Tag Archives: Julie Payette

Roundup: Some key differences

Posted on by

There wasn’t a winner in the US election declared before this blog post was put to bed, but I will make a couple of points about why elections in this country are not such a gong show. Number one is that we have an arm’s length federal elections agency that administers elections, whereas the Americans let each state run their federal elections, resulting in an inconsistency in rules and even methods – some states using only electronic voting machines, others using paper ballots, and there being a confusion around mail-in ballots, not to mention that the fact that we have more than enough polling stations so that lines are rarely more than ten minutes, if that. In Canada, we have arm’s length quasi-judicial processes to draw riding boundaries that have virtually eliminated gerrymandering, whereas political considerations have created such skewed, gerrymandered districts in the US, and their Supreme Court refuses to do anything about them. Attempts to disqualify voters in Canada have been struck down or punished electorally, whereas it’s a voter suppression tactic in the US with hugely racial overtones. And more than anything, we have a monarch and a governor general who act as a constitutional fire extinguisher if everything goes awry in the results. We’re pretty damn lucky to live here, in a functional democracy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mischief with a reasonable goal

Posted on by

It may be a bit of mischief, but it’s certainly well-deserved, as the Alberta NDP are moving a motion in the legislature to have the government condemn separatism. The ostensible goal for the denunciation is because talk of separatism is bad for the economy – it drives away investment, no matter how low corporate taxes are (and you only have to look to Canadian history to see how the two referendums in Quebec saw the country’s financial capital move from Montreal to Toronto, even though Montreal was a more tax-advantageous environment). If Alberta hopes to diversify their economy, they need to ensure that they aren’t driving away investment in a similar way.

It’s also about jamming Jason Kenney to an extent, because while he has stated in the past that he’s not a separatist, he’s also winked and nodded to them in a fairly constant fashion, and used his own rhetoric to fuel their arguments, up to and including his ridiculous “Fair Deal Panel.” But with the rise of separatist parties, both federally and provincially in the prairie provinces, there are concerns about them gaining political traction – particularly as the so-called “Buffalo Party” gained a fair number of votes in last week’s Saskatchewan election, and it may have some people in Alberta worried. Granted, the Conservatives in the province should likely be more worried because they’re likely to peel voters away from the Conservatives, which may allow the NDP to come up the middle provincially, but there should also be no doubt that letting these separatists get any kind of political traction – even a handful of seats – would be sending the wrong signals to markets. Having Kenney denounce them in a way that they can’t spin as winking or nodded to them may be a way to take some of the wind out of their sails – but it could also expose divisions in Kenney’s own caucus (which is partly where the mischief comes in). Nevertheless, even if the movement is headed by a bunch of swivel-eyed loons who have no chance of success, they can cause a lot of damage along the way, and should be taken down at every chance.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s “cancel culture” performance

Posted on by

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole is making obligatory right-flavoured populist noises, decrying “cancel culture” because Queen’s University’s board voted to consider changing the name of their John A. Macdonald building, as is much the flavour of the day. It’s this juvenile, performative noise, but this is the kind of thing that O’Toole built his leadership around, without any critical thinking whatsoever, so here’s @moebius_strip to point out the sheer absurdity of it all.

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1316454539596234753

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1316465701100552192

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1316465838468198401

Meanwhile, there is consternation because the Library and Archives websites haven’t yet updated their biographies of prime ministers like Macdonald and Laurier to adequately convey that they had racist policies, and lo, cookie-cutter journalism gets the same four voices to decry this that appear in every other story. Never mind that Library and Archives says that they are doing consultations in order to do the work of reconciliation, and that there will be updated versions coming – it’s not good enough because this all needed to be done yesterday.

