Tag Archives: Karen McCrimmon

Roundup: What open nominations?

Posted on by

Do you remember when the Liberals considered themselves the party of open nominations? And how they were always going to uphold the democratic right of riding associations to run fair, open and transparent processes to select the candidates that would appear on the ballot for them? Because apparently the party has put this particular bit of democracy, openness and transparency down the memory hole as they continue to acclaim candidates from across the country. In two of these cases, the acclamations came a mere day after the incumbents announced that they weren’t running again, and in one of those ridings – Kanata-Carleton – there was the making of a contested nomination as rumours swirled that Karen McCrimmon wasn’t going to run again, and the riding association was frustrated that they couldn’t get any kind of answer from the party on how and when to run said contested nomination.

Now, the party is going to defend its honour by pointing out that their rules state that they can declare a state of “electoral urgency” to bypass the nomination process, but this is more of the Liberals’ penchant of letting the ends justify the means. They created the rules that were easily gamed, and frankly, the “electoral urgency” clause is a load of bullshit because they were using it in 2019 in the months before the election when they knew they had four years to have this process ongoing because there was a fixed election date under a majority parliament, so there were no surprises. Yes, the pandemic has made nomination races tougher because of public health restrictions, and the party has come under fire for using a verification system that includes facial recognition technology (which BC’s privacy commissioner is investigating, per that province’s laws), but again, these were things that the party should have been cognisant of and dealing with rather than simply wringing their hands and pulling the “electoral urgency” alarm to fast-track their hand-picked candidates, thwarting local democracy, and accountability.

Open nominations are one of the most important and fundamental building blocks of our democratic system. When parties flout those rules, it hurts the entire system – especially as it cements even more power in the leaders’ offices. That the Liberals are so blatantly ignoring their own supposed values in this crucial stage of the democratic process is a sign that the way the party rewrote their constitution to fit the Trudeau era is a very real problem that they are going to have to do a lot of soul-searching to address, especially when that age comes to its inevitable end.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Demanding immediate parity

Posted on by

It seems that I couldn’t ignore the siren call of the Senate bat-signal one last time. A group of prominent women want the prime minister to ensure that all 22 current vacancies in the Senate be filled with women in order to quickly achieve gender parity in the upper chamber. Trudeau has already stated that he wants to move the chamber toward gender parity and diverse representation as part of the appointment process (and it does have more women and minorities on a proportional basis than the Commons does), but this would be a bit more strident. It’s not a terrible idea, and one doesn’t really want to get into the “merit” debate because there isn’t a shortage of meritorious women that could fill every one of those seats. That’s not the issue. What I worry about is that it sets up a situation where the demand that it be balanced at all times, so as to start setting gendered seats in each province, and that if there is a retirement or resignation, it becomes imperative that the new holder of that seat be of the gender that is required to maintain balance, despite there being other considerations for some of those seats, such as linguistic minorities, Aboriginals, or other minority communities. Where this would especially be problematic is Quebec, where there are senatorial districts, and it could “lock in” the gender of those districts’ senators, despite the fact that some of those districts were initially established to protect other communities. Meanwhile, David Akin penned an utterly facile column that conflates the Duffy trial with the broader problems of the Senate and somehow comes to the conclusion that constitutional Senate reform is the answer, never mind that he offers no actual vision for what that reform is supposed to accomplish, and he may have missed the memo that elected chambers have spending scandals. All. The. Time. Left unsaid is the fact that the Senate has undergone substantial internal reform and tends largely to be more transparent than the Commons, not that it fits within anyone’s narrative of the “grasping, tawdry circus” of the Senate, when on the whole it is anything but. Seriously, pundit class – reality doesn’t quite reflect your tired received wisdom.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/679460774213857280

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/679461199080075264

Continue reading →

Roundup: Opposition day mischief

Posted on by

Party leader for less than a week, and Justin Trudeau decides to get up to a little bit of (well-intentioned) mischief. When the Conservatives decided that Monday was going to be a Liberal opposition day, Trudeau and company decided to put it to good use – to debate a motion that would see the Standing Orders changed to that Members’ Statements would be put into a strict alphabetical rotation in order to guarantee that every single MP would get their turn to deliver one (note: this would not include ministers, as they get their own allotted time for statements after QP daily), and that the whip’s office couldn’t deny them that spot if they disagreed with the content of their statement. For the Liberals, it’s no big deal because it’s pretty much what they do already in their own caucus, but more importantly, if they can get the ten Conservative backbenchers who have now added their voices to Mark Warawa’s privilege motion about being muzzled with regards to those statements to add just a couple more MPs to their numbers, well, it could embarrass the government. Not that the government couldn’t conceivably whip such a vote – it is an opposition day motion and not private members’ business, after all – but it would make them look even more foolish in light of the privilege motion, and would increase the pressure that it faces from its own backbench. (Note: Yes, I will add my customary finger-wag that this is not an opposition day motion that demonstrates why the government should be denied supply, which is the point of opposition days in the supply cycle. And the Liberals, with their cudgel of the tariff increases, could very easily do a proper opposition day motion, but they didn’t).

