This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Tag: Justin Trudeau
This content is only available to our subscribers!
Become a subscriber today!
RegisterAlready a subscriber?
Subscriber Login
This content is only available to our subscribers!
Become a subscriber today!
RegisterAlready a subscriber?
Subscriber Login
This content is only available to our subscribers!
Become a subscriber today!
RegisterAlready a subscriber?
Subscriber Login
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is only available to our subscribers!
Become a subscriber today!
RegisterAlready a subscriber?
Subscriber Login
The “Fire Information for Resource Management” online map for June 5, 2023 was provocative. At this point active wildfires larger than 1,000 acres were much bigger and more widespread in Canada than in the United States. (Two days later the smoke from wildfires in Canada — especially in Quebec — had drifted all the way to New York City — and other US centres in the northeast and midwest.)
It could be argued that this just reflects the extent to which there are still a lot more forests left to burn in Canada, with a destructive human population equivalent to only 11.5% of the 330 million destructive human beings in the USA today.
At the same time, on June 5, 2023 federal cabinet ministers updated Canada’s wildfire situation — as smoke from fires north and west of Ottawa covered the downtown “in a grey haze.”
The ministers urged that wildfires across the country are among “the most severe ever witnessed in Canada.” Forecasts suggest “higher-than-normal” activity” for the next few months. On the late afternoon of June 6 there were “415 active wildfires across the country” with 238 “considered out of control.”
According to the Forest Service of the US Department of Agriculture, over the past few decades: “Longer fire seasons; bigger fires and more acres burned … have become the norm.” Even so the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre in Winnipeg reports that 2023 in Canada is “definitely an unprecedented season … It started early and it accelerated very quickly.”
Constitutionally, provincial governments have responsibility for the “development, conservation and management of … forestry resources in the province.” Disasters like the Canadian wildfires of 2023, however, can soon enough outstrip resources even in large provinces.
Prime Minister Trudeau has so far dispatched Canadian Armed Forces troops to help fight wildfires in Alberta, Quebec, and Nova Scotia .
Federal officials suggest that: “About half of fires in Canada” are started by lightning. Yet they must equally be fought by non-destructive human fire fighters (including much valued help from other countries with different fire seasons — and American good neighbours next door).
Some Canadian Armed Forces officers stress that their troops are not trained to fight forest fires, and this may not be a wise use of military personnel. Other observers have proposed an independent federal fire-fighting service.
The federal government itself is reported to be “studying options for creating a new national disaster response agency” — that would deal with wildfires and all other natural disasters.
According to The Canadian Press: “discussions on a new approach are already well underway and include analyzing the merits of creating a Canadian version of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] in the United States.”
Meanwhile, freshly elected Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has remarked that federal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau proved “very helpful” in dealing with wildfires in her province.
In the wake of her recent election victory she has also raised her longstanding objections to the kind of federal climate change policy that could ultimately reduce wildfires.
The rhetoric is that almost any such policy will thwart the continued development of a key current branch of the traditional Canadian resource economy. And in the real world Alberta’s (and Saskatchewan’s) oil and gas sector still does bring important strengths to the larger Canadian economy.
Yet as Don Martin at CTV News recently urged about federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s attack on an “expensive” Liberal carbon tax : “While the carbon tax could be a defining issue in the next election, his timing sucks. To focus on it with wildfires caused by climate change ravaging the country and Ottawa choking on smoke? Sorry, no.”
At the same time again, just before the Alberta election Premier Smith was talking about a “reset” and “more collaboration” with the Trudeau government in Ottawa. She has proposed such things before, and there are deep grounds for scepticism.
To see Justin Trudeau and Danielle Smith together in public is to similarly see an unusually odd couple. Yet they arguably both have strong political self-interests in some kind of new deal on the environment and the economy.
In the very end, they just may be odd enough to somehow combine a climate change policy that leads to less severe wildfires with a bright future for the western energy sectors in the traditional Canadian resource economy.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is only available to our subscribers!
Become a subscriber today!
RegisterAlready a subscriber?
Subscriber Login
This content is only available to our subscribers!
Become a subscriber today!
RegisterAlready a subscriber?
Subscriber Login
NDP leader Jagmeet Singh introduced a motion in the House of Commons on Tuesday that called for the Liberal government to replace David Johnston as special rapporteur dealing with election interference. He won’t withdraw from the three-year confidence-and-supply agreement with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau if the latter won’t heed his call, however.