Part of the problem here, however, is that it will take time to get a properly nuanced version of history that both acknowledges their contributions to building the country while also acknowledging the racism of the era – particularly because it’s not simply black-and-white, and anyone who has read Macdonald’s biography will find it hard to simply pigeon-hole him as some kind of cartoon racist, which is certainly what some of the online dialogue would have us do. Yes, he’s a complex and problematic figure, but he was also a moderating influence, and his racist policies were actually the less-bad ones that were being demanded by a lot of voices of the era, which I doubt is going to be acknowledged to the satisfaction of his modern-day critics. It’s not a simple conversation, but that seems to be what is being demanded.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An escalation of props

Posted on by

The moment that “remote sittings” began, which morphed into “hybrid” sittings, MPs began with the stunts. First it was signs in their backgrounds – which were ruled out of order as props, then it was dress code violations, and during the first “hybrid vote,” we saw MPs have their kids and dogs in the frame, and one of them was conspicuously driving while he voted. None of this is good for the practice of parliamentary democracy (and no, I don’t care what people say about how great it is they had their kids with them). And of course, one MP decided to take it to the next step.

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1313542759727484929

How this particular stunt wasn’t declared a de facto prop I’m not sure, but you can expect that this sort of thing is only going to escalate the longer it goes on unless the Speaker puts his foot down right now and stamps it out. And to be honest, when I’ve been cautioning against the problems that normalising “hybrid” sitting was going to bring, I didn’t think to include that MPs would start pulling stunts in the name of being “first” or “historic,” as they keep patting themselves on the back for these days, and yet they found new ways to surprise me. This is not a good thing. And because the Speaker didn’t say anything yesterday, I can only imagine how many more locales we’ll start seeing in the coming days, ever-escalating until someone comes to their senses and declares this to be the same as using props. Because honestly – this is going to be a very bad precedent.

Rideau Hall

In an unusual move, Governor General Julie Payette has contracted the services of former Supreme Court of Canada justice Michel Bastarache to be a “constitutional advisor” in the ongoing saga of the investigations of her office for harassment and bullying issues. It’s very odd and problematic, and here is professor Philippe Lagassé to provide some added context:

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1313577963565322240

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1313578978368802820

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1313581941103493121

Continue reading →

Roundup: A continued abuse of process

Posted on by

The myriad ways in which this government continues to abuse process for the sake of expediency in the face of the current pandemic never ceases to amaze. After the unnecessary five-week prorogation during which things could have been accomplished, the government needed to act with alacrity to get the CERB replacements out the door, and this meant very little time for a proper legislative process – and that should have been a red flag right there. They introduced their bill, and then set about ensuring additional negotiations with the NDP that required amendments to said bill. But rather than go through a proper amendment process, the government simply tabled a new, tweaked version of the same bill, and then pushed through a motion to see it fast-tracked through the Commons with a mere four-and-a-half hours of debate and no committee process, so that it can pass in a single day – today – and head to the Senate tomorrow for rapid passage and royal assent.

This is not normal. This is not good. The Conservatives even put forward a motion last week that would see the Commons meet on Sunday so that they could do Committee of the Whole and maybe even have a proper amendment process as part of that, but the Bloc denied consent. Rather than negotiate and try again, they went with this route instead, which is a problem. This kind of nonsense may have made a limited amount of sense for the emergency legislation that passed through the early part of the pandemic when Parliament was ostensibly suspended, but it’s not suspended any longer. And the opposition parties have largely stated that they don’t want to be seen as impediment to getting people their needed benefits, so it’s not like a proper process would drag on forever – maybe an extra day to do things properly. But no.

My patience for this state of affairs is pretty much exhausted. There is no reason why we shouldn’t be running proper legislative processes, and why Parliament can’t bubble and operate in a largely normal capacity like they should be. These shenanigans are weakening Parliament, and it’s not a good look.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The creeping presidentialization of national addresses

Posted on by

As far as Throne Speeches go, it was on the long-side – fifty-four minutes in total – while the scene was sparse owing to the pandemic. A common refrain from the commentariat was asking what exactly was new in the speech – much of it was a recitation of the Liberal Party’s greatest hits, with a newfound sense of urgency to some of those long-standing promises (most of which require negotiations with provinces who are reluctant to take on costly new social programmes), and the assurance to Canadians that this is not the time for fiscal austerity as we need to “build back better.” There were some relevant things about ensuring a green and inclusive recovery,

https://twitter.com/AdamScotti/status/1308932151925145602

The post-Speech responses in the press conferences that followed were pretty typical – the Conservatives hated everything about it, and complained about things that their leader has been shitposting the opposite of for the past couple of weeks. The Bloc have decided that it somehow violated the rights of the provinces, when it talks about negotiating national programmes with them. The NDP weren’t going to pan it outright, but Jagmeet Singh instead demanded that the government implement paid sick leave for every worker in Canada – something that the federal government can’t do because the vast majority of workplaces are provincial jurisdiction. So that’s fun.

