Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Roundup: Brace for blanket coverage

Posted on by

Today is the big day, and it’ll be wall-to-wall coverage of Justin Trudeau’s big meeting with Donald Trump, and we won’t be able to talk about anything else I’m sure. So here we go. At Trudeau’s meeting with Donald Trump he will apparently be seeking assurances on pre-clearance issues, while they will also be having a working lunch where the topic will be women executives. No, really. And the tone now is apparently going to be business instead of “love-in” (though I’m not sure anybody has had a love-in with Trump).

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/830982445495365633

The Conservatives are “pausing their hostility” with Trudeau in advance of the meeting, apparently showing solidarity in advance of it (though you wouldn’t have known it from QP last week). Here we have some advice from a former Canadian ambassador to Washington, while Anne Kingston wonders which version of Trudeau will be at the meeting. Marc Garneau, who chairs the Canada-US cabinet committee, says that today’s visit won’t focus on our countries’ differences. And Tristin Hopper offers some slightly tongue-in-cheek advice for the meeting.

And then there’s the historical context. Here’s a look at how previous PMs have dealt with unpopular presidents, and the lessons taken from Trump’s meetings with Theresa May and Shinzo Abe. Maclean’s has a photo reminder of meetings going back to the seventies.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Tough on the mentally ill

Posted on by

Yesterday, news came out that Vincent Li (now known as Will Baker) was given an absolute discharge; he of course was the man who beheaded someone on a Greyhound bus in 2008 while in the midst of a psychotic episode due to undiagnosed schizophrenia. He was later deemed not criminally responsible because, as stated, he was not in his right mind when the incident happened, and has since received treatment and is unlikely to reoffend. And predictably, social media lit up with outrage, particularly from the Conservatives who declared this an absolute travesty and an insult to the family of Li’s victim, Tim McLean, and how this “proved” that our justice system cared more about the rights of criminals than it did the victims. Rona Ambrose brought this up in QP a few days ago, when Li’s release was pending, and not once did she mention the fact that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was found not criminally responsible. (In his response, Justin Trudeau didn’t either, for the record).

But here’s the really galling part. Just days ago, Ambrose and many of these very same Conservatives were all over social media for #BellLetsTalk Day, talking about how important it is to take away the stigma of mental illness. And now here’s Li, who is as much a victim in this as McLean was because he was mentally ill, and the Conservatives are considering him to be an unrepentant murderer because of his mental illness.

So what is it? Are you serious about having adult conversations about mental illness, even when it’s inconvenient to your political agenda of being “tough on crime” (never mind that the courts established that he wasn’t criminally responsible because he was mentally ill)? Or are you going to insist that people who were mentally ill and have received treatment remain locked up in perpetuity, thus “proving” why people with mental illnesses should be stigmatized and marginalized from society? Because it’s one or the other. You’re all looking like a bunch of hypocrites right now, and like you were lying to the Canadian public when you wanted to #BellLetsTalk about mental illness.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The spectre of a Leitch Party

Posted on by

A rather remarkable exchange happened during Trudeau’s visit to Nunavut when he was pressed about his electoral reform promise. Trudeau responded to his questioner “Do you think Kellie Leitch should have her own party?” and laid out a realistic case where parties like that can hold enough seats to affect the balance of power in a parliament. His questioner was taken aback and “respectfully disagreed,” which isn’t surprising because the narrative we are always given when it comes to proportional representation is that it will give us nice left-wing coalition governments forever, which is certainly not the case, and we need to challenge that particular narrative more often, and to point to what’s happening in Europe right now. And to be honest, I’m glad that Trudeau is being a bit more forceful on this point about the potential rise of extreme parties and that such a system would be bad for Canada. Big tent parties have done a lot for this country, and have moderated a lot of regional tensions within them.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/829903477773971456

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/829906382396624896

Of course, Trudeau bringing up Leitch in such a manner could have unintended consequences of its own.

