Roundup: The people’s vanity project

Posted on by

Yesterday, Maxime Bernier confirmed his party will be called the “People’s Party of Canada,” just like so many communist parties in the world. Oops. And like those other “People’s Parties,” he won’t hold a contested leadership race, and he’ll get the final say on policies, so that’s off to a great start. Even better was the fact that his logo is simply a repurposing of an old Reform Party logo, and the policy page is a word-for-word copy of the Libertarian Party’s policy (which people also insist was a copy of Bernier’s leadership race policies), so that’s a great start. And during his press conference, he already started with the policy musings that apparently originated from the Internet’s darker recesses. So there’s that.

And aside from the trite attempt to use gay rights as a cover for bashing Muslims, Bernier has a glimmer of awareness that he’s going to be branded with the xenophobes he’s riling up, and he insists that anti-Semites and xenophobes will be kicked out of the party, while at the same time as he’s still using not-even-thinly-veiled xenophobia to try and create a wedge between his nascent party and the Liberals. But while he hopes to make immigration and refugees (and yes, there is a difference) between them as a wedge, he’s already getting warnings that he’s going to have to be very careful to keep the racists out (not to mention the alt-right, the MRAs, and whichever other dog-whistles he happens to be blasting at the time).

Meanwhile, John Geddes deciphers Bernier’s messaging and what he’s offering based on it, while Andrew Coyne reminds all of those who insist this will simply split the Conservative vote that yes, there is actually room in the Canadian political spectrum for such a “worthy experiment,” assuming that Bernier were capable enough to pull it off (and Coyne, like the rest of us, has his doubts). And Paul Wells delivers an epic takedown of Bernier’s potential voters.

Good reads:

  • It looks like Canada’s hardball position in NAFTA talks is the willingness to go past their political deadlines. Meanwhile, he’s the politics of cultural exemptions.
  • Amarjeet Sohi says the government will announce their Trans Mountain resuscitation plan as early as next week.
  • The Canadian Forces are drawing up plans to extend the current mission in Iraq.
  • The Ethics Commissioner wants to be able to levy fines of up to $10,000 against rule breakers (the current maximum is $500). Good luck convincing MPs of that.
  • The government asked 102 pharmaceutical companies to stop promoting opioids – 25 responded, and new regulations look like they’ll be on the way.
  • The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that internet service providers can recover costs for looking up user data when movie companies want to sue downloaders.
  • Jagmeet Singh grouses that he’s facing pushback from within the party while trying to implement his “vision.”
  • Liberal MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers, a former law dean, warns that Ford’s council move could leave Toronto with an illegitimate council after court appeals.
  • Architects of the Charter, including Jean Chrétien, Roy Romanow and former Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry have come out against Ford’s use of section 33.
  • The Ontario PCs are planning to change Queen’s Park’s Standing Orders to limit tools available by to the opposition.
  • Ford’s government has also outlined their arguments to fight the federal carbon price. They’re…novel, and ignore federal taxation powers.
  • Here’s a look at how Jason Kenney is trying to recruit more women candidates to his party.
  • Colby Cosh gives an evisceration of Singh’s comments denouncing the Saskatchewan NDP veterans who came to Erin Weir’s defence as being “privileged.”
  • Chantal Hébert writes about Andrew Scheer’s challenge of keeping unity not only with Maxime Bernier, but also difficult allies like Doug Ford and François Legault.

Odds and ends:

Tabatha Southey writes of an alternate future civics course offered by the Ford government.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

One thought on “Roundup: The people’s vanity project”

  1. Re: Notwithstanding clause.

    James Bowden has written two excellent scholarly dissertations on the Notwithstanding clause (they are not, however, light reading). If I follow correctly, his conclusions are that, it is part of the Constitution (not a way to thwart it); it should be used more often, to re-assert the role of the legislatures; and, the decision on when to use it depends solely on political, not legal grounds.

    Articles are here and here.

Comments are closed.