And then, a short while later, were the big national addresses. Trudeau started off good, talking about the fight of our generation, and that Thanksgiving is now out of the question but we still have a shot at Christmas if we can get the second wave under control, which means get a flu shot, wear masks, wash your hands, and download the COVID Alert app. But then he started selling the Throne Speech, and it turned into an infomercial, in spite of the promise that this was going to be an urgent message about the pandemic and not about politics. That assurance was completely lost on Erin O’Toole, whose only nod to the pandemic was to say that his family’s situation shows that we all need to be extremely vigilant – before he pivoted to Western alienation, and complaining that Trudeau didn’t listen to any of his (performative) demands around the Throne Speech, and concluded by warning about Communist China. So that was something. Yves-François Blanchet, also in COVID isolation, addressed his reply to Quebeckers and Francophones, and then accused the prime minister of interfering in Quebec’s jurisdiction (he didn’t), and demanded unequivocal transfers to Quebec in a week or he’ll vote against the Throne Speech. Erm… And then there was Jagmeet Singh, who started off with the empathetic approach of “I know you’re worried and we’re going to fight for you,” but quickly pivoted to demanding a wealth tax. So…that was the “urgent” and “not political” use of prime-time airtime. The worst part of the whole exercise, however, was the creeping presidentialization of it – addresses that should have happened in the House of Commons were forced to dinnertime television in the hopes of getting a bigger audience, for messages that came off sounding like pre-election posturing. If Trudeau had stuck to his first couple of minutes – that we need to get our shit together and flatten this infection curve – then that would have been fine. But the sales job on the Throne Speech with him giving the clips and not Julie Payette was a complete misstep.

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield finds good things for the economic recovery in the Speech, but hopes the government can gets its act together when it comes to implementing them. Economist Lindsay Tedds sees a lot to like in the Throne Speech, particularly the pledge around automatic filing of income taxes so that marginalized people who often don’t file will finally be able to get benefits they are entitled to. Susan Delacourt contrasts the two speeches on Wednesday, and what each’s tone is trying to convey. Paul Wells pans the whole thing, and notes that nothing has changed since before the prorogation. Jen Gerson puts the whole display in a wider context of a world in which real trouble is brewing, and Canadian politics is utterly unprepared for it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A difference in Supreme Courts

Posted on by

There’s been a fair amount of chatter the past couple of days about how everyone on both sides of the border seemed to know who US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was, but most Canadians would have no idea who any members of our own Supreme Court are. While some blame this on American “media saturation,” I think it’s more than that (though media saturation is a factor). Rather, the partisan jockeying around the composition of the American Supreme Court means that there is far more investment in who is on the bench and what their ideological leanings are, coupled with a willingness on the part of that Court’s justices to become media figures.

The Supreme Court of Canada is largely devoid of the partisan balancing act of its American counterpart, and Canada’s relative lack of particularly conservative schools of legal thought means that we have a much more homogenous legal community, which finds for less polarization on the top court – though the McLachlin era of many unanimous decisions has largely come to an end and dissents are more frequent – which is not such a bad thing. This isn’t to say that our court isn’t political, because it is – it is very much a political actor in the Charter era – but it is generally not partisan in that regard. As for the willingness for celebrity, most Canadian Supreme Court justices eschew the limelight, and very rarely grant interviews (not the case in the US), though the new Chief Justice, Richard Wagner, is a little more open with media and has taken to holding a year-ending press conference every June, which has not happened before now. Nevertheless, those are some of the reasons why Canada’s court and its personalities are not media spectacles like they are in the US, and that’s really not such a bad thing.

