wanted to take a moment to applaud the work of the men and women who did the hard work of getting the West Block up and running. Scheer repeated his question in French, and read that the government was hard at work to get those two Canadians released and for clemency for the third, while they stood up for the rule of law. Scheer read a wooden question about Trudeau apparently not being good with money, and Trudeau rotely recited his talking points about lowering taxes for the middle class. Scheer read the same question again in English, and got the same response, with an added Stephen Harper swipe included. Scheer insisted that the richest were paying less in taxes than before (not really true), and raised the spectre that the government planned to raise the carbon tax six times more than they stated — also false. Trudeau noted that people are now getting the Canada Child Benefit, and that Scheer didn’t talk about it probably because he wanted to cut it. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he demanded that the budget include investments in housing. Trudeau responded that their housing strategy was benefiting a million Canadians. Caron demanded more actions like cutting taxes on housing investments, to which Trudeau reiterated that their strategy was making progress. Peter Julian repeated the same question in English, and got much the same response from Trudeau, and when he brought up the big city mayors, Trudeau noted he met with them earlier in the day and that they thanked him for the investments.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making hay of Venezuela

Posted on by

The situation in Venezuela has been getting political play in Canada, though perhaps not unsurprisingly from the NDP. Much of the party has long had a fascination with “socialist” regimes, both the Chavez regime in Venezuela, as well as Cuba (I was once at a house party with an NDP staffer who expressed shock that the Revolutionary Museum in Havana would have the audacity to subject her to propaganda when she was there to be inspired). It was perhaps least surprising that it would be Niki Ashton who put out the condemnation over Twitter for the Canadian government’s declaration to support the declared interim president of Venezuela in the bid to try and get a new round of free and fair elections up and running. This was echoed by one of the party’s by-election candidates, as well as newly nominated candidate Svend Robinson, who decried that the Canadian government was somehow following the lead of Donald Trump – patently absurd as we have not followed along with their Trump’s musing about military intervention, and the fact that we have recognised the last democratically elected leader in the country who has a constitutional case for the interim presidential declaration. And Jagmeet Singh? He offered a pabulum talking point that said absolutely nothing of substance, but did repeat the false notion that Canada is somehow following the Americans’ lead on this. All the while, Conservative and Liberal MPs started calling on Singh to denounce the Maduro regime in the country, which he hasn’t done, leaving the badmouthing to anonymous staffers.

Meanwhile, Canada is planning to host the other countries of the Lima Group next month in order to plan how to steer Venezuela back toward democracy, which totally sounds like us following the Americans and their musing about military intervention, right? Oh, wait.

Continue reading →

Roundup: McCallum’s gambit

Posted on by

A political firestorm kicked off yesterday when it was revealed that our ambassador to China, John McCallum, held a media availability with Chinese-language media on Tuesday and didn’t inform Canadian media, and then he made comments about how Meng Wanzhou had a “strong case,” and laid out some reasons why, including the fact that Donald Trump politicised her arrest. There seemed to be some genuine confusion among the Canadian foreign affairs community about what exactly was going on here, including whether McCallum was freelancing or going on a limb, but during his own media availability later in the day, Trudeau didn’t distance himself from the comments – though he certainly danced around them a fair bit (though parliamentary secretary Arif Virani later went on Power & Politics to say that the government stood behind McCallum). And then the reaction – Erin O’Toole accusing McCallum of throwing the Americans under the bus, and Andrew Scheer insisting that he would fire McCallum if he was prime minister (for what good that would do).

It’s worth remembering that our extradition system always has the element of political discretion, in that the minister of justice has the final say once the court processes are over and have determined whether the case is viable. (Full explanation of the process here). Also, here’s a video of lawyer Michael Spratt explaining the process.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne says that McCallum put doubt into peoples’ minds about the rule of law, and will be seen to indicate a preference for the outcome, before wondering if McCallum was just freelancing or buying time with the Chinese. Given the swift media reaction in China, there may be more of the latter than the former in the calculation, but it’s hard to know at this point.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1088187071204941827

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1088095085886140416

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brison’s long farewell

Posted on by

It was a bit of a surprise yesterday morning, as Treasury Board president Scott Brison announced that he was resigning his cabinet position because he decided that after 22 years in elected politics, he had decided he wasn’t going to run again this fall. His reasons were mostly that it was time for something new, and the fact that he now has a young family – something that was largely inconceivable when he first got into politics, then as a Progressive Conservative – though that hasn’t stopped everyone from speculating that this has something to do with the upcoming trial of VADM Mark Norman, given that Norman’s lawyers are trying to insinuate that Brison had tried to politically interfere with the procurement process for the interim naval supply ship. (Brison denies this, and he’s not the one on trial, but here’s a thread on what this decision means on his ability to testify). One can’t also help but noting that this will be a bit of a blow for Trudeau as well, as one of his most experienced and competent ministers will be leaving the Cabinet table, and that will matter given the fact that there are still too many ministers that haven’t quite grown into their responsibilities yet.

This, of course, means that we’re now fully into Cabinet shuffle speculation, given that there is one coming on Monday to replace Brison. Every other member of Cabinet, save Jody Wilson-Raybould, has confirmed that they plan to run again in the next election (and Wilson-Raybould likely will as well – she was out of the country and didn’t respond to questions), so it’s unlikely that anyone else will be dropped at this point, particularly given the last shuffle wasn’t too long ago, so it’s an open question as to who will be tapped to replace Brison, and who will take the Treasury Board file.

On a personal note, Brison played a big part in my early days on the Hill, when I was writing primarily for LGBT outlets. When I was the Ottawa correspondent – and later political editor – for the now defunct Outlooks magazine, I had a monthly segment where I would ask Brison, Senator Nancy Ruth, and NDP MP Bill Siksay (later Randall Garrison after Siksay retired) a question every month to get queer perspectives from the three main parties, and that helped me to grow into the journalist that I am today. He was always generous with his time, and incredibly patient with my rookie status, and I will forever be grateful for that.

Continue reading →