Tag Archives: Haiti

Roundup: More of the hot seat for O’Toole?

Posted on by

So it looks like unrest remains the order of the day in the Conservative caucus, as they prepare for their winter caucus retreat next week (which may very well be virtual). Unhappiness with Erin O’Toole’s leadership is still fomenting below the surface—and to be fair, blackmailing your MPs to say that you’ll expel them from caucus if they challenge you by signing a petition can do that—while at the same time being castigated for not providing any actual leadership, so that’s quite something.

In the midst of this, the resistance to O’Toole’s edicts continue. After Conservative senators didn’t follow O’Toole’s orders and expel Senator Denise Batters from their ranks, it looks like the party’s Saskatchewan regional caucus is also defying O’Toole and letting Batters remain a member. So she can’t attend national caucus, but she’s still participating with her fellow colleagues, in the Senate and regionally, which seems to show that O’Toole’s edicts are starting to feel pretty hollow. After all, if he tries to expel the whole of his Saskatchewan caucus for defying him, well, he might as well turn in his resignation at that point.

Batters, meanwhile, has all the time in the world to carry on her campaign against O’Toole, since they didn’t give her any committee work to do. And to that end, she is insisting that the report on the election loss must include O’Toole’s personal failures and constant flip-flops. It also seems that people have been directing former MP James Cumming, in charge of said report, to talk to her, but he hasn’t done so, which could make a person suspicious that this could be a selective report that just might be going out of its way to avoid criticising O’Toole himself. But the signs aren’t good for O’Toole the more this continues to add up.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Holland breaks out the passive-aggressive open letter tactics

Posted on by

The drama over the Winnipeg Lab documents took another turn yesterday as Government House Leader Mark Holland sent a four-page open letter to the Conservative House Leader, urging him to reconsider rejecting the government’s offer to create a new ad hoc panel to have the documents vetted behind closed doors with a panel of three former judges to adjudicate any disputes. In said letter, Holland name-checks nearly every national security and intelligence expert who has weighed in on the topic of the past few weeks, with a couple of exceptions.

While Holland didn’t name Philippe Lagassé’s piece, it’s fairly irrelevant to the concerns at hand. Whether NSICOP gets turned into a full-blown committee or not, it won’t make a material difference because the Conservatives’ objections are not based on any particular matter of principle or specific objection. As I point out in my column, they are merely acting in bad faith in order to be theatrical and try and score points by winking to conspiracy theories in order to paint the picture that the government is hiding something for the benefit of the Chinese, or some other such nonsense.

I don’t expect Holland’s letter to do anything other than look passive-aggressive and ham-fisted as the issue continues to fester—not that there is an order to produce documents any longer, and the committee that made said order no longer exists either (though O’Toole has been under pressure to restore it, as though it actually did anything meaningful other than be yet another dog and pony show). We’ll see if the other two opposition parties come to some kind of agreement, but so far this issue continues to just make everyone look like our Parliament is amateur hour. Which it kind of is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No undoing these elections

Posted on by

In Alberta, the province’s municipal affairs minister has declared that he can’t vacate a seat on Calgary’s city council given the revelations that surfaced against one councillor from a time before his election, when he was a police officer. And this is actually a good thing – you do not want to give provincial governments the power to suddenly start vacating seats on municipal councils in their province, because that can very, very easily be weaponised to settle scores, particularly when there is friction between the municipal and provincial governments. (Seriously, given the rank incompetence of several provincial governments, you do not want them to have this power, no matter that it may sound nice for this particular circumstance).

There is a certain amount of resonance in this with the situation around ousted Liberal candidate and now independent MP Kevin Vuong, While there is some social media backlash over his visit to a local business that needed their MP’s help on a CRA issue, there are plenty of people who are demanding that something be done about his election, be it having the Speaker declare his seat vacant or the like, but I worry about that because of the implications for what it means as a precedent (especially given the fact that charges were not pursued in the allegations against him, which a gulf from the kind of conviction that would ordinarily be used as an excuse to declare such a vacancy). There needs to be a very high bar because this is democracy, and one of the things that happens in a democracy is that sometimes the people get it wrong for whatever the reason, and in this case, there is the added issue that the party did a closed-door acclamation process rather than an open nomination, so they have to wear this as well.