Meanwhile, here’s a look at how the Supreme Court of Canada is adapting to ensure in-person sittings for the duration of the pandemic.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Turner and what has changed since

Posted on by

Former prime minister John Turner passed away over the weekend at age 91, and while you can read about his life here and here, for example, there were a couple of things I wanted to mention about his time in office. Thanks to the problems with the leadership selection processes in this country, Turner didn’t have a seat when he won the Liberal leadership and was sworn in as prime minister. He was only in office for eleven weeks, never meeting the House of Commons, and was defeated in an election shortly thereafter, though he did win a seat and stayed on as leader of the opposition for six years. Most of the tributes to him this weekend have not talked about his reputation for being “handsy,” barring the famous bottom-patting incident with party president Iona Campagnolo, though Susan Delacourt says that he was respectful and wasn’t patronizing to women reporters, who were still rare in the day.

What I think is most interesting, however, was that Turner fought an election in 1988 on the question of free trade, and Turner was bitterly opposed, saying that this would turn Canada into a colony of the United States, and that there would only be doom ahead. The then-Progressive Conservatives were the pro-trade party, and won the day with a majority parliament. Here we are a little over thirty years later, and the situations have reversed themselves – now it’s the Liberals who are champions of free trade and open markets, while the modern iteration of the Conservatives are turning into protectionists who are pushing a “Canada First” plan. It’s amazing how things can change so much in that long (particularly when parties abandon ideology for the sake of populism).

I also am curious how they plan to conduct a state funeral for Turner given the current pandemic restrictions. One supposes that they could have him lie in state within a space like the Sir John A Macdonald building on Parliament Hill, and that the funeral will be televised with a lot of people in masks, but it will no doubt be a challenge for all involved.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit one arm of WE

Posted on by

The big news yesterday was that WE Charity is folding their Canadian operations – and putting a hefty share of the blame on the political situation around the whole WE Imbroglio. Never mind their pre-existing problems, convoluted structure, reported financial problems with some of their properties, problems with their board of directors and the resignations therein, and the fact that their whole modus operandi of voluntourism and White Saviour complexes turned into an existential problem for the organization – no, it’s so much easier to blame the slow-motion scandal around them that laid bare many of those pre-existing problems. (For a history of the organization, Maclean’s has a great longread here).

In response, the NDP are crowing that this means that the pre-existing problems that WE faced, exacerbated by the pandemic and the Imbroglio, just proves that the Liberals were trying to help them out all along – erm, which is a bit of a leap. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have demanded that WE still turn over all of the documents that the committee has requested (which WE’s lawyers laughed at given that the committee does not currently exist). And Liberal partisans all over social media are wailing and gnashing their teeth that this organization that did so much good was being killed by the petty partisan games of the opposition. (And, erm, they didn’t actually do that much good, and they are still carrying on their US and UK operations, as well as their for-profit arm – only the Canadian charity arm is being folded).

Meanwhile, Matt Gurney makes the very salient point that this whole situation happened because the Liberals were inept enough not to ensure that Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau do the simplest of steps and recuse themselves from any decisions involving WE because of their personal investment in the organization and its causes. It’s possible Morneau would still have his job as he wouldn’t have made his continuation in the role untenable (thought I have previously contended that even before this all blew up, he was probably overdue to be shuffled because he wasn’t terribly suited for it), and Trudeau wouldn’t be in as precarious a situation as he is (though the cultural problem of not caring about the rules and letting the ends justify the means because they mean well would still be there) if they had simply been a little more aware of what they were doing. Alas, they weren’t, and here we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting the deficit vapours

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau was back making the media rounds yesterday, and one of the things he spoke about was the “ambitious green agenda” to be laid out in the Throne Speech, which has every pundit in the country clutching their pearls about the state of the deficit. Why? Because in Canadian punditry – and many government departments, finance especially – it is 1995 and will always be 1995. And some of that comes with the usual ridiculous assertions about comparing the nation’s finances to a household’s, or that of a business.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1301527104383848449

And then there was one column in particular which doubled down on not only the usual deficit vapours, but the notions that somehow inclusive growth isn’t a real strategy, which credible economists – and not just those on speed dial for certain media outlets who have one answer for every problem – will tell you is a bogus argument. But hey, it’s 1995 and will always be 1995.

https://twitter.com/twitscotty/status/1301505825366773762

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1301496695814004736

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1301500044315693058

Continue reading →