[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

I am pretty sure not using the n word is more than just an on-line cultural phenomenon.

[Barrister]

Interestingly, it's also verbotten to use the french n-word.

Potential trigger warning for potentially offensive French words - but no other way to discuss without using the word.




Doing some googling - what I get for the "French N-word" is "nègre".

But that searching also seems to show that "nègre" can be translated into english as either "negro", or the n-word.  In English "Negro" is perfectly acceptable if rather-old-fashioned, while the n-word is treated as being so offensive you can't even type it in a neutral fashion.

And even the n-word in english - it gets somewhat complicated as it has both the "hard R" and "soft R" versions, and the "soft R" is seen as acceptable when used by one black person to another.

So going back to my original point - if someone reports being called the n-word in the Federal public service I don't doubt them.  But given how hyper-sensitive the public service can be I highly doubt it was being used in a a manner deliberately meant to cause offence.

[Barrister]

So yesterday Premier Smith fired the entire board of AIMCo.  This is the fund that manages both Alberta's government pension funds, plus our Heritage Savings Trust Fund.  Apparently it supervises $160 billion worth of assets.  Which includes my pension.

Now reports are out that she wants to appoint none other than Stephen Harper as chairman of AIMCo.

https://financialpost.com/fp-finance/stephen-harper-potential-head-aimco

So, I have thoughts.

First of all I weirdly have some level of experience on managing a large investment fund.  Back in 1999-2000 I was the law school representative on student government.  Given that most of student government is a bunch of 18-20 year old undergrads, being a 24 year old 3rd year law student gives you a lot of clout so I was chairman of the finance committee (and of the counsel as a whole).  Being Finance committee chairman also gave a seat on the board of the U of Manitoba Endowment fund - not just student government, but the university as a whole.  No idea how much money it was worth in 1999, but in 2024 they have a hair over $1 billion.

So anyways, my experience really was that we hired professional money managers, they seemed to know what they were doing, so we went along with it.  (Just to be clear it was myself and the President as student representatives - most of the board were much older).

AIMCo has done alright for itself.  They haven't beaten the market, but few actively-managed funds do.  The CPP investment board doesn't.

So not quite sure why Smith fired the board.

And then - Harper?

The Chairman of the Board isn't going to be a full-time position.  Unlike the U of Manitoba it has enough under management it probably has its own staff, rather than just rely on someone else.  Harper as a former economist (and former PM!) is not unqualified to serve as a chairman, but is hardly going to be doing the nitty-gritty of day-to-day management.

So what's going on?

You have to think this is coming back to separating Alberta from the CPP.  Which was part of the "firewall" letter Harper signed back when he was the head of the NCC, before he became Prime Minister.  It was an idea floated by Smith, but then kind of hidden during the last election campaign.  I don't think it has much popularity in the province.

If an Alberta Pension Plan is formed, AIMCo would be in charge of it.

So curious to see what happens from here.

[viper37]

The board privately told her not to do it, so she found someone willing to go for it who will recruit a more compliant board.

Alberta's economy might not be diverified enough to support the move at this moment.  And your current leader is anything but stable.

She's betting all on big oil.  One day, it's going to explode, the fund with it.

[crazy canuck]

The board privately told her not to do it, so she found someone willing to go for it who will recruit a more compliant board.

Seems the most likely scenario

[Barrister]

The board privately told her not to do it, so she found someone willing to go for it who will recruit a more compliant board.

Alberta's economy might not be diverified enough to support the move at this moment.  And your current leader is anything but stable.

She's betting all on big oil.  One day, it's going to explode, the fund with it.

So Smith is not "unstable".  What she does do is lead a party whose most vocal membership is pretty extreme, so she goes along with a lot of policy ideas to keep them satisfied.

There is a very sound policy basis reason for trying to have a separate Alberta Pension Plan.  First of all the constitution allow for it - Quebec has it's own pension plan.  Second, Alberta has a much younger population so we have different needs - and could potentially get away with slightly lower contribution rates.

But then there's the question of what investments are going to be made.  In particular - would AIMCo, both with its current funds, plus Alberta's share of the CPP, start making a lot of politically-motivated investments?

In the early days of the HSTF it was controlled directly by the government, and government used the money to make a lot of investments in government-owned organizations.  It was really just a slush fund.  It changed I believe under Klein (although by this time the government was no longer making new contributions to the HSTF) and became a much more normal and professional investment firm.

So even there you can make an argument for making investments that might not by themselves make the most money, but would bring wider benefits to Alberta as a whole.  Let's say AIMCo invests in KeystoneXL 2.0 (note - as far as I know nobody is suggesting to revive Keystone XL).  The pipeline itself would be very expensive, and while it may be profitable, let's say it is not very profitable.  But the effects of increased pipeline access to US markets would be massive and affect the wider Alberta economy - which would presumably help some of AIMCo's other investments.

Or - it could just be a giant slush fund again.

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/notwithstanding-clause-charter-rights-1.7381447

So this is an analysis piece about how the Notwithstanding clause is making a resurgence.  Just read it.

