Faced with the fact that the federal government has consciously chosen to not do a single thing to defuse the blockade, it's hard to arrive at any other conclusion.
This makes no sense. Polling already shows that the Liberals are taking a hit in approvals for their handling of the blockades, because the majority of Canadians loathe the Covidiot Convoy and basically want him to send in the troops to crack skulls. Ford's goons wouldn't have said that they intend equally to make this "the PM's problem" by refusing to take part in the negotiating table. Emergencies Act is a last-resort and requires a request from the province.
Ford doesn't want to offend his crackpot base or send them over to Randy Hillier in the same manner as the CPC are desperate to win back Mad Max. The only ones playing cynical politics are "the Resistance" premiers and their federal counterparts, who have gone full QAnon since their ousting of mealy-mouthed O'Toole.
I'm really appalled that you would ascribe such nefarious intent to the prime minister and his team, who are the only ones doing anything for Canadians to get them through this pandemic. Isn't it more likely that their hands are tied by both the constitution and lessons from history, especially the reflection of another Trudeau siccing the military on Canadian civilians? As much as the feds are no doubt frustrated, the ball is in the premiers' court and he's the one hogging it as usual. Jurisdiction matters if Canada is to maintain any semblance of the rule of law *after* this gets resolved. The constitution is not a recommendation. Federalism is, as they say, a real b***h.
I am wondering why you didn’t mention listening to the protestors. I think if he had met to listen to their grievances and then held a press conference to explain which ones could be addressed and the timeline, and those which were not possible and why ie constitutionally. This would have taken some “wind out of the sails” of the protestors. Instead he doubled down on the smears which gave the protestors momentum.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken nailed it in 1912.
Interesting. I was just wondering about your views on this. Fortunately it has not yet reached the crucial crossings we depend on here in Washington state
We had "Trudeau the Greater" and we now have "Trudeau the Lesser". I am so disappointed in Justin. He is so weak.
The federal handling of the pandemic was a disaster. The mistakes started before the arrival of Covid when the stockpiles of expired medical supplies were land-filled and not replaced.
Now the automobile industry has another reason to continue phasing out production in Ontario. An industry that relies on Just-In-Time deliveries cannot tolerate unpredictable and irrational border closings.
To answer your question, it is possible, but rather unlikely. There is no question that given a choice in the matter, various levels of government would have a strong preference to leave it to another level of government to take a heavy-handed approach - and whatever negative fallout that arises from the execution thereof.
I don't know that any reasonable person would argue that the government's ability to respond in a manner broadly acceptable to the public is not compromised when CPC leadership including Bergen, Poilievre, as well as Warren Steinley, Kevin Waugh, Andrew Scheer, Fraser Tolmie, Rosemarie Falk and Sen. Denise Batters, and Michael Cooper - had expressed their support and praise for the protesters in Ottawa. To one extent or the other, that kind of division within parliament challenges the legitimacy of any government action. Particularly bold action which could be construed as heavy-handed and may inflame or escalate violence that results in casualties among law enforcement, the public and the protesters. That outcome, as others have pointed out, may be precisely what some convoy organizers seek to achieve.
In that context, it is not so bizarre that the PM would ask the CPC to desist from lending support to an increasingly combustible situation. Nor was it bizarre that Sen. Patterson withdrew his CPC caucus membership for their failure to condemn the protest. In any case, and for whatever reason, the interim leader of the CPC stood up in the house on Feb 10 and in the least offensive way possible, did just that. What then, does the LPC have to gain by prolonging the conflict?
But a consensus in the HOC does not by itself bring about resolution to the challenges faced in Ottawa and at various border crossings. And while there is no doubt the Canadian military is more than capable or bringing closure to the immediate issue, invoking this option is fraught with difficulties, as alluded to previously (one could expand on that more fully - including the public's aversion to domestic military deployment - but that's been done elsewhere).
It has been the express intent of all levels of government to engage prudently in order to bring resolution to the conflict without incurring casualties. Invoking Force Majeure will not likely accomplish that in these circumstances. However a unified front in parliament will go a long way to enabling a peaceful end to the situation. And while the more laborious path toward a peaceful resolution will demand patience, we can agree that it won't come soon enough.
I wonder if some federal tools are limited by sympathy for the protests. Or you’re right and all the economic and financial damage from the last 2 years will be blamed on the protests, and that wedge of division gets hammered in further
Bravo, Scott. I'm glad to see you writing longer pieces again. I've missed your column in Macleans. I don't know that I agree with all that you've set out here, but it is making me rethink my assumptions, which I value as much or more than something that simply reinforces my existing views.