Continue reading →

Coasting towards the finish line: the Liberal leadership showcase

Posted on by

It was supposed to have been the grand climax of the six-month leadership process, the epic final presentations designed to wow the Liberal faithful who were registered to vote, and that last chance to gain the necessary second- and third-place support for the ranked ballot process. Instead, it was largely a parade of disappointment, campaigns out of steam and in some cases, visibly out of cash, and a confirmation that the race belonged to Trudeau without any shred of doubt.

After the tributes to Bob Rae, who apparently has been elevated to full leader status in hindsight, if you listened to what the presenters said, the presentations began, each candidate given a full twenty-five minutes to showcase themselves and their campaigns. That’s right – twenty-five minutes, which it quickly became apparent was an interminable length of time for most candidates.

Continue reading →

The race for second place – the Montreal debate

Posted on by

The final debate with the six remaining candidates walking into the workroom and seeing the message that David Bertschi left for them on the mirror in lipstick – just kidding! Only in a perfect universe would the Liberal leadership race play out like RuPaul’s Drag Race. No, instead, all six were on stage in Montreal, with a debate format of opening statements, three-person debates and a series of one-on-ones, before closing remarks. And because only six candidates remain and not nine, it allowed for slightly longer exchanges and for a somewhat more focused debate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Keystone XL silence

Posted on by

Thomas Mulcair is in Washington DC, and while he didn’t actively lobby against the Keystone XL pipeline down there, he did argue that it would cost some 40,000 Canadian jobs (though I’m not sure where that number might have come from). Joe Oliver, meanwhile, thinks that Mulcair is being hypocritical by remaining silent, since he and his party have already made their position on the pipeline clear (and I’m sure that he would like to hit back at the NDP for lobbying against Canada’s interests if that were the case).

They’ve been in government for seven years, but Peter MacKay still insists that the problems in replacing our fleet of search and rescue planes isn’t the fault of the defence department – despite all evidence to the contrary, with allegations of rigged bid processes (once again).

Continue reading →

The fight for second place: The Halifax debate

Posted on by

The fourth and second last Liberal leadership debate took place at the Pier 21 Museum in Halifax. The big difference this time is that we had one candidate self-eliminate, being of course hot republican mess George Takach, who dropped out last week to support Justin Trudeau. That said, the bottom three were still the bottom three and should all have been eliminated by now if we were conducting this leadership race by the RuPaul’s Drag Race model that I’ve been advocating, and the middle tier would be in the make-or-break points in their bids for leadership. But alas, that is not the case.

Continue reading →

Magic Bean Economics and tragicomedy: The Mississauga debate

Posted on by

The third Liberal leadership debate was held today in Mississauga, and while the format was somewhat more successful than the previous debacle, it really did reinforce the candidate ranking that has emerged over the course of the debates. The one-on-one questions could have been better served if each exchange were another minute longer, and the moderate stepped in when they tried to talk about themselves in the form of a question. Because really, take the format seriously. The three-person debates worked quite well, and got the best traction of the debates to date.

Remaining in the bottom four were David Bertschi, George Takach, Martin Cauchon and Karen McCrimmon. If this contest were like RuPaul’s Drag Race, as it should be, then Bertschi and at least one other would have been eliminated by this point, but alas, they are still hanging around. And once again, they reminded us why they are in the bottom four.

Continue reading →

Domesticity politics: the Winnipeg non-debate

Posted on by

“I’m sorry my dears, but you are up for elimination.” Ten words that should have been spoken, but one again, were not as the second Liberal leadership – well, “forum” – happened in Winnipeg. It was not a debate, but a series of one-on-one interviews with failed candidate Harvey Locke, whose uninteresting and frankly dull interview style did nothing to advance the plot of the leadership race. Someone pointed out that leaders do more one-on-one interviews than they do debates, so from that viewpoint it made a certain amount of sense – but one would think you’d need a competent interviewer and some actual questions of substance.

There isn’t a whole lot to be said about each of their answers, other than the fact that several of them had a tendency to ramble aimlessly around the topic without offering a substantive answer, and it didn’t help that the interviewer didn’t call them on it or try and keep it engaging.

Continue reading →

A few too many: the Vancouver Liberal leadership debate

Posted on by

Sunday was the first of five Liberal leadership debates, and it certainly showcased a few things – mostly the seriousness with which we should be paying attention to some of the also-rans, and how the field needs to be whittled down. Because it does. The nine candidates were about four too many in this round, and it should be whittled down even more as they proceed. I almost have this vision of the remaining debates being run like RuPaul’s Drag Race, where every week, the bottom two candidates must debate for their lives, at which point RuPaul will declare to one queen candidate “chanté, you stay,” and the other to “sashay away,” until we are down to the top three.

But a boy can dream.

Continue reading →