Tag Archives: Brenda Lucki

Roundup: Referenda as a subversion of parliamentary democracy

Posted on by

Over in Alberta, a new bill has been tabled that amends the province’s enabling legislation to run referenda, and upon reading what’s in the bill, the NDP critic immediately sounded the alarm on what’s in the bill – that it gives the premier sole power to determine whether or not these referenda are binding, the timing, and the wording of the referendum question, and more to the point, it allows for third parties to spend as much as $500,000 in advertising – and they won’t be audited if they spend under $350,000. (Remember that in the province, during a general election, third parties can only spend $150,000 on advertising). And when said critic labelled the bill as “undemocratic,” she has been ridiculed by the premier, justice minister, and any number of halfwits over social media who insist that there is nothing more democratic than a referendum.

They’re wrong. Referenda are actually deeply undemocratic.

Why? Because anytime there is more than two simple alternatives being put to the public – and alternatives are never simple or binary – then there isn’t actually a clear question being put forward, or a clear choice involved. And at the end of the process, the government then gets to interpret those unclear results as they see fit, which is actually a means by which the premier (or equivalent – this is the case with any referendum) simply uses those results to strengthen their own control. They use the façade of putting the decision to the people to tighten their own grip on power, and democracy as a whole suffers, especially because it reduces the role and function of Parliament (or provincial legislature in this case). I would recommend that people read The Will of the People: A Modern Myth by Andrew Weale, which, while predicated on the Brexit referendum, lays out why these exercises diminish Parliament. It’s important that people understand what exactly Kenney is doing by bringing this forward.

More to the point, the reason why Kenney is bringing this bill forward is advancing the agenda of his “Fair Deal Panel,” which aims to hold referenda on things like equalization (which can’t actually do anything), opting out of the Canada Pension Plan in favour of a provincial model (which should raise alarm bells considering how the province’s existing pension plan has made a series of bad decisions), or any other number of the Panel’s recommendations for opting out of federal institutions in favour of more costly provincial ones out of spite, or as a make-work project. It’s deeply cynical, and as we’ve established, actually undemocratic wearing the guise of populist democracy, and Kenney is going to do untold damage to the province with these tools at his disposal, but people won’t care because they’ve been fooled by his rhetoric. It’s all deeply concerning, but unless the province’s opposition can up their game and actually make cogent arguments to the public, then Kenney will continue to steamroll over them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Manufacturing an “attendance” record

Posted on by

The big headline that everyone was talking about yesterday was a load of manufactured bullshit, which shouldn’t really surprise anyone, but it was what everyone was throwing around nevertheless. The Globe and Mail crunched the numbers from the Zoom log-ins from the special COVID-19 committee that has been sitting in lieu of regular House of Commons sittings, and found that lo, the Conservatives had the worst “attendance record.” Which is kind of hilarious because it completely misunderstands how this whole farcical process works. Oh, but the Conservatives must be hypocrites, because they’re demanding full sittings! Well, no – you’ve just found some numbers that you’re applying disingenuously in order to make them look like hypocrites. It’s exactly the kind of stunt that causes people – and small-conservatives especially – to distrust the mainstream media, because it looks an awful lot like they’re not being given a fair shake. Of course, Andrew Scheer didn’t do himself any favours when he called it “Liberal spin” rather than pointing out that this was a false construction, but his inability to do anything other than meathead partisan talking points was and still is his downfall.

Why this is such bad-faith “reporting” is because it ignores the fact that there is a set speaking list every day. If you’re an MP – particularly a Conservative MP in a rural riding where you have spotty Internet to begin with – what incentive is there for you to log into Zoom and watch it that way when you have no chance to participate when you can simply follow the proceedings on CPAC and get a better experience because the translation tends to work better? It also operates on the assumption that all 338 MPs are in the House of Commons at all times when Parliament is sitting regularly, which isn’t the case – the only time all MPs are in the Chamber are during Question Period and for votes, and no, despite the sales job that the government has been trying to foist onto the public, this committee is not Question Period. Trying to hand out attendance awards for participating in a Zoom call on steroids is a waste of everyone’s time and resources, and is a distraction from the actual issues related to the calls to have proper in-person sittings – or it would be if the majority of media outlets could actually report critically on it rather than swallowing the government’s lines.