This makes no sense. Polling already shows that the Liberals are taking a hit in approvals for their handling of the blockades, because the majority of Canadians loathe the Covidiot Convoy and basically want him to send in the troops to crack skulls. Ford's goons wouldn't have said that they intend equally to make this "the PM's problem" by refusing to take part in the negotiating table. Emergencies Act is a last-resort and requires a request from the province.
Ford doesn't want to offend his crackpot base or send them over to Randy Hillier in the same manner as the CPC are desperate to win back Mad Max. The only ones playing cynical politics are "the Resistance" premiers and their federal counterparts, who have gone full QAnon since their ousting of mealy-mouthed O'Toole.
I'm really appalled that you would ascribe such nefarious intent to the prime minister and his team, who are the only ones doing anything for Canadians to get them through this pandemic. Isn't it more likely that their hands are tied by both the constitution and lessons from history, especially the reflection of another Trudeau siccing the military on Canadian civilians? As much as the feds are no doubt frustrated, the ball is in the premiers' court and he's the one hogging it as usual. Jurisdiction matters if Canada is to maintain any semblance of the rule of law *after* this gets resolved. The constitution is not a recommendation. Federalism is, as they say, a real b***h.
"Trudeau is dishonest and weak" - Pres. Donald J. Trump
I am wondering why you didn’t mention listening to the protestors. I think if he had met to listen to their grievances and then held a press conference to explain which ones could be addressed and the timeline, and those which were not possible and why ie constitutionally. This would have taken some “wind out of the sails” of the protestors. Instead he doubled down on the smears which gave the protestors momentum.
It is simple: Trudeau is inept and incompetent !
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken nailed it in 1912.
Interesting. I was just wondering about your views on this. Fortunately it has not yet reached the crucial crossings we depend on here in Washington state
We had "Trudeau the Greater" and we now have "Trudeau the Lesser". I am so disappointed in Justin. He is so weak.
The federal handling of the pandemic was a disaster. The mistakes started before the arrival of Covid when the stockpiles of expired medical supplies were land-filled and not replaced.
Now the automobile industry has another reason to continue phasing out production in Ontario. An industry that relies on Just-In-Time deliveries cannot tolerate unpredictable and irrational border closings.
Totally agree, various levels of government could have ended this earlier but chose no to - wonder why?
To answer your question, it is possible, but rather unlikely. There is no question that given a choice in the matter, various levels of government would have a strong preference to leave it to another level of government to take a heavy-handed approach - and whatever negative fallout that arises from the execution thereof.
I don't know that any reasonable person would argue that the government's ability to respond in a manner broadly acceptable to the public is not compromised when CPC leadership including Bergen, Poilievre, as well as Warren Steinley, Kevin Waugh, Andrew Scheer, Fraser Tolmie, Rosemarie Falk and Sen. Denise Batters, and Michael Cooper - had expressed their support and praise for the protesters in Ottawa. To one extent or the other, that kind of division within parliament challenges the legitimacy of any government action. Particularly bold action which could be construed as heavy-handed and may inflame or escalate violence that results in casualties among law enforcement, the public and the protesters. That outcome, as others have pointed out, may be precisely what some convoy organizers seek to achieve.
In that context, it is not so bizarre that the PM would ask the CPC to desist from lending support to an increasingly combustible situation. Nor was it bizarre that Sen. Patterson withdrew his CPC caucus membership for their failure to condemn the protest. In any case, and for whatever reason, the interim leader of the CPC stood up in the house on Feb 10 and in the least offensive way possible, did just that. What then, does the LPC have to gain by prolonging the conflict?
But a consensus in the HOC does not by itself bring about resolution to the challenges faced in Ottawa and at various border crossings. And while there is no doubt the Canadian military is more than capable or bringing closure to the immediate issue, invoking this option is fraught with difficulties, as alluded to previously (one could expand on that more fully - including the public's aversion to domestic military deployment - but that's been done elsewhere).
It has been the express intent of all levels of government to engage prudently in order to bring resolution to the conflict without incurring casualties. Invoking Force Majeure will not likely accomplish that in these circumstances. However a unified front in parliament will go a long way to enabling a peaceful end to the situation. And while the more laborious path toward a peaceful resolution will demand patience, we can agree that it won't come soon enough.
I wonder if some federal tools are limited by sympathy for the protests. Or you’re right and all the economic and financial damage from the last 2 years will be blamed on the protests, and that wedge of division gets hammered in further
Bravo, Scott. I'm glad to see you writing longer pieces again. I've missed your column in Macleans. I don't know that I agree with all that you've set out here, but it is making me rethink my assumptions, which I value as much or more than something that simply reinforces my existing views.