Roundup: LeBlanc wants the opposition to put up

Posted on by

In the wake of David Johnston’s resignation (and because it happened on a Friday evening when the prime minister was out of the country, we are counting this as being done with spite), Dominic LeBlanc held a press conference on Saturday to try and turn the tables. Yes, they will consider a public inquiry, but the opposition parties need to get together to determine a commissioner, a timeline, and terms of reference, and godspeed to them in doing so. The theory is that the opposition wanted to be in this so badly, and they blew up the last process, so now they need to show up and do the work. I’m…dubious. I mean, I get that he wants to make the opposition leaders eat their words, and it may yet happen, but I’m not a fan of the government just taking their hands entirely off the wheel here because the Inquiries Act determines that this is a government process, and turning over these decisions is laundering the accountability for them, which is always a very bad thing.

Pierre Poilievre said on Sunday that he would be willing to work with the Bloc and the NDP on doing said work, in order to ensure that a commissioner is “independent and unbiased,” but good luck finding someone who is acceptable to everyone, and who is willing to take on the job, considering how much the opposition parties have fouled the well with the spate of character assassination and willingness to outright lie in bad faith about everything in order to score points. (Note that the government is not blameless in that they never should have picked Johnston in the first place, and should have taken more responsibility around the decision of whether or not to hold an inquiry at all instead of outsourcing the credibility responsibility). I expect these negotiations to drag on, and for the government to find the eventual outcome to be so poisonous as to reject them outright, because we are not dealing with serious people who act in good faith any longer.

Meanwhile, Andrew Scheer continues to be the klassy parliamentarian he has always proved himself to be. I would say it’s unbelievable, but sadly, this is who he is, and it’s all too believable.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy seems to have indicated that the counter-offensive has begun, but offers no details at this particular time, while the Russians counter with disinformation. Ukrainian forces did report recapturing a south-eastern village on Sunday, with reports that Russian forces opened fire on a boat carrying civilians evacuating from flooded areas. Ukrainian forces also advanced some 1400 metres near Bakhmut. Also over the weekend, Russian strikes killed three in Odessa, and killed and wounded others attacking Kharkiv.

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland made a “surprise” trip to Kyiv on Saturday to announce more military aid, and to address the Ukrainian parliament.
  • Thanks to the New NAFTA, Canada has been helping Mexico modernise and expand its labour movement.
  • There is some online drama and backroom lobbying around the railway interswitching rule changes in the budget bill.
  • Here is an explainer about the clean fuel standard that has been derided as a second carbon price (which it is not).
  • Everyone keeps saying that AUKUS is about nuclear submarines, which we’re not in the market for, and yet people keep freaking out that we’re excluded.
  • Pierre Poilievre announced a policy of keeping mass-murderers in maximum security prisons indefinitely (which is blatantly unconstitutional).
  • The Star goes behind the scenes with the NDP’s refusal to play hardball with confidence over the foreign interference allegations.
  • Althia Raj sat through Pierre Poilievre’s fauxlibuster and wrote down what it revealed about himself and his beliefs (and how contradictory they are).
  • Chantal Hébert wonders about the Conservatives’ climate change plans in light of the current situation, since it hasn’t hurt any provincial conservative party.
  • Susan Delacourt looks at the issue of moral disengagement and how politicians can fuel it with the kind of rhetoric they associate with their rivals.
  • Delacourt also remarks on the “you broke it, you bought it” principle the government is implementing for the opposition around a possible public inquiry.
  • Paul Wells suspects the government is rattled because they now say they’re going to do things they should have done three months ago.
  • My weekend column denounces the plans for permanent hybrid sittings, because their benefits are oversold and they present a kind of false economy to MPs.

Odds and ends:

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