Tag Archives: François-Philippe Champagne

Roundup: Atwood on authoritarianism

Posted on by

For a change, I’m not going to give you much in the way of musings, but rather to exhort you to watch this short video, narrated by Margaret Atwood, about how easy it can be for democracy to slip into authoritarianism from either the left of the right, because each has their own motivations for doing so. Knowing their tactics is one effective way of stopping them, because it robs them of their rhetorical power and punch. We need more of this, not less, as things in the Western world get increasingly pulled into the orbits of those justifying authoritarianism, or “illiberal democracy” as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán likes to describe it as. These same actors are on the move here in Canada as well, and we need to shine a light on them and their tactics.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles have hit Kyiv and Kharkiv early Tuesday morning, killing at least three. Poland’s new prime minister visited Kyiv to meet with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and help smooth over the issue of Polish truckers and farmers blockading border crossings. Zelenskyy also said he is looking to make changes to the country’s constitution to allow for dual citizenships, except for those living in “aggressor countries.”

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1749686187516739639

Continue reading →

Roundup: Paying too much attention to one senator’s opinion

Posted on by

Sometimes the way the media cycle operates in weird ways in this city, and yesterday was no exception. On Wednesday, Senator Percy Downe wrote an op-ed that said that the Liberal Party should be having discussions as to whether they think Justin Trudeau should lead them into the next election, and a few people started frothing about it, but a day later, it got particular traction because Pierre Poilievre was using it in Question Period to attack Trudeau, as though Downe was a big name or had a network that was significant.

And that’s the part that mystifies me. Once upon a time, Downe was a chief of staff to Jean Chrétien, but senators haven’t been part of the Liberal caucus since 2014, when Trudeau famously expelled them as pre-emptive damage control in advance of the Auditor General’s (massively flawed) report on the Senate’s expenses, and claimed it was to give them more independence. Furthermore, Downe jumped ship to the fledgeling Canadian Senators Group right after he helped the Senate Liberals transform their caucus into the Progressives, which alienated him from the remaining Liberals in the Senate (who no longer call themselves such in the current environment). I fail to see how he has any kind of sway or influence at all. And when Trudeau was asked about Downe’s comments on his way into Question Period yesterday, he gave a classic “I wish him well” response and laughed it off.

Meanwhile, the attempt to make Mark Carney happen aren’t stopping either, as the Globe and Mail cornered him a climate summit in town this week to demand to know his leadership ambitions and *gasp!* he didn’t say no! Let’s gossip about this more! Never mind that Carney would likely mean the second coming of Michael Ignatieff for the party, if you ignore that he has no political machinery around him that could even support a bid (which he should avoid at all costs because it damages the Bank of Canada and its current governor, whether he likes to believe it or not). But seriously, this whole thing is ridiculous, and I cannot believe how much air time and digital space has been used up on it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian drones have hit civilian targets in Kharkiv region, but no reports of casualties as of when I’m writing this. Ukrainian forces repelled a new Russian assault on Vuhledar in the east.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Threats against MPs becoming routine

Posted on by

Every now and again we get reminders that these are not normal political times, and that older political norms are starting to slip away as the memification of politics takes over, and polarization has been made worse. Threats against MPs are far more prevalent than they ever were, and lo, Liberal MP George Chahal posted some of the threats his office received last week.

It’s grotesque, and even more the point are those in the comments who defend these kinds of messages and actions as somehow being justifiable or justified. Nothing can justify it, and unfortunately, this state of affairs is being worsened by the fact that our norms continue to be eroded, because they drive clicks and get fundraising dollars. This is the kind of thing that everyone should be standing against, but I fear that at best, we’ll get a tepid denunciation of this from political leaders across the board, even though some should be most emphatically making the point that this kind of thing isn’t okay.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces have been advancing in two directions toward Bakhmut, but are not ready to take the city centre yet, apparently. This while there was a massive overnight barrage of drones from Russia, damaging an energy facility in Khmelnytskyi region, killing two civilians in Kostyantynivka, and shelling in the Kharkiv region. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with the Pope at the Vatican and sought support for Ukraine’s peace plan (for what good that does). Zelenskyy also made stops in Paris and Berlin, where he said that a counter-offensive will not strike into Russian territory because their sole aim is to reclaim their own territory from Russian occupation.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1657501338719199233