In both of these cases, there is something of an object lesson about why it’s important to get things right when you’re considering who you’re voting for (and why local journalism matters). There is nobody who can swoop down and save you from your bad choices, so it’s very, very important that you choose wisely.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Farewell, 43rd Parliament, and good riddance

Posted on by

Parliament is dissolved, and the 44th General Election has begun. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau characterised the election as a chance for Canadians to weigh in on the direction they want to see the recovery, calling it the most important election since 1945 – and he didn’t go the route of pointing to just how toxic the House of Commons was all spring as his justification (though he easily could have), because this is Campaign Trudeau™, and everything needs to be upbeat and positive. He also put mandatory vaccinations (for areas under federal jurisdiction, including air travel) as one of the centre planks of his campaign and dared people to contrast it to the other parties, with both Erin O’Toole and Jagmeet Singh spending the weekend prevaricating and talking around it, so even though it may seem that the distinctions between them are subtle, they are there.

https://twitter.com/journo_dale/status/1426929811071635458

Erin O’Toole has pretty much retreated to his studio in downtown Ottawa, and spent the first day holding telephone town halls from there, and will do so again today. His pitch has been that the election is pretty much a vanity project by Trudeau in the hopes of a majority, but the fact that he has so far stumbled out of the gate, both with a disastrous shitpost video and his waffling on mandatory vaccinations, has not been terribly auspicious.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1427054892338884611

Jagmeet Singh started his day in Montreal, as he had already committed to attending the Pride parade there – but there was the inherent contradiction in that parades and crowds are okay but elections are unsafe. It’s also worth noting that he didn’t criticise the Governor General for granting dissolution, which makes it apparent that his letter two weeks ago was a cynical ploy that undermined Mary Simon.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1426320404315004940

Of course, while the opposition leaders kept insisting that the election was unnecessary and in some cases, too costly (but seriously, if you think it’s a bad think that elections cost money, you shouldn’t be in the business of democracy), their own rhetoric belies the fact that they didn’t think that Parliament was working, or should have worked because they kept insisting that you can’t trust the prime minister. So…maybe be more consistent if you want people to believe you when you said that there was no reason for an election, because clearly, you think there is.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1426974226007867401

Otherwise, a campaign that is going to be digital and social-media focused has been off to a bad start, contrasting the Conservatives’ terrible shitpost video versus the Liberals’ hopeful and optimistic video that is a note-perfect recreation of a parody video of a feel-good corporate video employing stock footage. So…yeah. Everything is kind of awful, but at least we only have five weeks of this and not two years like the Americans do.

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1426699232141004805

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit Jody Wilson-Raybould

Posted on by

Jody Wilson-Raybould announced yesterday that she wasn’t going to be running again in the next election, but wasn’t leaving to “spend more time with family.” Rather, she planned to continue her work in other venues, but noticed that the House of Commons had become more toxic and ineffective, which is very true.

https://twitter.com/Puglaas/status/1413128438592933898

While I don’t think that Wilson-Raybould was a particularly great minister (and she has yet to answer for her pushing blatantly unconstitutional legislation through), she nevertheless had a particularly valuable viewpoint that made the House of Commons better for having her in it. Her singularly pushing back against the Bloc’s attempts to play politics around Quebec’s Bill 96 and the proposed constitutional changes and nationhood declarations was something we could certainly have used more of, not less.

This having been said, I think Wilson-Raybould, like Jane Philpott, were somewhat naïve about the nature of federal politics, and were sold some particularly bad advice about life as an independent MP, and more broadly about hung parliaments in general. There is a particular romance around them, particularly from a segment of the political science crowd, which has rosy visions of the 1960s and inter-party cooperation to get things done, when hung parliaments in recent decades have simply been nasty and highly partisan, and that contributed a lot to the toxicity and ineffectiveness of this parliamentary session. On top of that, Wilson-Raybould had broken the trust of her fellow MPs, and that no doubt further isolated her in an already fractious situation in the Chamber. It’s too bad that she couldn’t have contributed more, but her no longer being there is a diminution to the kinds of voices that we should be hearing more of.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau’s feeling punchy in Calgary

Posted on by

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues his tour of the country as the pandemic wanes, and yesterday stopped in Calgary to meet with both Jason Kenney and Naheed Nenshi, and there were some particular notes that Trudeau’s tone had changed, and that he was more combative than he has been in the past – in particular, taking shots at Kenney’s government over their resistance to dealing with climate change and the economic opportunities that come with the green economy, and that Kenney had endorsed banning niqabs in the country as an example of how the previous government didn’t take systemic racism seriously. (And if anyone wants to point out that Kenney was the party’s “ethnic outreach” minister, remember that his particular focus was on communities where they felt they could target social conservative votes, citing their mutual dislike of the gays, marijuana, and so on).