In a not unrelated note, Michelle Rempel was at an immigration conference in Montreal, and she noted her frustrations in bashing her head against her own party as much as she was with the Liberals that she is critiquing. And she made some very salient points in here about how we can’t pretend that we’re immune to populist rhetoric in this country, because we have a history of it bubbling up (hello 1993 election) and the sentiments still exist here where you have groups of disenfranchised people looking to blame Others. And this brings us back to why changing our electoral system to give incentives to these elements to form their own parties and try to win seats that they can use to leverage power is a very real and present danger. Add to that, there are concerns from experts in the field that the anti-immigrant rhetoric in the States is bubbling up here and fuelling a rise of racism in this country because it’s being seen as more socially acceptable.

So do we change our system to incentivise these voices to better organise and try to win themselves political leverage? Or do we do we maintain institutions and practices that have been successful in dispersing these elements because they know that there is no pathway to victory by pursuing it? It seems to me that it’s a fairly simple answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Losing crucial regional perspectives

Posted on by

As the hollowing out of the Press Gallery continues, we lost a fairly unique voice yesterday, being Peter O’Neil, who was writing for the Vancouver Sun. While he is but yet one more journalist who has been let go in this period of bloodletting, his was a fairly unique position of being the only “regional” voice left in a major chain paper. Yes, we still have the Winnipeg Free Press and the Halifax Chronicle Herald sending journalists to the Hill rather than just buying wire copy (which they still do, mind you), but those independent papers, and that does make a difference.

Once upon a time, each local paper for the major chains sent someone to Ottawa to cover stories here from the local perspective rather than rely solely on national reporters to feed stories to them. It allowed for local concerns to be brought to MPs here, and for the MPs to better engage with their local papers from Ottawa – especially as they had someone who knew their home ridings here to keep them honest. That’s all gone now. And part of why this is a problem is that there has been a proven correlation between the loss of regional reporters in the Press Gallery and a decline voter turnout in those communities where they suffered that loss. (There are academic studies on this, but my GoogleFu is failing me on this one, but yes, this was a subject frequently discussed during my master’s programme). And now, with even fewer national reporters there to do the daily reporting plus trying to get any kind of perspective, we no longer have reporters doing the same kinds of accountability on MPs themselves rather than just of the government. Peter was the last of the regional voices from the big chains, and because Vancouver has a particular unique political culture of its own, that was an important perspective to have. In fact, it’s one of the reasons why he wound up writing the biography of former Senator Gerry St. Germain – because St. Germain knew that O’Neil knew West Coast politics, he could trust him enough to tell his story. That’s not an insignificant thing in a country with big regional differences like Canada has. And this becomes a growing problem as we lose more and more journalists and positions here in Ottawa, which we need to figure out how to reverse, one way or another, before things deteriorate to the point of no return.

Continue reading →

QP: Demands to denounce Trump

Posted on by

A less somber day in the Commons, and things were getting back to normal. Such as normal is in this place. Rona Ambrose led off, declaring that Justin Trudeau broke the Conflict of Interest Code with his vacation with the Aga Khan, and Trudeau reminded her that all questions from the Ethics Commissioner would be answered. Ambrose said that this was a distraction from him doing his job to create jobs, and Trudeau disputed this, stating that he was focused on the middle class and recited actions taken such as tax cuts. Ambrose worried about the possibility of taxing dental and health benefits, but Trudeau repeated his question. Ambrose reiterated the question on benefit plans, and Trudeau merely told her to wait for the upcoming budget. Switching to French, Ambrose then asked about changes coming to the US plunging Canada into a recession. Trudeau noted the beneficial trade relationship that we have with the States, at they would be reiterating this. Thomas Mulcair was up next, demanding that Trudeau stand up to Trump’s racism and hatred. Trudeau noted this twin challenges of ensuring Canadian jobs, and standing up for Canadian values. Mulcair wanted an unequivocal yes or no in French, but Trudeau wouldn’t give him one. Mulcair then switched to the issue of electoral reform and whether the promise was dead, but Trudeau said that they would keep working on it. Mulcair asked again in English, and Trudeau reiterated his happy talking points about working with Canadians to improve our democracy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Tragedy to pull MPs together

