Good Sunday Morning! It is Advent with Christmas around the corner. No doubt, those of us of a certain age share the unavoidable sensation that time has speeded up. How is it that we are nearly in 2026? On top of that inevitability, my life in Ottawa increasingly resembles drowning. When can I come up for air?
The other day, John observed that the new Carney administration, although not emulating Trump, does seem to have embraced Steve Bannon’s approach of ‘flooding the zone’. The term refers to the Trump media strategy of making so many executive orders, creating so much chaos and turmoil that no one citizen, or journalist can focus long enough, or muck-rake deeply enough, to be aware of major shifts and dangerous trends. This article by Professor Zsolt Kapelner, of the University of Oslo is very helpful in analyzing how ‘flooding the zone’ undermines democracy:
Kapelner writes, “‘flooding the zone’ is not simply one of the, perhaps dirtier, tricks in the toolbox of democratic competition; instead, it is an inherently anti-democratic strategy which deliberately aims at exploiting one of our crucial vulnerabilities as a democratic public, i.e., our limited attentional capacity… A political system, which at the end of the day is made up of ordinary people, has a limited ability to pay attention to and process information about all the issues it faces.”
Carney’s principle modus operandi has been to make many changes and very quickly. Short-handed recently by Susan Delacourt as ‘move fast and break things’.
Back in June, the omnibus bill C-5 used the unheard-of principle of Henry the 8th, that if in passing a new law, that new law breaks other laws already in place, that is fine. I wrote about this back in June when I was the only MP to vote against both parts 1 and 2 of Bill C-5. I am an eye witness to much that the media misses, and hope Good Sunday Morning helps you, dear readers, keep up with the onslaught.
It was almost like watching political satire as the Liberal government realized that asserting it could break any law was a reach too far. Back in June the government clarified that under C-5’s efforts to exempt yet to be announced ‘projects of national significance’ they could break environmental laws, or other regulations seen as obstructions, it could not break any and every law. So they added to C5, that breaking laws was okay, but not the Criminal Code, and not the Code of Ethics. As concerns were raised about violating the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) they added that it would not be permissible to violate The Indian Act. That was a spectacular assertion of ignorance by the new government of any, even superficial, understanding of Indigenous law and title. The Indian Act is the most racist legislation and does nothing to protect Indigenous rights. Section 35 of the Constitution is unbreakable in any event. It is UNDRIP that should have been referenced. I tried to amend Bill C5 to say that the government in pursuit of building big things fast could not break the Fisheries Act or the Species at Risk Act. My amendments were defeated.
Who can keep up with all this? C4 (the Affordability Act) – not yet passed – includes in Part 4 changes to the Elections Act set to come into effect 25 years ago – not a typo! “Shall be deemed to have come into effect May 31, 2000” – or the reversal of the p. 348 exclusion and prohibition of fossil fuel subsidies for ‘enhanced oil recovery’ contradicted by the M.O.U. with Alberta ten days later. And the many announcements of projects referred to the Major Projects Office create something of a media tail-spin. Meanwhile multiple bills have cleared the first hurdle of second reading with virtually no debate or attention. This was possible in June because every vote on Carney’s agenda was backed by the Conservative party with its MPs whipped to vote in favour, as were all Liberal MPs. With the exception of one brave Liberal MP, Toronto (Beaches East York) MP Nathaniel Erskine Smith, all Liberal MPs voted in favour. This fall, without a strong reliance on Conservative support, the three largest parties, the Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc, have been able to get controversial bills through Second Reading without any vote at all. Rules were changed during COVID. When first elected in 2011, as the lone Green MP, I was not in the category of ‘Recognized Party’ defined by having 12 MPs. But, in 2011, the rule was that any five MPs – even if not members of a Recognized Party – could force a recorded vote. I was luckier than I knew then, having this rule and the lucky break that the Bloc did not have 12 seats. The Bloc’s 4 MPs and I needed each other! We were five and could force a recorded vote. With the COVID change in rules, now only the Recognized Parties can force a recorded vote, so the seven NDP MPs and I can do nothing as the bigger parties decide that bills will ‘pass on division’. The anti-hate bill C-9 (dare I say I hate it?) sailed through the House at Second Reading without any record of who would have voted yay or nay! There must be a recorded vote on C9 at Third Reading, but this does feel more like the Twilight Zone all the time.
In last week’s letter I shared the YouTube clip on my speech about the 2025 Budget Implementation Act, C-15. In that speech, delivered before I knew what was in the Ottawa-Alberta MOU, I explained why I could not vote in favour of omnibus budget Bill C-15.