After a brief retreat, politicians are again clamouring for the notwithstanding clause
When the majority decides it can brush aside someone's rights, everyone is at risk

Aaron Wherry · CBC News · Posted: Nov 13, 2024 2:00 AM MST | Last Updated: November 13

When a public backlash compelled Ontario Premier Doug Ford to abandon his use of the notwithstanding clause to end a labour dispute in 2022, it was possible to believe the tide had turned back against the Charter of Rights' escape hatch — that political leaders would again have to think twice before trying to sidestep a court's conclusion that the rights of an individual or group had been violated.

But the latest calls to invoke the clause — to clear homeless encampments in some Ontario cities — suggest the political temptation to override inconvenient rights is still strong. As a result, the practice of invoking the notwithstanding clause, contrary to its original intent, is again at risk of becoming normalized.

These new calls also show how it's the most disadvantaged, vulnerable and outnumbered members of society who have the most to fear when human rights exist at the whim of the majority.


When 13 mayors wrote a public letter to Ontario Premier Doug Ford late last month to ask him to consider using the notwithstanding clause, they did so after the premier himself issued an open invitation.

"I have an idea," Ford told a news conference in late October. "Why don't the big city mayors actually put in writing that they want the province to change the homeless program, make sure that we move the homeless along, and why don't they put in, 'Use the notwithstanding clause,' or something like that."

Ford said that doing so would show "backbone."

The potential use of the notwithstanding clause against homeless encampments would be in response to a ruling made by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in January 2023. Justice M.J. Valente ruled that a bylaw passed by the Region of Waterloo could not be used to evict approximately 50 people from a vacant piece of publicly owned land in Kitchener because, under the circumstances, it would constitute a violation of the residents' Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Specifically, Justice Valente ruled that the bylaw was inoperative "insofar, and only insofar, as it applies to prevent the residents of the encampment from living on and erecting temporary shelters without a permit on the property when the number of homeless persons exceeds the number of available accessible shelter beds in the region."

In other words, the municipality could not evict people from an encampment on public property unless those people had somewhere appropriate to go.

Is the clause an answer to homelessness?
There's no debating the fact that homelessness and encampments represent a real problem for Ontario cities and towns — and that's no doubt putting significant pressure on mayors. But does the Waterloo ruling create an urgent or significant need to invoke the notwithstanding clause? Would invoking the clause be the best or only way to deal with the problem?

If the notwithstanding clause was envisioned as a "last resort," it follows that those seeking to use it have to show they have no other options.

"The simplest way of dealing with encampments would be to look at the outs that the Waterloo decision gave cities, and that's providing alternatives for [the homeless], and that's doable with the proper funding," Sam Trosow, a city councillor in London, Ont. and a law professor emeritus at the University of Western Ontario, told me in a recent interview.

(The mayor of London, Josh Morgan, has not called on Ford to use the notwithstanding clause.)

Is the notwithstanding clause a tool to address homelessness? Some Ontario mayors think so

Thirteen Ontario mayors are asking Premier Doug Ford to use the notwithstanding clause so they can clear homeless encampments in their cities. Guelph Mayor Cam Guthrie is one of the mayors making this plea to the premier. He explains why he feels this is necessary.

Municipalities, with their limited ability to raise revenue, might not be able to fund those additional spaces or services themselves, Trosow said. But the province could help — and so could the federal government.

"Nobody wants the encampments to be permanent. But in order for us to be able to alleviate the need for people to be in these encampments in the first place, we can't just take a police approach and scatter them, which is exactly what Ford and these mayors are [seeking to do]," Trosow said.

"The question is, what is the policy that's going to get us out of this predicament in the long run? And not just not just turn it into a game of whack-a-mole where it just turns up someplace else."

The political onus is on proponents of the notwithstanding clause to make the case for its use.

"It's a very blunt, drastic tool that does absolutely nothing to resolve the crisis of homelessness and the lack of affordable housing in our communities. It will literally do nothing to get those governments closer to dealing with the underlying issues," Estair Van Wagner, a law professor at the University of Victoria, told me.

The normalization of an extraordinary step
Beyond the details of Ontario's situation, it is hard to separate these latest calls for deployment of the notwithstanding clause from the trend toward its use in recent years. Would anyone be calling for the clause to be used now if it hadn't already been invoked or threatened in other recent cases?

"The understanding at the time [the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was created] was that this was a very extraordinary remedy that would be put in the Constitution to be used only under extreme and unusual circumstances. And outside of Quebec, that held for many years. But what started happening in Ontario under the Ford government was it started getting brought out and used in what I would call routine policy," Trosow said, pointing to both the labour dispute in 2022 and the Ford government's previous use of the clause to reduce the size of Toronto's city council.

While Ford was forced to back down two years ago, that retreat apparently has failed to cast a chill over the notwithstanding clause.