Speaking of outrage clicks, the CBC has again been misrepresenting some Senate matters, like how the Selection Committee works, as part of their story wherein Senator Dalphond is calling for committee chairs and deputy chairs to rescind their “bonuses” in the current session because of many haven’t sat because of the pandemic. But it occurs to me that it’s unlikely that chairs have even been getting their stipends because most committees haven’t even been constituted yet, which makes this look even more like this is part of Dalphond’s particular vendetta against Senator Yuen Pau Woo, and Woo’s insistence on chairing the Selection Committee, and he’s trying to use a larger point about chairs’ salaries (using false comparisons with the House of Lords as ammunition) in order to provide cover from making this look personal. I am becoming extremely concerned about Dalphond’s behaviour here – though my disappointment with how the CBC covers the Senate is pretty much standard. Cheap outrage clicks on the backs of misrepresenting the Senate is par for the course for how journalism runs in this town. (I wrote more on the backstory here).

Continue reading →

Roundup: An admission of systemic racism in Canada

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau’s daily presser was held away from Rideau Cottage yesterday, at a local business that benefitted from the wage subsidy, and it was remarked that it looked to be suspiciously like a campaign stop. Trudeau did his best to try and deflect blame for losing at political chicken – err, Wednesday’s inability to get the government’s latest emergency omnibus bill passed, outlining all of the places where items in the bill matched the demands of opposition parties, while dismissing some of the criticisms – primarily that of the Conservatives in their insistence on having full parliamentary sittings restored. The more memorable moment, however, was when he was asked about RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki’s comments that seem to dismiss systemic racism in the RCMP (though she did cop to unconscious bias), where Trudeau said that of course there is systemic racism in the RCMP, just like there is in all of our institutions, and that systems are not broken, but were in fact built that way. He went on to say that part of why it’s difficult to address is because it’s in the building blocks of these institutions, which should serve as a reminder to everyone that there are no quick fixes to any of this. He also went on to say that Canadian exceptionalism isn’t just that we do well, but that we know we need to do better and are willing to address it. This is probably the first time that a head of government has made this kind of an admission, and an acknowledgment of concepts that many Canadians are still coming to terms with – but he also did say that he had faith in Lucki to do the job of reforming the RCMP, so there’s that.

On the subject of the RCMP, Indigenous services minister Marc Miller is not having any of Commissioner Lucki’s excuses about not understanding systemic racism, and is critical that not enough has been done to combat it over the past two years. AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde says that the federal government’s complacency allows police violence against Black and Indigenous people, and he’s right. And lo and behold, the dashcam footage of Chief Allan Adam’s arrest has been made public, and it is hard to see how senior RCMP officials could have concluded that the actions were “appropriate,” which is a big flashing indicator of a problem in the ranks.

Meanwhile, as the debate on bringing back Parliament properly progresses with Trudeau’s disingenuous excuses, Conservative House leader Candice Bergen has put forward a number of suggestions for how MPs could safely vote in-person in a returned Parliament – some of which I’m not in favour of, but at least it’s a better solution than the Pandora’s Box of remote or electronic votes, which the government favours – and make no mistake, they are an evil that will be unleashed and there will be no going back. (I have more on this in my weekend column, out later today).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A dearth of innovative policy ideas

Posted on by

While Maxime Bernier’s social media committee continues to demand attention (yesterday’s missive was to declare “political correctness” dead in Canada – in both official languages), all eyes will turn to Andrew Scheer as the party’s policy convention gets underway this week in Halifax. There is all kinds of talk that they’ll come away from this more united than ever – one of those kinds of meaningless phrases that parties seem to trot out whenever they face the slightest bit of internal criticism or difficulty, and usually before and after there’s some kind of rift or someone gets tossed. But depending on what Bernier tries to do with his acolytes at the convention, we’ll see if his tone or messaging changes after the convention is over, or if this becomes some new problem for Scheer to contend with – eventually.

