Roundup: Liberals being weasels about “open nominations” – again

Remember back before the 2015 election when Justin Trudeau declared that the Liberals would be a party of open nominations? And then how he weaselled out on that after the election in order to protect nominations when they had a majority? And even after that, decided to trigger their “electoral urgency” rules in advance of the 2019 election, even though they knew the timing of it years in advance and could have actually let those nominations happen? Well, they are being weasels again, and just triggered the “electoral urgency” rules once more.

Of course, because there are only three narratives to choose from in most media outlets, this was seen as “more proof” that there’s going to be an election this fall, especially when combined with the fact that MPs agreed to hold a take note debate session on the 15th that will allow MPs who have opted not to run again to give a farewell speech. It’s all proof! Erm, except that this is a hung parliament that will have reached the two-year mark in the fall, making an election far more likely, so it’s a convenient time to hold such a session, given that it certainly wouldn’t happen after a confidence vote to bring down the government. I remain unconvinced that the Liberals are planning to dissolve parliament by the end of summer on a flimsy excuse, but then again, I generally don’t subscribe to the Three Narratives.

This being said, this weaselly behaviour around nominations is unsurprising given the trends in this country, and where the party has been headed. They did it in 2019, and at the end of last year, they did away with open nominations for the two by-elections and simply appointed candidates outright, never mind that there was interest from others in each riding and they could have held competitive races, yes, including in a virtual situation. We’ve seen all parties behave in ways that are undermining the democratic process by gaming nominations – Samara Canada wrote a report on it. (Samara was also credulous about the NDP’s claims about open nominations in 2011, in spite of all of the evidence of paper candidates who never even visited the ridings, never mind having run in an open contest, but that’s neither here nor there). The point is that this kind of behaviour is toxic to the long-term health of our system of government, and it needs to be countered and pushed back against. Unfortunately, because the media is hung up on the “early election” narrative at any opportunity, they never actually hold the parties to account for their undemocratic behaviour, and we’ve allowed it to get to this point. This is a very bad thing, and we should be pushing back and demanding proper, open nominations from all parties, no matter how inconvenient it may be in a hung parliament.

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau says that as a Catholic, he is “deeply disappointed” by the Church’s refusal to apologise and turn over records related to residential schools – or else.
  • Seamus O’Regan says that the first 30 million trees out of the two billion pledged will be planted this year (because it takes two years to grow the saplings).
  • The government seems to finally be moving on updating the citizenship guide, particularly around its sections whitewashing history with Indigenous people.
  • Another senior member of the Armed Forces on the vaccine rollout was removed from the position for racist statements made sometime in 2020.
  • People who have suffered a serious or permanent injury as a result of an approved vaccine can now apply for compensation from the government.
  • The Supreme Court of Canada rejected an application to reduce $170,000 in overdue child support payments, upholding the existing laws around payments.
  • The Conservatives used procedural shenanigans to delay time allocation on Bill C-10, and pushed final debate on Bill C-6 off the agenda.
  • Erin O’Toole says that Trudeau should use his time at the G7 leaders’ meeting to stand up to China and call for the Beijing Olympics to be relocated.
  • The Liberals bought an app used by US Democrats to help push content to social media “influencers” in an election – because of course they did.
  • NDP MP Mumilaak Qaqqaq described foster care as the new residential school system, as the federal government works to get provinces to end the practice.
  • Newfoundland and Labrador is looking to change their coat of arms, as the 1637 description of the Beothuk figures on it are described as “savages.”
  • Robert Hiltz reflects on his return to Ottawa and how much more jaded he is about what goes on here.
  • My weekend column looks at the levers available to different governments to solve the housing crisis, and most of them are not in the federal government’s hands.

Odds and ends:

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

2 thoughts on “Roundup: Liberals being weasels about “open nominations” – again

  1. “This is a very bad thing, and we should be pushing back and demanding proper, open nominations from all parties….”

    Yes, it is a very bad thing. But it will never be changed directly by the parties themselves. The leaders of the major parties control these parties and won’t agree to any proposal from the rank and file that would loosen the death-grip leaders have on nominations.

    Given that public money is part of the nomination process, it would be interesting to think if that could be a mechanism for having Elections Canada oversee nominations.

    • Part of the point was to keep Elections Canada out of the process. Parties are not public institutions, and I’m not sure the benefit of treating them as such.

Comments are closed.