Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

National

Election interference: eye on the ball, please

Published

1 year ago

9 minute read

David Johnston, who should be beside the point

People living in Canada are having their democratic rights undermined. Fixing that should be everyone’s goal.

Back from vacation, I’m delighted to see nothing has changed. It’s David Johnston this and David Johnston that and David Johnston the other. That last link is about how Johnston has hired Navigator, which is reliably identified as a “crisis-communications firm” in stories like this, to help him figure out what to say. To which one possible answer, given the current storm of excrement, is: My God, wouldn’t you?

I prefer not to pile onto stories that absolutely everyone else is writing about. Today constitutes a bit of an exception to that policy. I’m working on a bunch of stories on topics that will stray very far abroad from this one. But while those other stories percolate, here are a few thoughts on Canada’s response to election interference.

First, we’re in the phase of the story where everyone digs in. Johnston has a mandate from the Prime Minister of Canada which extends to October. He plans to keep working until then. I never thought he was right for this job. But nobody should be surprised that, having taken it, he intends to keep doing it.

But, we are told, Parliament has voted to demand that he stand down! Indeed, that’s how I’d have voted too. Yet Johnston persists. This too is hardly surprising. Ignoring Parliament is easy enough, and it often feels great, as when Parliament voted to express profound sadness over a cover illustration in a magazine where I used to work. Johnston could have taken Parliament’s counsel, but since we are, as I’ve noted, in the phase of the story where everyone digs in, he’s digging in instead.

There is a school of thought that believes this sort of situation must lead straight to a confidence vote and an election. Brother Coyne is that school’s headmaster. I’m always in favour of the largest possible number of elections too, especially since I now make a living selling political analysis. I fondly hope the next campaign will be excellent for business. But I seem to recall that the last time Parliament followed its convictions all the way to a forced election, Canadians responded by sending the Parliament-flouters back with reinforcements. I don’t know whether that would happen now. But the opposition parties are allowed to make such calculations. No surprise, then, that they too are digging in — but not all the way.

Where does this leave us? First, with a process terribly compromised by lousy design. Justin Trudeau sought to outsource his credibility by subcontracting his judgment. The credibility transfusion was supposed to flow from Johnston to Trudeau. Instead it has gone the other way. The PMO hoped they’d found somebody whose credibility nobody would challenge, because he comes from the sort of precincts that impress them. Now they’re stuck insisting that challenging Johnston’s fitness or his conclusions is uncouth. The number of Canadians who decline to take etiquette tips from the PMO continues to surprise the PMO.

So far I have discussed all of this in terms of the usual Ottawa obsessions: Parliament, status, tactics, winners and losers. This sort of scorekeeping comforts Ottawa lifers, soothes us because we have been doing it most of our lives.

But there is another audience here.

It is Canadians and permanent residents who live here and experience intimidation all the time. Most are members of diaspora communities, Chinese and other. They have been saying for years that their freedoms of speech and assembly and their right to security of the person — their Charter rights — are being targeted, infringed and impinged by agents of Beijing’s thug regime. What Cherie Wong, executive director of the Alliance Canada-Hong Kong, says every time she is asked, is that it’s time for action. ACHK’s latest report reads a lot like its earlier reports, like the reports from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians that Trudeau admits he ignored. There’s not much new here, just as there would not be much new after Johnston’s process, or after a theoretically better process launched by some future government.

So Ottawa’s current process obsession, while understandable, is not at all helpful.

Share

The ACHK report includes recommendations that could be implemented before the next election, if parties were less obsessed with using foreign interference to win the next election. The Trudeau government is indeed moving ahead on some elements of ACHK’s recommendations, including a foreign-influence registry. That’s a fraught process that presents real pitfalls — overreach and stigmatization at one extreme, and at the other, a once-over-lightly framework that would not capture the sort of clandestine activity that’s the problem. As indeed the political scientist Stephanie Carvin discusses in the ACHK report. So it’s not something to be rushed. But all due dispatch would be welcome.

(For a discussion of the complexities of foreign-influence registries, readers could do worse than to look at the proceedings of a February meeting of a joint committee of both chambers of the Australian Parliament, considering amendments to Australia’s own foreign-influence registry six years after it was implemented. The comparison with our own debate does not flatter Canada’s Parliament. Australian politics can be raw and tough, and Beijing’s influence is, if anything, a more pressing issue there than here. But members from all parties in Australia discuss the issue calmly. They treat witnesses as sources of useful information, not as sticks to beat their political opponents with. I’m not sure how Canada can get there from here, but it’s refreshing to be reminded it’s possible.)

I suppose what I’m proposing here is a dose of pragmatism informed by a sense that Parliament can be something more than an endless pissing match. I was an early member of the skeptics’ club on David Johnston’s suitability for this particular task. I don’t feel chastened by subsequent events. But that ship has rather spectacularly sailed. Trying to turn the next five months of his work into a bigger fiasco won’t help the people living in Canada in fear and worry. Neither will adding another commission with grander pretensions for a report sometime after the next election. The question facing parliamentarians now is to work on solutions instead of trying to win arguments. There’ll be plenty of arguments later.

Subscribe to Paul Wells. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Upgrade to paid

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 3 hours ago

House Unanimously Passes Bill Boosting Secret Service Protection For Presidential Candidates

Business / 5 hours ago

Federal carbon tax a hot issue today

Alberta / 5 hours ago

RBC boss says the U.S. needs Canada to supply oil and gas to Asia for energy security

Business

Federal carbon tax a hot issue today

Published on September 20, 2024

By

From Resource Works

When it comes to Canada and carbon taxes, times have certainly changed in very little time.