As for the policy resolutions, most of the ones we’re seeing discussed are…not very innovative. In fact, most of them seem to be either the usual pushing back against restrictions on their well-worn bugaboos and hobbyhorses (looking to make anti-abortion policies more accepted in the party officially, for example), but so few of them seem to be actually coming from a free market conservative point of view. In fact, a lot of what’s on the list is pretty reactionary, and definitely signals a shift from a party that used to be all about the rule of law, and now seems to think they’re above it (witness resolutions against any payments or court settlements with convicted terrorists – a dig at Omar Khadr).

One could go on – a policy about building Energy East, despite the fact that there is no economic case to do so. Repealing gender identity legislation because they are under the illusion that it compels people to use unconventional pronouns (because apparently the Jordan Peterson crowd is well represented here), Andrew Scheer’s problematic policy of withholding funds to universities who don’t defend speech (but no context there, because you know they’ll rail about Israel Apartheid Week), closing the “loopholes” in the Safe Third Country agreement (no mention of how exactly, or the unintended consequences of doing so), maybe developing a climate policy that won’t involve a carbon tax or cap-and-trade (so you’re in favour of heavy-handed and expensive regulation? Really?), prioritizing CANZUK trade agreements (a rose-coloured view of our colonial past that didn’t really exist economically), treating pornography like a public health issue (Seriously, guys – didn’t you embarrass yourselves with this already at the Commons health committee when you couldn’t articulate a policy out of this fraud) – nothing innovating in here in the slightest. So one has to wonder just what vision there is within the party if this is the best that they can come up with for policy resolutions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A tire fire of a debate

Posted on by

Last night was the third and final leaders’ debate in the Ontario election, and it was…terrible. Painful to watch. And yet here we are. Doug Ford promised all kinds of increased spending, and promised not a single layoff, while he offered no specifics on any promise, and a false version of history of when he was at Toronto City Hall. Andrea Horwath promised some different spending than the Liberals, that she would end “hallway medicine,” while being overly generous on the hole in her party’s platform and the fact that she doesn’t stand for Hitler memes (while not having actually rebuked or dumped the candidate accused of posting one). Kathleen Wynne was sorry that people don’t like her personally, but isn’t sorry for her record, and she offered detailed policy in a format that didn’t let leaders fully answer questions and where Horwath in particular kept interrupting and aggressively talking over everyone else. In all, a demonstration that this whole election is absolutely terrible.

In reaction, Chris Selley remarks on Ford’s performance – that the only place he stood out was his promises around childcare (though he didn’t offer specifics, which are that his tax credit won’t amount to much for parents), while David Reevely noted Horwath’s aggressive challenges around Ford’s lack of platform or Wynne’s stance around collective bargaining, showing more fire than Wynne, who was building an intellectual case in a lawyerly tone for much of the debate, only really finding her own fire when she pushed back against accusations around the Hydro One sale.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Woe be the social conservatives

Posted on by

Oh, the poor social conservatives, always being played by mainstream conservative parties, both federal and provincial, for the sake of their votes at leadership conventions only to be dumped when the going gets tough. We have two provincial examples to now add to the list, for what it’s worth. In Ontario last weekend, Progressive Conservative leader dumped former leadership rival Tanya Granic Allen as a candidate after comments she made about same-sex marriage came to light, and everyone was shocked! Shocked!That the woman whose entire leadership campaign was the disingenuous fear that Ontario’s new sex-ed curriculum was going to indoctrinate children to anal sex was going to be a problematic homophobic candidate. But hey, Ford used her second-choice votes to get himself over the top for the leadership and let her run for a nomination and win, despite everyone knowing that she not only made homophobic comments, but also disparaging comments about Muslims, and it was okay until the weekend before the writ-drop. How terribly cynical. Chris Selley walks us through that particular bit of theatre that abuses social conservatives’ trust, while Martin Patriquin notes that while her ouster makes Ford look more centrist, Granic Allen’s replacement is far more of a credible threat to Liberals, for what it’s worth.