If you’re shaking your head in utter confusion right now, I wouldn’t blame you.
What’s the point of calling for a non-binding motion that has no real meaning, and no specific consequences, attached to it? With a subtle nod to the popular 1990s British sitcom, it’s all about keeping up appearances.
While it’s true that Singh hasn’t been completely mute during the bombshell allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, he also hasn’t been a significant participant. “We don’t want to see any interference in Canadians’ ability to make decisions about their future,” he said in a news conference last November. He also joined the Conservatives and other opposition parties in support of a public inquiry in late February. “The way to stop alleged secret Chinese interference is to refuse to keep their secrets for them,” he said, and a “fully independent and non-partisan public inquiry is the way to shine a light into the shadows.”
Both statements were fine, but hardly revelatory or earth-shattering.
When Johnston recommended against holding a public inquiry on May 23, Singh’s response was rather tepid. The NDP leader called the decision “incredibly disappointing,” and suggested “we firmly believe Canadians would benefit from a fulsome, public investigation that maintains the integrity of our intelligence that must be kept confidential.” He also mentioned “New Democrats will keep pushing for an independent, public inquiry that gets people the answers they deserve and fully restores trust in our elections.”
What caused Singh’s shift from being incredibly disappointed with Johnston to calling for his head on a silver platter in one week’s time?
Some have suggested the news involving Johnston’s lead counsel, Sheila Block, could have had some impact. Democracy Watch revealed last week she had donated $7,593.38 to the federal Liberals between 2006-2022. Of the 19 separate political donations that were identified under “Sheila Block” and “Sheila R. Block,” none of them went to any other party.
Did this controversy change Singh’s opinion? It’s possible.
A more likely explanation is NDP MP Jenny Kwan recently being informed by CSIS that she was being targeted by the Chinese government. “What CSIS confirmed with me is that I was a target and I continue to be a target,” she said in the House of Commons foyer on May 29. “They use the term ‘evergreen’ meaning that I will forever be targeted.” Singh also spoke to reporters and made this assessment, “I’ve been very clear in not attacking Mr. Johnston personally and I’ve maintained that, but…It is very clear that the appearance of bias is so high that it erodes the work that the special rapporteur can do.”
What’s happened to Kwan is awful, of course. Singh has every right to be frustrated. Yet, he didn’t speak out as firmly when Conservative MP Michael Chong and former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole revealed the very same thing after their meetings with CSIS.
Therein lies the problem.
Singh’s newly-formed doubts about Johnston’s role as special rapporteur on foreign interference may have only materialized due to a caucus colleague, Kwan, getting caught up in this unfortunate situation. It leaves the impression that his political radar doesn’t focus on major controversies affecting Canada if the NDP isn’t involved in them. Even in the dog-eat-dog world of modern politics, where rigid ideology and partisan rhetoric are both understood, this particular stance doesn’t fly.
It’s also concerning that Singh largely ignored (or avoided) the red flags that started to rapidly appear when Johnston was named special rapporteur. Some were known, including the former Governor General of Canada’s association with the Trudeau family dating back to the 1970s and his previous status as a member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. Others were revealed and re-revealed, including Trudeau’s description of his newly appointed special rapporteur as a “family friend” in 2017 and Johnston’s long-term interest in China, including his two daughters having lived there for two years to study Mandarin.
Johnston was far too tied to Trudeau, his family and the matter at hand to be a truly impartial observer. It was always assumed the PM would pick someone he knew and trusted for this padded role, which lacks the political and legal authority to have any meaningful influence or sway. Nevertheless, the PM shouldn’t have chosen Johnston – and Singh, who has helped prop up this minority government, could have spoken out immediately and suggested Trudeau pick someone else.
He didn’t, and that moment has passed. If he hopes to have any meaningful impact in this discussion going forward, he’s whistling Dixie.
Many MPs in the House of Commons laughed uproariously at Singh last December after he exclaimed, “When I’m prime minister, I will keep my promises.” This slip of the tongue made him look ludicrous, out of touch with reality and completely delusional with respect to his political future. The NDP leader’s non-binding motion related to Johnston’s role as special rapporteur is further proof that Parliament’s reaction that day was wholly justified.
Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