Posted on by

The aftermath of the Ste-Foy mosque shooting was not atypical for when things go horribly in this country. MPs and political leaders of all stripes band together and make a show of solidarity. There are solemn speeches, and a moment of silence, and for as much as everyone decries the level of partisanship that permeates the hallowed halls of our democratic institutions, they all do put on a united front, that this is our country and we won’t allow it to succumb to violence and darkness based on the actions of a lone few.

As for the facts of the incident, what we know is that the suspect is a 27-year-old white male whose social media history has a lot of far-right connections. He was charged with six counts of first-degree murder, five counts of attempted murder, and there may yet be terrorism-related charges once the RCMP and the Quebec police forces complete their investigations. Talk of a second shooter or suspect turned out to be a witness on the scene who called 911 and was trying to help the wounded when he fled at the sight of police guns.

And then comes the aftermath. In a scrum following QP, Ralph Goodale offered assurances of police vigilance and noted that he wasn’t increasing the terror threat level from its current reading of “medium,” for what that’s worth. There is also speculation that this will be added impetus for the Commons to pass that private members’ motion on a study of Islamophobia in Canada – something some Conservatives like Kellie Leitch are opposed to, calling it “special status” for Muslims. And then there was the White House, cravenly using the incident to justify their “Muslim ban,” even though the suspect is an alleged white supremacist.

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/826239354997727236

In commentary, John Ivison notes that moments like those today were when the Commons is at its best. Chantal Hébert noted that Trudeau has been silent about Trump’s “Muslim ban” while this has been going on. Deepak Obhrai, however, made the explicit link between the two. Michael Chong has also been vocal in drawing links between this incident and the rise in demagoguery, which he wants more politicians to stop engaging in. Robyn Urback looks at how the first twelve hours after the shooting were a giant exercise in confirmation bias as people struggled to fit the facts with their personal narratives.

Continue reading →

Roundup: MPs who don’t seem to get it

Posted on by

Before you ask, I don’t have a hot take for you on Trump’s executive order on Friday night (other than apparently, the inmates have taken over the asylum and there is nothing but a bunch of ham-fisted amateurs running the show now). And I didn’t find most of the hot takes circulating around to be terribly edifying either. But what I can talk about is Parliament, and the group of MPs who think they have the solution to changing it. They of course, are completely and utterly wrong. (But that’s why you read this blog anyway, right?)

Aaron Wherry apparently got a preview copy of the book and spoke to some of the MPs who co-edited the volume. Among them are Michael Chong – author of the woefully inadequate and hugely problematic Reform Act 2014 that creates more problems than it solves; Liberal Scott Simms (author of no particularly terrible bills that I can think of off-hand, but we’ll return to him in a moment), and NDP MP Kennedy Stewart, whose passion for democratic reform gave us e-petitions and an attempt to financially penalise parties who don’t run an adequate number of women in elections. Wherry’s premise of the piece – maybe it’s time to reform Parliament and not the electoral system?

The problem is, “reforming Parliament” is a bit of a mug’s game so long as MPs don’t actually know what their own job is – which is most of them, incidentally. And given what Wherry has mentioned in his preview of this forthcoming book, some of these MPs don’t know either. For example, Kenney Stewart is moaning that limited time that backbenchers have to table initiatives. If he needs a reason why, it’s because MPs aren’t lawmakers. That’s the government’s job. It’s the backbenchers’ job is to hold the government to account. You don’t do that when you’re spending your time and resources pursuing your own hobby horses and initiatives, and that’s a problem.