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1657875550361272321

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1657643236989517825

Continue reading →

Roundup: The problem with giving everyone a title

Posted on by

There has been a lot of talk over the past few days about the choices that Pierre Poilievre made with announcing a shadow Cabinet as large as he did, and lo, the CBC had even more commentary over the weekend about it. Suffice to say, I’m not sure I really buy the take of “it gives everyone something to do.” Why? For starters, the whole point of a shadow Cabinet, particularly as it is practiced in the UK, is to have people who are ready to go into ministries if there is a change of government, and these are people who know their files, and can slot into the positions easily and quickly. That doesn’t really happen in Canada because our Cabinets have a lot of other considerations in play, such as regional composition, and balance with gender and other diversity, but region is the big one, and therefore, we can’t really have people ready to go into ministries because we don’t know how the regional dynamics will play at a time when they form government. (This is one reason why I’m not keen on calling critics “shadow ministers,” because they don’t have the same function). If you give everyone jobs that are not related to how Cabinet is composed, you’re not really living up to the purpose, particularly if you’re assigning made-up portfolios to certain MPs to exercise their hobby-horses as a reward for loyalty, even though as a reward goes, it’s not much because there is no added pay that goes with it.

My other problem, however, is that MPs already have a lot of work that they’re already not really doing, and many of them have offloaded those responsibilities on to independent Officers of Parliament, and that’s a problem. Committee work is supposed to take up the bulk of an MP’s time, but if they’re playing “shadow minister” for their hobby horses, they’re spending less time doing the work in committee or elsewhere that they’re supposed to be doing. There is also participation-trophy syndrome at play, where (almost) everyone gets a title (but not pay), even though we should remember that backbenchers are supposed to play important accountability roles in our parliamentary system. If we’re training the caucus to all expect titles and roles and not that they have jobs to do as backbenchers, we’re really weakening the ability of our parliament to do its job, and that is worrying. Not that the current crop of MPs in the Commons seems to care much about Parliament and its ability to function correctly, and this goes for all parties (and it’s really not helped when the prime minister has been a constitutional vandal when it comes to the Senate and the role it plays). This is a problem, and we should be talking about it, rather than patting Poilievre on the back for such a “strategic” move.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 235:

Russian-backed separatists in Donetsk say that their mayor’s office was hit by a rocket, which the Ukrainian military has not claimed responsibility for, while Russian rockets struck the town across from the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Over the weekend, a missile strike seriously damaged an energy facility near Kyiv,

https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1581636027487178754

Continue reading →

Roundup: The aftermath of Fiona

Posted on by

In the wake of Hurricane Fiona battering the East Coast, Justin Trudeau has cancelled his trip to Japan for Shinzo Abe’s funeral, and has been convening meetings of the Incident Response Group in order to coordinate federal efforts for assistance. Provincial requests for military assistance have all been approved, and there are constant assurances that yes, the federal government will help rebuild, and there are already provisions in place for that to happen.

Meanwhile, thousands have been without power, and at least one fatality has been recorded. It is expected to be a slow recovery because of the scale of the damage (some photos here).

 

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 214:

While Russia’s sham referendums continue in occupied territories in Ukraine, they have resumed shelling civilian targets. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling Russia’s decision to mobilize reserves and conscripts as a sign of weakness, and offers safety to those who surrender. Protests are continuing in Russia against the mobilization.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Grifters fail to secure Trudeau’s resignation

Posted on by

While the organisers and the American mouthpieces they fed their PR to claimed that the grifter convoy would see 50,000 trucks and 1.5 million people descending upon Ottawa (a city of a million people over a fairly vast geography), it was a couple of hundred trucks, and a couple of thousand people—nothing even remotely close to a Canada Day in the Before Times. Some are saying it was relatively peaceful in that there were no riots, but its denizens were certainly belligerent and forced the closure of the mall near Parliament Hill, along with many other businesses in the area, most of whom will remain closed today. Liquor stores in the area were also closed because of the same belligerence, and the honking rarely ceased all weekend. (The Ottawa Citizen has a rolling blog of events over the weekend here, while Justin Ling has the definitive account of the event and its lead-up).

The reckoning for certain Conservative MPs will begin soon enough, particularly Michael Cooper, as he was filmed talking to reporters while in front of an up-side down Canadian flag that had a swastika on it. (Not-so-fun fact: swastikas were doing double-duty over the weekend, both sported by extremists like those who organised the event, while others were using them to denounce the government as being Nazis, because nothing says sore loser like calling the prime minister in a hung parliament after a free and fair election a tyrannical dictator). Cooper insists it’s not his fault there were swastikas around, and that he’s the victim here—erm, except he knew damn well that extremists organised this event and that these kinds of symbols and flags always turn up at these events, so it would have been better for him not to show up at all. (Reminder: Cooper is also the guy who read the New Zealand mosque shooter’s manifesto into the record at committee, because reasons). Also, I cannot wait for all of those Conservative MPs to have a meltdown about the grifters who urinated on the Cenotaph at the National War Memorial, the way they did when that rando did it on Canada Day in 2006. Because they’ll have the same reaction, right?

