It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that the government survived the confidence vote – it was very much an example of Wells’ First Rule – and the NDP and Greens voted to keep parliament going. Of course, the narrative that both the Conservatives and NDP adopted was that the Liberals were pushing for an election – the Conservatives (and Bloc) claiming it was because the Liberals really wanted to cover something up, and the NDP self-righteously declared that they weren’t going to give Trudeau the election that he wanted, but would keep parliament going to get things done for Canadians. Of course, if Trudeau really wanted an election (which he doesn’t), he could just head next door to Rideau Hall on any given morning and ask Julie Payette to dissolve Parliament, but he won’t, because that’s not what today was about.

Part of what has irked me in this is the way in which the Conservatives’ motion was being described, which is innocuously. One writer went so far as to call it a “pedestrian motion,” which it was anything but, and I highly suspect that nobody actually read through it except for the two other procedural wonks in the Gallery. Aside from the inflammatory title of “anti-corruption,” or the proposed alternative whose four-letter abbreviation would have been SCAM (both instances that demonstrate that it’s a group of juvenile shitposters running O’Toole’s office who are treating the Order Paper as a game of who can be the most outrageous), the proposed committee’s terms of reference would have put the government at a structural disadvantage with three fewer members (generally committees in the current parliamentary composition are split, and on committees where the government chairs it, the opposition has the votes to outweigh the government), but it would have given the committee first priority for all parliamentary resources, and compelled production of all documents they wanted and witnesses to appear, no matter who. This essentially means that both ministers and the civil service would be at the committee’s beck and call, and that they would have to drop everything to attend it – which is what Pablo Rodriguez meant by the committee being meant to “paralyze” government. They could go on unlimited fishing expeditions with little to no ability to push back, and given the fact that there aren’t any smoking guns here, it would be constant wild goose chases while Parliament was unable to get anything else accomplished. More than that, it would also have enshrined that the prime minister’s extended family – meaning his mother and brother – would be considered legitimate targets, and have their financial information put into the open for no good reason. And funnily enough, not one story from yesterday mentioned these facts – not the Star, not the National Post, not CBC, nor The Canadian Press. Yet this seems like some pretty vital context for why the government would so strenuously object to this “pedestrian” motion.

There was another consideration, that former Paul Martin-era staffer Scott Reid expounded upon, which is control of the agenda. That’s a pretty important thing in a hung parliament, and under the current circumstances. Trudeau hasn’t been able to make much progress on any file (admittedly, much of this is his own fault for refusing to bring parliament back in a sensible way, followed by his decision to prorogue), but being hamstrung by that motion was going to make things moving forward near impossible. Now that he’s stared down O’Toole, I suspect he has some breathing room again.

To permit the Cons to establish this new 'corruption' Super-Cttee wld have been an unqualified surrender of control for Trudeau. It would have given the Opposition new levers to shape the agenda, dictate the news cycle and establish the terms of the next elxn #cdnpoli

— Scott Reid (@_scottreid) October 21, 2020

Hand-wringers can sweat it endlessly, but look at the outcome: Trudeau isn't forced into an election. He's not forced into accepting this cttee. He didn't even have to stock the NDP's fridge. He emerges clearly in control of Parliament. It's A full-on, flat-out win #cndpoli

— Scott Reid (@_scottreid) October 21, 2020

Last thing: Minority parliaments are messy. They're rife with politics and power moves and calculations and brinkmanship. That's a turn off for many. But that's the way it works. Some days you can't win and also look pretty. Some days you just settle for winning #cdnpoli

— Scott Reid (@_scottreid) October 21, 2020

Good reads:

• Mi’kmaq Chief Mike Sack says his people have been “blacklisted” from lobster buyers, and he wants accountability for their damaged property.
• RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki held a press conference yesterday, and failed to explain why her officers failed to intervene during the mobbing of Mi’kmaq fishers.
• The EU has removed Canada from their list of “safe” countries they will admit non-essential travellers from, given the spiking COVID cases here.
• Human Rights Watch says that inaction on climate change will lead to human rights violations as Indigenous people can’t access traditional foods any longer.
• A UN expert says that Canada’s bill to ban conversion therapy will help set a global standard for other countries to use as an example.
• Senator Mike Duffy is appealing his bid to sue the Senate to the Supreme Court of Canada, which isn’t going to go anywhere.
• The Commons subcommittee on international human rights put out a report that states that China’s treatment of the Uyghurs constitutes a genocide.
• The Conservatives are accusing the government of misleading the defence committee on what they tabled around peacekeeping operations.
• Jason Kenney is isolating after one of his ministers tested positive for COVID.
• The Alberta government’s planned reform of their elementary school curriculum takes mention of residential schools out, and includes biblical passages.
• Nunavut’s premier is moving a motion to remove a member of Cabinet after he posted racist and misogynistic comments over social media.
• Kevin Carmichael looks at the economic data and repudiates the conventional wisdom of the pundit class who think it’s still 1995 and will always be 1995.
• Susan Delacourt notes that the second wave seems to be hardening partisan divides on the Hill when the first wave showed greater cooperation.

Odds and ends:

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