Quebec continues to apply the clause to protect Bill 21, which bars public servants from wearing religious symbols or attire. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe reached for the clause in 2023 to override challenges to his government's policy on how and when children can change their names or pronouns at school. And federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said this year that a federal government led by him would use the notwithstanding clause to deal with "matters of criminal justice," apparently for the sake of implementing harsher sentences.

When Ford wielded the notwithstanding clause against a large public sector union, he met with heavy resistance. Nearly two dozen labour organizations came together to oppose the move and there was talk of a province-wide general strike. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly criticized the premier.

Ford's move could have threatened a large number of workers; the organized response threatened the political fortunes of his government. As a result, Ford was compelled to back down.

It seems that not everyone can count on that kind of widespread public support. But that's why human rights are codified in law — to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals and minority groups, regardless of political clout or public support. Whenever the majority decides that someone's rights can be brushed aside, it threatens everyone.

The scourge of homelessness is no doubt a major concern at the moment — not least to the people who do not have access to safe and secure housing and who are struggling on the streets. Solving the problem will be neither easy nor simple.

But there will be that much more at stake if overruling the Charter rights of Canadian citizens becomes part of the official answer to homelessness.

So Waterloo, Ontario, goes to evict a patently illegal homeless encampment.  Various activists go to court to stop it - and succeed.  The judge rules the by-law to be of no force and effect unless the city can satisfy the court that there are sufficient resources for these people.

To my mind - this is exactly what the Notwithstanding clause is for.

As the very last bolded paragraph puts it - homelessness is an extremely complicated issue.  It deals with multiple different agencies and priorities - and with concerns over public safety.  It seems like exactly the wrong kind of case for a judge to try and adjudicate.

In a similar case here in Edmonton the courts did allow the city to strike down homeless encampments.  We still have them, but they're not quite so obvious (and don't generate nearly as much crime).

[crazy canuck]

Canada post is on strike.  Will anyone notice?

I was explaining to a junior associate how this used to be a very big deal because a lot of commercial transactions depended on postal delivery. For example, all firms used to send out their invoices by mail.

Pretty much all commercial transactions are electronic now and so businesses And financial institutions won't be affected unless their business model depends on delivery of product through Canada post.

But how much does that occur now?

[Grey Fox]

Probably not a lot and even so they are now multitude of alternative services if you really don't want to go the electronic way.

I suspect those that will most feel the strike are small business that use Canada Post to do their package deliveries.

[Josephus]

Old people who send Christmas cards and stuff.
Also some companies do use canada post for deliveries. For instance I ordered a photo book from Black's and that was delivered via Canada Post.
It's obvious why they strike this time of year. But yes it won't be as disruptive as it would have been in my day.
Really Canada Post is shooting itself in the foot. They jack up prices (we are one of the most expensive places in the world to mail stuff) and the service is getting more unreliable.

I just realized I am expecting a CD box set from the U.K. It's a Xmas present for someone. Hope it comes.

[Valmy]

I actually prefer to do lots of business by mail. Email is so janky these days. So much important stuff gets put in the junk email folder or gets lost in all the junk that gets through to my inbox. I just cannot trust it.

So if you want me to pay a bill or whatever, please mail me some dead trees.

[crazy canuck]

I actually prefer to do lots of business by mail. Email is so janky these days. So much important stuff gets put in the junk email folder or gets lost in all the junk that gets through to my inbox. I just cannot trust it.

So if you want me to pay a bill or whatever, please mail me some dead trees.

Most electronic bill paying is not done through email.

[Valmy]

I actually prefer to do lots of business by mail. Email is so janky these days. So much important stuff gets put in the junk email folder or gets lost in all the junk that gets through to my inbox. I just cannot trust it.

So if you want me to pay a bill or whatever, please mail me some dead trees.

Most electronic bill paying is not done through email.

I don't pay by mail. I pay online. But the bills I pay I ask to be mailed to me. Otherwise shit gets lost, there is just too much electronic garbage out there for me to keep track of it.

[Grey Fox]

I'm with you Valmy. I like dead trees bill.

[Barrister]

So hear me out:

Canada needs to hold a snap election.

We have an incoming Trump administration in the US, with promises to place massive tariffs on every import.  This could be devastating to the Canadian economy.

Problem is that Trudeau is a lame duck at this point.  Election has to be held in under 12 months.  Trudeau is now polling 20 points behind the Conservatives - but what's worse, Trump and MAGA view Trudeau as an enemy (to the extent they think about Canada at all).

Due to the different systems, we could hold an election NOW and have a result before Trump is even sworn in.

If Poilievre wins, then hopefully Trump sees him as somewhat of an ally (even though I have said many times that the CPC is not the same as MAGA) and doesn't want to screw Canada over.

But if Trudeau wins - at least then we don't have a lame duck leader.  Instead we have someone who Trump will know he has to deal with for the next 4 years.

I read an article, can't find it now, basically saying Trudeau in 2017 did a pretty good job at gathering support across party lines to lobby the US to not screw over Canada, and with the CUSMA agreement they did pretty okay.  But it's hard to see the parties coming together in such an effort right now with a looming election.