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1487763389522849795

As for what happens next, we’ll see. It already started to peter out yesterday because there’s a) nothing to do, and b) they’re accomplishing nothing. The extremist organisers insist they’ll stay there until all of the vaccine mandates are rescinded (good luck with that—they’re mostly provincial jurisdiction), and that the government resign, and even more, that the Liberal Party is dismantled. Yeah, that’s not going to happen, buddy. Police became way more visible on Sunday, and the play seems to be that they let these grifters have their fun and make their on Saturday, then made their presence known in a big way on Sunday, so that if they’re not gone by the end of Monday, they’ll start taking action. But we’ll see. Nevertheless, this is a big waste of everyone’s time, and everyone is out of patience.

Meanwhile in Alberta, a smaller convoy headed to the province’s legislature on Saturday, while a separate group of trucks blockaded a southern border crossing. It took a day for Jason Kenney to condemn said blockade, but after all of the noise he made supporting the original grifter convoy only for its same proponents to turn on him and his province is pretty much fitting. Kenney keeps thinking he’s the smartest guy in the room and can outrun the fires he starts to pretend like he’s putting them out, but once again, he’s getting burned.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A late start isn’t an extra week off

Posted on by

I’m not sure whether it’s because it’s a very, very slow news season, or if the basic knowledge of how Parliament works is that lacking, but we got a lot of really bad headlines yesterday about how the Senate plans to take an “extra week off.” Which is not actually true, and distorts the situation. And in some cases, it’s being spun this way by certain media suspects completely out of bad faith, because anytime they can badmouth the Senate they’ll grab the opportunity and run.

To clarify: The Senate does not have a fixed sitting schedule the way the House of Commons does, and in no way are they bound to match the sitting schedule, because they do different work, and the timelines are different. The Senate frequently doesn’t convene at the same time as the House of Commons after the winter or summer break because they simply don’t have enough work on their Order Paper to justify it. They passed all of the bills that the Commons sent to them before they adjourned for the break, so coming back at the same time makes no sense—especially when they are competing for IT resources and interpreters with the Commons in the current hybrid context (which has, frankly, screwed the Senate over, but they’ve also allowed it to happen). More to the point, there are many years where the Senate will sit for weeks after the Commons rises for its break, and they will have break weeks out of sync with the Commons every now and again because their workloads are different. But this isn’t communicated effectively, either by the Senate itself, or by the media reporting on it—and it most especially isn’t communicated or even mentioned by the bad faith actors whose only agenda is to paint the Senate in a bad light. It’s disappointing, but not unexpected.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unsuccessful distraction attempt

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole emerged from hiding yesterday, and tried to set the narrative of the day about a supposed scary coalition between the Liberals and the NDP – which isn’t happening. A coalition government means that both parties have Cabinet ministers at the table, and given that we just had the dog and pony show of a Cabinet shuffle not two weeks ago, and there was nary an NDP MP among them, we can be reasonably assured that there will be no coalition government. Nevertheless, even a supply and confidence agreement, or some other arrangement, remains unlikely in the extreme because the Liberals know the NDP are in a vulnerable position, broke an unable to afford another election, so they will ensure the government survives regardless – there is no need to give them any leverage or excuse to try and take credit for the government’s actions (not that anything has stopped them thus far).

But while O’Toole tried to make big noises about the “coalition” that isn’t and never will be, he was trying to deflect from the ongoing problem in his party around MPs like Marilyn Gladu and Leslyn Lewis, who have been stoking vaccine hesitancy (while insisting otherwise), conceding that they have “caused confusion,” which is just more soft-peddling and mealy-mouthed refusal to take leadership or to put his foot down. Indeed, when asked about whether there would be any discipline for these remarks, O’Toole stated that they would deal with it “as a team,” which basically means that no, he’s not going to do anything about it.

While my upcoming column will delve further into just why O’Toole refuses to put his foot down, Gladu can insist all she wants that this isn’t a challenge of O’Toole’s leadership, the simple fact is that she continues to undermine it at every opportunity, and that is going to eventually erode what little trust or credibility O’Toole has left.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Time to change the dress code?

