Roundup: Questions on a dubious nomination

Posted on by

For the second time in what could very well be the start of a series of media events that look suspiciously like campaign stops, prime minister Justin Trudeau was at a café and bistro in Chelsea, Quebec, near Ottawa, to tout the wage subsidy – a programme whose uptake has been hampered by the poor timing of its rollout by the government. He made a minor announcement about $15.8 million for youth green jobs in the natural resources sector, recounted his call with the premiers the night before during which his offer of $14 billion remained on the table for their safe reopening plans, and then capped it off with a plea for people to follow public health guidelines for Father’s Day.

It was during the Q&A that he expressed his “disappointment” with China over the decision to lay espionage charges against the Two Michaels being held as virtual hostages in retaliation for the arrest of Meng Wanzhou on an extradition warrant. Trudeau insisted that he continued to advocate for their release and that stuff was happening behind the scenes, but he didn’t elaborate further. He also was badgered repeatedly about the revelation that his former MP, Marwan Tabbara, was the subject of at least one sexual harassment investigation where claims were substantiated. Trudeau would only say that he was aware of the investigations and that they have a rigorous process in place where outside professionals are brought in to deal with situations when they arise, but that he couldn’t say anything more because said process was also deeply confidential by nature.

While everyone one social media spent the whole day going “I guess zero tolerance doesn’t mean zero tolerance,” ignoring the fact that it’s actually a poor idea to turf everyone at the first sign of trouble (seriously – this recent practice of kicking people out of caucus is inherently destructive and also prevents future use of social controls to keep these MPs and senators in line). I suspect that Trudeau realized that a performative “zero tolerance” policy was more trouble than it was worth and he ensured there was some nuance in how the policy was applied, and this was a case thereof, but now he also has to endure the taunts of “hypocrite!” as his explanations for the apparent change of position remain non-existent in the face of repeated questions. That said, the fact that it appears that Tabbara’s nomination took some six months to be decided upon by the green-light committee is pretty suspicious, and I would suspect they were weighing considerations, such as how much of a fundraiser he is for the party in addition to his being an incumbent. (Remember that protected nominations are antithetical to how our system is supposed to work, and that it’s proven that parties have been manipulating their nomination processes to the detriment of democracy). It would be great if Trudeau could be more frank or candid about things like Tabbara’s nomination and why he was green-lit again when the party clearly had no problem ousting other sitting MPs with little explanation (though in the case of Eva Nassif, it sounds like she was trying to meddle in other nominations for her own ends, if The Hill Times’ sources were to be believed). Then again, the party also somehow managed to be behind on getting all of their nominations in place in advance of the election when they had four gods damned years to do so, so I’m not sure what to suggest other than perhaps Trudeau’s decision to centralize yet more of his party’s power in his office as leader is going to come around bite him in the ass.

Good reads:

  • The Correctional Investigator is urging the government to ease back on lockdown measures in federal prisons as infections recede, as tension is building within them.
  • The Information Commissioner says Access to Information requests have increased by 225 percent over the past six years, and needs more resources to keep up.
  • The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has drafted a report that cites civil liberties abuses by overbroad government regulations and public health orders.
  • Elon Musk’s Space-X Starlink Internet Service has applied for a telecom licence to bring broadband to rural and remote areas of the country.
  • Ruh-roh! Erin O’Toole’s campaign has called the police on Peter MacKay’s, claiming that they hacked their internal data and video strategy conferences.
  • With the debates out of the way, here is a look at what the next steps will be for the candidates in the Conservative leadership race.
  • Adam Chapnick offers a dose of perspective on our loss at the UN Security Council.
  • Kevin Carmichael looks at how our grocery oligopolies behave, and why they pulled their wage increases from employees once the first wave of the pandemic receded.
  • Jen Gerson finds herself bemused by the drama surrounding Jagmeet Singh’s ejection from the Commons, and the rules around unparliamentary language.
  • My weekend column dismantles some of the Liberals’ back-patting and self-congratulation on their “productive” spring sitting of the House of Commons.

Odds and ends:

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1273952791321600001

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

One thought on “Roundup: Questions on a dubious nomination”

  1. Thank God for Chapnick’s explainer that is so much more sober and objective than the hot takes that Canada is now a third-world country adrift in the world, or the ad-hominem finger-pointing at Trudeau. His central thesis appears to be that the timing was bad and the campaign was rushed and directionless, and a big reason for this is that foreign policy has degenerated into just one more partisan puck on the ice to bat around between the red team and the blue team and whoever else happens to join the pickup game (“Ottawa wanted to do this while the Liberals were still in power”).

    Unfortunately, I don’t see that changing anytime soon even if Canada spends the full next decade crafting another bid, not when the Conservatives pander to religious extremists and want to punch China square in the nose (while cutting backroom deals and Faustian trade deals of their own), while the New Democrats have gone so far into the weeds of knee-jerk opposition to “Western imperialism” they’ve taken up the mantle of propping up dictators just the same, simply because they happen to be on the ostensible “left.” These guys would have saluted Ho Chi Minh back in the day. I say this all the time: For every Con who is convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that Trudeau is Fidel Castro’s son, there’s a Dipper angry that he *isn’t.*

    The Liberals try to find the sweet spot — and on the cheap, so as not to raise opposition hackles about “spending!” — and then things fall apart because the center can’t hold. Plus, there’s the fact that the bulk of their foreign policy over the past four years has been preoccupied with wrangling the orange elephant in the bed. I believe I read a G&M article that echoed this sentiment: Donald Trump killed the “Trudeau Doctrine.” Everything Trump touches dies.

    There’s not going to be a Team Canada foreign policy and probably not one that suits the ambiguous standards of the UNSC. But I agree with Trudeau: there are plenty of other, subtler ways to demonstrate that the world needs more Canada. He should throw a bone to the Dippers (aka Bernie bots) and say that he’s applying a lesson from Marx, then fake them out by clarifying that he meant Groucho, not Karl: “I don’t want to be part of any club that would have me as a member.” Then light up a big fat Cuban cigar.

Comments are closed.