There was in particular some politics being played about the announcement over funding for Calgary’s Green Line LRT project, where the province – which has been apparently slow-walking it for a year now – approved the funding in a press release shortly before Trudeau’s announcement, and weren’t at the announcement themselves, which sounds about typical.

Trudeau, meanwhile, pushed back against the notion that there is some kind of unfairness in equalisation, and that Alberta is being somehow disadvantaged. While he pointed out that the current formula was negotiated with Kenney at the Cabinet table, it bears repeating that equalisation is not the province writing cheques to one another – it comes out of general revenues from federal taxes, and Alberta pays the highest federal taxes because they have the highest incomes in the country by far – even during these tougher economic times for the province as a result of the downturn in the oil market. Not that Kenney is going to tell the truth of how it works when he’s trying to nurse a faux grievance in order to score political points (much as he’s doing with his bullshit “senate nominee elections”). Part of this newfound punchiness on Trudeau’s part has to do with the narrative of election speculation, but also that Kenney has been weakened, and the Conservatives nationally are losing ground, and Trudeau likely sees an opening. There is talk that they could take several seats in Edmonton and Calgary thanks to both softer Conservative numbers and the fact that they could lose ground on their right flank to the swivel-eyed loons in the “separatist” Maverick Party, which gives the Liberals more of an opening. Trudeau also made the point that they want Alberta to have representation in the government, and perhaps people learned their lesson after shutting them out in the province out of spite, only to realize they made a big mistake afterward. We’ll see where it goes, but the shift in tone is notable.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giddy or furious?

Posted on by

The potential move of Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, to Canada is causing a great deal of media speculation, and a share of boneheaded headlines in international papers (the New York Times being particularly egregious in citing that Canadians are “giddy” – in the very week that we have been in mourning over the downing of Flight PS752 – that they could be adding some “razzle dazzle” to our “bone-chilling” country). And then there are all the polls demanding that Harry be made Governor General, or the speculation that we could make him Kind of Canada if we wanted (which we really don’t). Nevertheless, Philippe Lagassé had a few thoughts on the whole matter:

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1215618283812069377

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1215619724404494337

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1215627487377600513

At the same time as we’re allegedly giddy, we’re also apparently “furious” about potential security costs. Which, could very well be, nothing at all, really. And in the coming week or two, I suspect these stories will be all the more absurd.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performative obeisance

Posted on by

Brave anonymous Conservatives have gone to the media to describe how they asked Andrew Scheer to let them vote to remove Maxime Bernier from caucus. Scheer, smartly, said no, but the whole affair is sordid and more than a little gross. The reasons these brave anonymous Conservatives gave for looking to oust Bernier was because he apparently lied to caucus when he said he was going to shelve his book project and then reposted the chapter that had already been made public on his website. But it’s not really about Bernier’s supposed sins, but rather it’s another instance of MPs being performative in their demonstrations of obeisance to Scheer as the leader, which is antithetical to how a Westminster system should operate.

Scheer knows that booting Bernier would cause a rift in the party, where all of the Ayn Rand-reading wannabe-libertarians in the party would storm off after him in a huff, possibly forming a libertarian splinter party in their wake (never mind the fact that Bernier isn’t actually that smart as a politician, as charismatic as he may be, and it would likely all end in tears). But Scheer has to preserve the big tent – or at least the illusion thereof, because gods know that he’s already alienated Red Tories and free-market conservatives with his pursuit of boneheaded populism – and so he’s going to keep Bernier around. Not in his shadow cabinet, apparently, because Bernier has become a liability in his attempt to portray himself as a greater defender of Supply Management than thou, but Bernier will at least be there in the room, tolerated. For what that’s worth.

More importantly, this is but one more sign about how venal and degenerate political parties in this country have become as they’ve been hollowed out and serve as little more than personality cults thanks to the bastardized leadership contest rules that each has adopted. Because leaders are chosen in such a broken manner, it has given them the appearance of “democratic legitimacy” that is antithetical to how our system operates, and rather than hold them to account, the caucuses now twist themselves into pretzels to show loyalty to the brand of the leader rather than the ideals of the party. And until we’re willing to stand up and say no, this is a bastardization of our system, it will only continue to get worse (and yes, the Liberals are among the worst culprits for this). This is not how parties are supposed to work. This is not how the Westminster system is supposed to work. And yet we have brave anonymous MPs tattling on each other for thought crimes against their leaders. It’s revolting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Union concoctions and opportunism