Posted on by

NDP MP Randall Garrison is pushing for the House of Commons to update is dress code, in particular around the gendered rules that men need to wear a jacket and tie in the Chamber in order to speak and vote. Part of Garrison’s stated motivation is to make it easier for future trans and non-binary MPs, even though accommodations are already routinely made, such as allowing Indigenous MPs to wear beaded necklaces or other symbols in place of a tie. I don’t see why it would be any different to accommodate a trans or non-binary MP in a similar manner without any fuss – a mere notice to the Speaker would suffice.

On the one hand, there is a certain amount of archaic assumption in the “contemporary business attire” around jackets and ties for men, and only men – there is no dress code for women in the Chamber (and these rules apply to those of us who sit in the Press Gallery in the Chamber, incidentally). Business attire in the current context is starting to slide down the scale – particularly in this era of work-from-home – so I’m leery of loosening the restrictions too much, particularly as it is not beyond the realm of possibility that you would have a bunch of MPs in track suits, yoga or sweat pants, hoodies, and mom jeans (and I have seen male MPs in mom jeans with jacket and tie in the Chamber, which was not a pleasant sight). Printed t-shirts are also a very real concern, because we will immediately slip into them being used as props, particularly during Members’ Statements, and we do not want that to happen. On the same token, I wouldn’t have minded imposing a few more rules for women in the Chamber, such as mandating jackets as part of “business attire,” because sometimes the definitions of what constitutes “business attire” for some female MPs has been particularly…challenging. (Flashback to the old Megan Leslie Outfit Watch on my former blog).

I get that ties suck. I really do. I used to really hate them, but I’ve somewhat reluctantly grown to accept them and now I have no issue with it. And once we’re into late May and early June and the humidity starts to climb, wearing suits is not fun (and whereas I have threatened to show up to the Gallery in shorts and sandals – but with jacket and tie – one reporter has actually done so and was my hero for the day). But at the same time, I think there should be some kinds of standards, for both men and women, because frankly there can be a demonstrated lack of both maturity and good taste among MPs and there need to be some guidelines. Can they be loosened a little? Sure, that should be okay, and maybe we won’t require a tie at all times – within reason. It does merit a discussion in any case.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An errant tweet begets irresponsible reporting

Posted on by

As I reserve the right to grouse about bad journalism, I’m going to call out a particularly egregious CBC article that appeared over the weekend about a deleted tweet about a judicial appointment, and the way in which the story was framed, being that said potential judge was a donor to the justice minister’s nomination campaign and later to the riding association. The fact that a tweet was made and quickly deleted because the appointment process was not completed is bad form, and embarrassing for the minister’s office, but it need not be a sign that there is anything improper going on if you look at the facts in their totality. But that’s not what happened. Instead, the article omitted any context about how the appointment process is made, framed it like the minister is appointing his donors out of patronage, and got quotes from the Ethics Commissioner to “prove” that the conflict of interest rules are too lax.

The minister does not get to appoint anyone he wants on his rolodex. I mean on paper he has that ability, and constitutionally it’s his responsibility, but in practice it’s not how it works. The judicial appointments process – and I have written extensively about this – starts with lawyers applying to Judicial Appointments Committees in provinces, who then vet them and those which are deemed “Recommended” and “Highly Recommended” are forwarded to the minister’s office. At that point, there is a political vetting process because the government is politically accountable for these appointments if they go bad, but this particular process has been routinely mischaracterised both by media and the opposition – so much so that they have dragged in others on this point. In this case, it is likely that the candidate in question had passed the JAC and was forwarded to the minister’s office as either Recommended or Highly Recommended, and it was in the process of the political vetting when the errant tweet was made, but by deliberately omitting the role of the JACs in these appointments, the CBC article deliberately created a false impression for the sake of building their narrative.

It’s a problem when the media refuses to report this particular situation properly, with context of how appointments work, because they are more interested in a narrative that there is either rampant patronage, or that any lawyer who wants to be a judge should never donate to any party ever for fear of somehow tainting themselves. Political donations are part of how our system works, and it’s not a sign that someone is either a rampant partisan, or that they are trying to buy a judgeship – as the CBC seems to be alleging – especially given the donation limits in this country. Whether that is because there is an element of American political envy here, where we want to feel like we have the same problem of money in politics like they do (seriously, we do not), or whether there is a particular streak of misplaced moralism, in either case the reporting is tainted, and it’s completely irresponsible.

Continue reading →