Meanwhile in Alberta, Jason Kenney is now twisting himself in a pretzel to defend the social conservative policies adopted at the UCP convention over the weekend, coming up with bogus equivocations about the anti-GSA resolution being “poorly worded,” or how the policy around “invasive medical procedures” had its roots in a minor getting a “controversial vaccine” and totally has nothing to do with abortion, no sir. Jen Gerson notes that this is the chickens coming home to roost after Kenney so deliberately courted these social conservatives and made this “grassroots guarantee” about them making the policies – only for that pledge to vanish down the memory hole, and him insisting that platforms aren’t made by committees and how it’s his pen that will translate it all, and you can take his assurances that they won’t out LGBT kids “to the bank.” (I personally wouldn’t cash that cheque, but I may be biased, being gay and all).

The common lesson here? That conservatives both federally and provincially are quick to insist “big blue tent” to draw in the social conservatives and the Red Tories but are quick to disappoint both in pursuit of populist measures that they hope will get them votes. It’s not about being centrist, because if that were the goal, you’d see way more Red Tory appeals than we do (and in fact, if the last federal leadership convention was any indication, Red Tories like Michael Chong were often derided as Liberals and traitors to the cause). It’s more about the cult of personality around the chosen leader, and policy is almost an afterthought, and those identifiable groups within the big tent are just fodder to get that leader into place. It’s a sad state of affairs for political parties, and these latest examples are just more proof of that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau’s concern trolls

Posted on by

Thursday night, Canadian journalists and pundits started making a big deal out of the fact that the Daily Mail, the most widely-read newspaper in the UK, posted a hit-job on Justin Trudeau. What they didn’t bother to post was that the Mail is a tabloid rag that literally makes stuff up all the time, and lo and behold, it turns out that not only did they get a number of facts wrong in their piece, but they even posted photos that were not of Trudeau, but someone else entirely. And while those same pundits seemed to think that this was an honest mistake rather than the kind of trash “journalism” that is their stock in trade.

And then comes the concern trolling, lumping this kind of thing in with Pierce Morgan’s railing about Trudeau’s “peoplekind” joke (also in the Daily Mail), and other negative press from the India trip. Apparently, this is the fault of Trudeau’s senior staff, who should have given him firmer advice to “rein in his worst impulses,” but reading the analysis seems a bit…facile, and frankly blinkered. One would think that the pundit class in Canada would have the ability to try and see context around the press that Trudeau receives, but apparently not. For example, Piers Morgan is a Donald Trump ass-kisser who has a history of misogynistic comments, for whom Trudeau’s avowed feminism would rankle his sensibilities. And the Daily Mail is a rabidly homophobic publication for whom Trudeau’s tendency to do things like show emotion in public is anathema to their worldview of alpha males. They were never going to praise Trudeau, and he certainly hasn’t “lost them,” so I’m puzzled as to why our pundits are acting like he did. Likewise, many of the Indian publications that criticized Trudeau on his trip were of a stratified slice of society who have a particular agenda when it comes to foreigners. But there is also something particularly white male about this kind of concern trolling as well, which doesn’t look to why Trudeau makes some of the choices he does because those choices aren’t speaking to them as an audience. The traditional garb in India, for example (which was apparently five events in eight days), was showcasing Indo-Canadian designers and targeted both the Indo-Canadian community, but also the classes in India who weren’t the rarified elites in the media (and in India, these are actual elites rather than the just populists referring to us as such in Canada), and those rarified elites have particular denigrating views of their own diasporic communities. Not that a white male pundit who doesn’t look outside his own circle will pick up on these things.

This isn’t to say that Trudeau’s senior staff don’t still have problems on their hands, because clearly they do. Their ability to manage crises is still shambolic, and we’ve seen time and again where they let their opponents come up with a narrative and box them into it before they start fighting back, and they’ve done it again with this India trip. And yeah, Trudeau keeps making bad jokes that he finds funny but not everyone else does (and the Canadian press gallery are notoriously humourless). But there is a hell of a lot of myopia going on in the criticism and concern trolling, and we need to recognize it and call it out for what it is.

Continue reading →