Scott Simms, meanwhile, wants to propose some mechanism for backbenchers from provincial legislatures to “pass motions for consideration by the House of Commons.” Err, really? Again, they have their own work of holding their own provincial governments to account, not to mention they have their own jurisdiction to worry about without meddling in the federal government’s. That’s why we have orders of government. Oh, and Chong? Worries that it’s not about how MPs are elected but what happens to them once they get to Ottawa. Of course, I’ve written time and again (and again, and again) about why his bill didn’t actually solve any problems, but in fact exacerbated them because the real problem is the way in which we select party leaders. He doesn’t seem to be in any hurry to fix that problem, or even public acknowledge that it’s at the root of the problems we have with our parliament currently.

Of course, it’s a good thing that there’s another book coming out before theirs which actually tells MPs what their jobs are and provides some clear-headed thinking about the system. (Yes, that was a shameless plug. You’ll be hearing a lot of them over the next few weeks).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A two-fingered fix for fundraising

Posted on by

After months now of interminable questions about the perfectly legal fundraising practices of the Liberals, it was let known that they will be a tabling a bill in the near future to…do something about it. Not really clamp down. Not really stop. Just add more disclosure, and ensure that events don’t happen in private homes, which many people argue is not really the point, but I think is more of the government giving two fingers to their critics and making some cosmetic changes to shut people up.

Kady O’Malley rather astutely observes that this is really setting a trap for opposition parties, particularly with the proposed provisions around party leaders and leadership candidates being subject to the same new rules, waiting for them to oppose it so that they can be accused of hypocrisy. I would add that there’s an element of payback in here for the way in which the Conservatives and NDP got together in 2006 to screw the Liberals in the middle of their leadership contest by changing the fundraising rules right in the middle of it, meaning that some of those candidates were unable to raise enough money to pay back debts that they would have had little problem doing beforehand.

Of course, it all goes back to the fact that this whole story has been overblown from the very start. These fundraisers were never really “cash for access” as they were billed – they were only termed so because the journalists at the centre of this were trying to piggyback on the kind of mess that was happening in Ontario where cabinet ministers were largely blackmailing companies that were trying to lobby them for tens of thousands of dollars in order to get a hearing, which is absolutely not what was happening in this context, nor, and this bears repeating again and again, can you buy meaningful influence for $1500. And even if you get your five minutes with the PM and want to give your pitch to him, do you honestly think that it would really sway his opinion when he’s got people who want pitch him all the time? I’m not convinced. And, as they’ve said (and as this “listening tour” has again demonstrated), they’ve shown a remarkable degree of openness to regular Canadians and are constantly consulting. It’s not like the only time you can see them is at a fundraiser. But ooh, scary Chinese businessmen! Anyway, I’ll let Howard Anglin take it from here.

Oh, and one more reminder about how overblown this has all been: Transparency International has us as one of the cleanest, least corrupt countries in the world. Given the pearl-clutching you hear from our commentariat, you wouldn’t actually know that.

Incidentally, the Conservatives are already howling at the moon about this, and the NDP’s Alexandre Boulerice says it’s not enough and he’ll table his own bill – except that’s an empty threat since he’s so far down the Order of Precedence that it will never see the light of day.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Is there a regional trade-off?

Posted on by

Canadian public affairs blog In Due Course published a piece on the weekend wherein Joseph Heath offers a few things to consider with how a Conservative party would deal with Quebec under a proportional representation system where the calculations are different. It’s interesting and he raises a lot of very good points. And predictably, proponents of PR went to question all of his points, particularly about the fortunes of the Bloc Québécois (and to a lesser extent the Reform Party) under the current first-past-the-post system.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/823244412100579328

The problem with cherry-picking individual election results like 1993 is that it doesn’t take a broader view of the system’s resilience as a whole. Over the longer term, regional parties in this country may do well for an election cycle or two at the most, but they have no capacity or room for growth, and that’s why the big-tent brokerage parties will always regain strength and power. What it also does is say that when these kinds of regional movements do take hold, that their grievances and desire to punish parties in power (which some Bloc votes have been about) is illegitimate.