We had wondered how long Ottawa’s national carbon-tax system would last when, after implementing it as a mandatory national scheme, the feds suddenly announced an exemption for home heating oil in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Pressed by NL Premier Andrew Furey, a Liberal, and Liberal MP Ken McDonald, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the exemption last October, saying it would help Atlantic Canadians with the cost of living.

The exemption would last until March 31, 2027. And for NL households that burn oil, the feds said it would mean an average $250 annual savings.

Alberta and Saskatchewan saw the exemption as unmitigated vote-buying politics, and they weren’t alone.

On Jan. 1, 2024, Saskatchewan stopped collecting the federal carbon tax on natural gas used for home heating in that province. Premier Scott Moe declared that this was in response to Ottawa’s “unfair” exemption for Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Trudeau has provided a carbon tax exemption on home heating for families in one part of the country, but not here. It’s unfair, it’s unacceptable.”

Saskatchewan went on to challenge the exemption, in federal court, on constitutional grounds, and won a temporary injunction. Later, pending a final court decision, Saskatchewan and Ottawa agreed that the province would be responsible for “50 percent of the outstanding tax amounts.”

But Ottawa’s carbon tax (oops, sorry, Ottawa likes to call it “carbon pricing” and “carbon pollution pricing”) has now run into new political trouble.

First, national NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, who had voted for the carbon tax, pulled out of a deal supporting Trudeau’s Liberal Party in government.

Singh then went on to slam Trudeau’s approach of exempting fuels in favored geography. And he said the NDP would come up with a system that doesn’t “put the burden on the backs of working people.”

Then, British Columbia Premier David Eby, long a strong supporter of the carbon tax — but facing an election on Oct. 19 — suddenly declared: “I think it’s critical to also recognize that the context and the challenge for British Columbians have changed. A lot of British Columbians are struggling with affordability.

“If the federal government decides to remove the legal backstop requiring us to have a consumer carbon tax in British Columbia, we will end the consumer carbon tax in British Columbia.”

Would Prime Minister Trudeau remove the backstop requirement?

Apparently not. Instead, Environment and Climate Change Canada is looking to run a $7-million “climate literacy and action” advertising campaign to promote the carbon tax and the quarterly rebates that many Canadians receive under it.

And the prime minister, earlier this year, declined to meet the premiers of Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador on the issue.

“The carbon tax has contributed to increasing stress and financial pain for millions of Canadians,” Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wrote to the prime minister.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford wrote: “While we all have a role in protecting the environment, it cannot be done on the backs of hardworking people.”

But Trudeau turned down the call for a meeting: “We had a meeting on carbon pricing and every single premier came together to work on establishing a pan-Canadian framework on climate change years ago.

“And part of it was that there would be a federal backstop to make sure that pollution wasn’t free anywhere across the country.”

Whether the carbon tax has “worked” or not to reduce pollution is an open question. Supporters say yes. Opponents say no.

A poll late last year found that Canadians were feeling slightly more confident in the carbon tax’s effectiveness at combating climate change — but uncertainty was still high.

But the Liberal government is already getting a message from voters — having lost in two recent by-elections in Manitoba and Quebec, and in an earlier one in a “safe seat” in Ontario (Toronto-St. Paul’s).

In the Quebec one on Monday, the Liberals lost their longtime safe seat of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun to the NDP, by just over 200 votes. It had been a Liberal stronghold for years, won by more than 20 percent of the vote in previous campaigns.

The next federal election will take place on or before October 2025, and Trudeau’s opponents have already been loudly cranking up “Axe the Tax” campaigns.

And that means the carbon tax.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Democracy Fund defending Ontario Amish community against quarter million dollars in COVID fines

Published on September 19, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Democracy Fund (TDF) announced that it would represent members of the Amish community in Grey County, Ontario, to fight fines incurred for failing to follow COVID regulations, including using the once-mandated, scandal-ridden ArriveCAN app.

A pro-freedom legal group is defending an Amish community against COVID fines for allegedly breaking travel regulations. 

In a September 18 press release, The Democracy Fund (TDF) announced that it would represent members of the Amish community in Grey County, Ontario, to fight fines incurred for failing to follow COVID regulations, including using the once-mandated, scandal-ridden ArriveCAN app.  

“These are people who, due to their faith, do not use modern technology,” TDF senior litigation counsel Adam Blake-Gallipeau declared. “They travel by horse and buggy and are unfamiliar with operating a telephone, let alone an app on a present-day cell phone.” 

TDF is defending seventy-four community members who were fined nearly $300,000 for failing to complete the ArriveCAN app, among other violations. During the COVID “pandemic,” the Trudeau government mandated that everyone leaving or entering Canada use the ArriveCAN app, which monitored and collected information from Canadians. 

Since Amish communities do not use modern technology, they likewise did not use the ArriveCAN app. Additionally, TDF noted that many of the individuals were not properly notified about the tickets or trial dates and therefore did not attend their trials.   

As a result, judges made convictions in their absence. The rulings included placing liens on their properties, “posing a severe threat to their community and livelihoods should the government force the sale of their lands.”  

Amish communities survive almost solely off their land, through farming, gardening, and harvesting wood. The loss of their land would mean losing both their home and livelihood. 

Therefore, TDF plans to file applications to reopen these convictions and hopefully to challenge the fines in court.  

TDF’s announcement comes after the legal group offered free legal help for anyone with outstanding COVID-related fines.  

Over the last couple of years, TDF has been active in helping Canadians persecuted under COVID mandates and rules fight back. Notable people it has helped include Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, an Ontario pediatrician who has been embroiled in a legal battle with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for her anti-COVID views. She has also had the help of Elon Musk. 

It is worth noting that while the Amish may be using their religious beliefs as a defense against their refusal to use the ArriveCAN app, other legal experts have objected to the once-mandatory application on the grounds that it infringed on Canadians’ mobility rights and other rights to privacy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X