Posted on by

In the event that you’ve tuned out of the Bill Morneau/Bill C-27 conspiracy theory – and if you have, I don’t blame you – there was a big fuss a few days ago made of the fact that the postal employees’ union made a big deal about trying to get the Ethics Commissioner to investigate this weeks ago, and now that Nathan Cullen managed to get Mary Dawson to turn her attention to it, they’re crowing with a bit of victory, and still demanding that the bill be withdrawn. Given how ludicrous the whole story remains – remember that government bills are tabled on behalf of the cabinet as a whole, and that ministers don’t sponsor bills because they have a personal interest in them, but rather because they need to answer on behalf of their departments – I’ve largely just rolled my eyes at ongoing coverage, but it was flagged to me a couple of times yesterday that Terence Corcoran wrote a piece about how this little episode proves some of the underlying dynamics behind this ongoing campaign against Morneau and his integrity – that it’s less about any actual ethical issues than it has been about trying to get him to withdraw Bill C-27, because it’s antithetical to the interests of unions and their desires to ensure that everyone has a defined benefit pension plan (even though the economics of that demand aren’t there, and that the actuarial tables will show that they haven’t been sustainable because people stopped smoking two packs a day and are now living longer).

The problem with Corcoran’s piece is that it really only applies to the NDP’s interests. After all, the Conservatives were talking about targeted benefit pensions for years, and were making moves in that direction, which is why Morneau, in his previous life, was talking about their virtues – a cardinal sin in NDP eyes. But for the Conservatives, this is simply a matter of opportunism – they think that they can wound him, and if they have to play along with the NDP to do it, so be it they will. And thus, we are enduring day after day of attacks in QP that are showcased with mendacious framing devices and disingenuous questions, unrelated facts arranged in ways to look damning, never mind that they don’t line up with reality or with our parliamentary norms (such as this absurd demand that the Ethics Commissioner should have somehow vetted this before the bill was tabled. That’s now how our system works, and it would have been a violation of cabinet secrecy and parliamentary privilege). But even as opportunistic as this is, one has to wonder how much longer this will last.

One of the most veteran reporters sat with me in QP yesterday, and asked me this very question – how long can they hope to stretch this story? There’s little basis to it, and yet day after day, they carry on with these absurd demands for information that are already publicly disclosed, and outrage that is running on fumes. Meanwhile, actual, verifiable problems that should be addressed are going unsaid, day after day. It’s a little mystifying when you actually stop to think about it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An involuntary nomination

Posted on by

The outcome at the Status of Women committee was not unexpected, had as much sulking and grousing as was to be expected. In a public and not secret vote, the Liberals and NDP members of the committee rejected the Conservatives’ choice of Rachael Harder to chair the committee, and when the Liberals nominated Karen Vecchio in her place, Vecchio tried to back out but was overruled, and those same Liberal and Conservative members voted her in.

And then the bellyaching began. A sour press release was issued about how this was somehow about “bullying and intimidation” of some poor young woman (which is a ridiculous characterisation), but that they would accept the democratic will of the committee. And the pundit class took to Twitter to decry how bizarre it was that a woman was being forced to take the chair of a committee that she didn’t want. I’m not exactly sympathetic to these cries, because this is what happens when you try to pull a stunt for the sake of being a provocateur, as Scheer is trying to do, but you don’t have the votes to back it up. Oh, and then they tried to wedge this into the frame of it being a distraction from the tax proposals, when it shouldn’t need to be said that this was a distraction of the Conservatives’ own making, owing to their particular tactical ineptitude.

Meanwhile, Liberals took to tweeting about how this would have made Harder Andrew Scheer’s “spokesperson” on the committee, which is bizarre and wrong – the chair is the committee’s spokesperson. It’s baffling that they would try to spin it in this fashion. Then again, one shouldn’t be surpised given how badly this whole affair has been for people describing how things work in Parliament. And it shouldn’t surprise me, and yet here we are, that not one journalist writing about this story, nor any pundit commenting on it, remarked about the fact that it makes no sense to put your critic forward as committee chair. None. The chair’s role is to be neutral, to run the meeting, arbitrate rules disputes and to ensure that witnesses and questioners stay within their timelines. They’re not supposed to vote unless it’s to break a tie, which shouldn’t happen very often given the numbers at play. Why would you want your critic – your point person in holding the government and in particular that associated minister, to account – to be hobbled in this way on committee, is baffling. It’s utterly incomprehensible if you follow the basics of how parliament is supposed to work. And yet nobody saw fit to call Scheer out on this fact. These details matter.

Continue reading →