Indeed, as Emmett Macfarlane points out here, focusing on geography misses the point when you look at how the big-tent parties are forced to craft policies that will appeal nationally and won’t explicitly write-off regions.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/823255411595821056

Coyne is also dismissive of “safe” ridings or regions, but I’m sure that we’ve seen time and again that there is almost no such thing as a “safe” seat or riding, particularly when there are swings in the public mood. Again, that’s not a bad thing, and one could argue that in a properly functioning House of Commons, “safe” seats can be a bulwark against too much power in the leadership because MPs with “safe” seats that have no prospect of getting into cabinet are more likely to push back against what they see as intrusions by the leader because they have little to lose. (Granted, this is more keenly demonstrated in Westminster because their leaders don’t have the ability to sign off on nomination forms like they do here, and their leadership selection process has been different until recently, but the point still stands).

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/823245496953114625

Part of the problem here, which Coyne does admit, is that defenders of different systems are approaching the issues in different ways. But defenders of the current system don’t necessarily foresee a future dystopia as warning that if you’re looking for changes to the electoral system to fix what is perceived to be broken here, you’re going to find that it’s not actually going to fix things, and it certainly won’t result in this kind of democratic utopianism that most PR advocates proclaim.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/823248806468685824

There is also the fact, and I cannot stress this enough, that Canada is not the same as most other countries. While we are not Israel in terms of its politics, we are also not a Scandinavian country either, so expecting their results to translate here is just as much of an over-reach and a fiction.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/823256309755772929

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/823257579170172928

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/823257712351911937

That’s why we need to approach this very carefully. (Well, I say we need to smother the electoral reform consultations entirely, but that’s just me). Too many people are simply pointing to Norway or Sweden and saying “Look! See how great it is!” when they should also look at the vast dysfunction of Belgium (which is a far better analogy if you look at our systems and cultures), or even Australia, where their proportionally-elected Senate is an utter gong show. But cherry-picking data – on both sides – doesn’t actually help further the debate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Entering the Trumpocalypse

Posted on by

So, this is the Trumpocalypse. I didn’t really want to write anything about it, but that’s all anyone can talk about, so here’s the roundup. There have been a few different looks at how Trudeau’s cabinet shuffle was supposed to retool for the Trump era, but I will say that Maclean’s has one of the best ones, particularly because it doesn’t just focus on the shuffled ministers but also how Trudeau is redeploying his other ministers based on fascinations that the Americans have.

While people like Newt Gingrich have been saying that Canada will be “least affected” by changes to trade, what he seems to forget is that we’re as much a part of NAFTA as Mexico is, and that we’re likely to be hit with all manner of unintended blowback from other changes – especially on things like the “border tax” that Trump keeps talking about, and in places like our energy sector. Mind you, given the complexity of the problem, economist Jack Mintz doesn’t think that Trump’s border tax will actually end up happening.

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/822544617195393024

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/822546358515142661

https://twitter.com/rolandparis/status/822538848576143360

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/822537014167928837

And then there was the speech, with its talk of “American carnage” and “America First.” Colby Cosh questions some of the reviews given how terrible most inaugural speeches tend to be as they are geared more toward political signalling rather than oration. Andrew Coyne was struck by how paranoid and inward-looking it was. Scott Feschuk, meanwhile, gives you his satirical annotation of the speech.

Meanwhile, Stephen Saideman looks at how Trump’s real-estate agent behaviour will have great consequences internationally, while Ian Brodie reminds us that America had better do well under Trump or Canada will suffer. Patricia Treble finds a number of curious (if disturbing) parallels between Trump and Edward VIII. Paul Wells notes that the genius of the American Republic is that it won’t let one person accumulate too much power and that may yet save us all, while Scott Gilmore reminds us that America already went through this in the 1850s with populist demagogues, and that it will endure again.

Continue reading →