I am grateful to one of Canada’s best journalists, Althia Raj, for this column from the Toronto Star; one of the few to try to break down what is in C-15:
(I have cut and pasted her article from behind the paywall. Sorry to the Star! Please subscribe.)
Hidden in the federal government’s 634-page omnibus bill C-15, the Budget Implementation Act, is a measure that has so far escaped scrutiny. Under the pretext of regulatory efficiency, Prime Minister Mark Carney plans to grant cabinet ministers the power to exempt any individual or company from any federal law on the books — except for the Criminal Code — for up to six years.
The measure wasn’t included in the version of the Liberals’ Nov. 4 budget that was given to reporters. It was not discussed in the government’s speeches in Parliament about this bill. No opposition party aside from the Bloc Québécois seems to have noticed it was there until the Star pointed it out.
That’s not to say they aren’t alarmed by Carney’s continued push to find efficiency shortcuts by bypassing democratic norms.
“The Liberal government is granting itself the right to evade the application of laws without going through Parliament,” Bloc finance critic Jean-Denis Garon told the Star. Just as the Liberals did with C-5, the Building Canada Act, giving cabinet the power to decide which laws should apply to projects of national interests, Garon said they are once again “trying to bypass laws or regulations” but this time “by using the pretext of innovation.”“We understand that for the Liberal government, environmental laws or transportation safety laws are irritants that they would like to do without,” he said.
NDP interim leader Don Davies describes it as an “attempt to gain unilateral power” and “avoid accountability.”
“Decisions of this scope should not be rushed and should be discussed with all parties to ensure that public safety, environmental impact and economical risk and benefits are all thought out and recognized,” he said. “This is just another example of the prime minister acting like he has a majority government and refusing to be held accountable.”
The new measures — if approved in a confidence vote that could come as early as next week — would allow a cabinet minister to exempt the testing of any product or service from almost any law, in order to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth.
The minister would decide if an exemption is in the public interest — based on their own unspecified definition of “public interest” — as well as whether the benefits outweigh the risks, and whether sufficient resources exist to maintain oversight of the testing, and manage any risk associated to public health, safety and the environment. It would be up to taxpayers, not the individual and/or companies requesting the exemptions, to pay for the monitoring of any fallout, the Treasury Board Secretariat said.
While the bill lays out a plan for a minister to partially inform the public of such an order, there are no timelines. The minister may also “exclude information that, in the minister’s opinion, would be inappropriate to make publicly accessible for reasons that include safety or security considerations or the protection of confidential or personal information.”
The Treasury Board Secretariat suggests the measures are necessary for regulators to keep pace with technological change and find flexible ways to evaluate whether products or services can be safely introduced in the Canadian marketplace.
It also notes that so-called “regulatory sandboxes” already exist, allowing ”industry to demonstrate the real-life impacts of a new product or service in the marketplace under a temporary set of rules and controlled by regulatory supervision.” By way of example, it points to a law that assumes pilots would always be in the aircraft they were flying. With the development of drones, the secretariat said, regulatory amendments were required to use and sell that technology in Canada. “By enabling a regulatory sandbox, the minister of transportation was able to exempt the product from the requirement of an ‘on-board’ pilot,” it wrote to the Star.
Temporary, limited testing is obviously a good thing. Having flexibility to adjust to technological change is also necessary. But if the law already allows for products to be tested safely, why is the government pressing ahead with such sweeping change?
Giving a minister the power to exempt any person or company from any law except the Criminal Code with few safeguards? What company wouldn’t try court favour from that person?
Sneaking it into a 600-page bill that will not get the parliamentary scrutiny it deserves is another red flag.
Once upon a time, Liberals were opposed to omnibus bills that changed several dozen laws at once, and pledged never to do that themselves.
“It’s offensive,” says Green Party Leader Elizabeth May. “There’s no indication yet that, as prime minister, Mark understands the role of Parliament in ensuring that there’s a democratic process around the passage of laws … to say it lacks transparency is quite an understatement.”
Well, as they say in the Classics, “that’s all she wrote!” At least for this week!
A small reminder to join me and other SGI Greens On Sunday December 14 at 4 pm, Star Cinema Sidney for a special Christmas treat, a private showing of “It’s a Wonderful Life!” As the righteous and poor take on the greediest richest man in town!
We will win in the end! I am quite sure… but it only happens when you share this letter to friends, ask for support for the Green Party, and other good causes and generally stand for justice. Celebrate a season for peace!
Love,
Elizabeth
PS please sign this new petition I am sponsoring to end First Past the Post!
https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-6993