Tag Archives: Populism

Roundup: Unvaccinated MPs should stay home without pay

Posted on by

It has begun – Conservative MPs warning that there will be a privilege fight if they don’t get to come to work in the House of Commons unvaccinated. This time it’s Mark Strahl, who was the party whip in the previous session, and he thinks that they should be allowed to attend if they submit to rapid testing, which is not a prophylactic against COVID. And a privilege fight is nonsense, of course – it’ll be the MPs themselves who set the rules that you need to be vaccinated to be in the Chamber (or possibly in the entire Precinct) – and by then, the rules around needing to be vaccinated to board a plane or train should also be in force. And if Conservatives on the Board of Internal Economy want to protest this rule, they’ll be outvoted, and that’ll be it. And if he brings a privilege motion to the House, the majority there can vote it down as well. There is no winning hand for anti-vaxxer MPs here.

The real question here is whether the other parties will bow to some sort of accommodation scheme, like letting unvaccinated MPs stay home and attend virtually – something I think should be opposed (the Bloc is already opposing it) because Parliament doesn’t work well in a hybrid setting. We tried it, and it was terrible. And frankly, MPs should also insist that those who refuse vaccination should not only have to stay hope – and not participate virtually – but should lose salary as well.

Parliament is an essential service, and they have a lot of work to do, and catering to a small percentage of conspiracy theorists and malcontents is only going to prolong this pandemic, and continue to overburden our healthcare system and create a lost generation of youth who will have missed out on opportunities. MPs are supposed to set an example – that starts with doing the responsible thing and being vaccinated.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cheering on an attack on institutional independence

Posted on by

Yesterday, Senator Claude Carignan tabled a bill that seeks to strip Julie Payette of her pension, and would strip any former Governor General of a pension if they don’t serve at least five years (never mind that nine of our 29 past Governors General did not serve at least five years). It’s an attack on the institutional independence of an office that can serve as a check on government, and needs to be called out as such.

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1376970875031945217

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1376971807576711168

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1376998266282328065

But just how was it discussed on Power & Politics last night? Over several segments, each of them with different pundits, the common consensus that this was great populist politics to go after an unpopular figure like Payette, and digging into the issue of their other benefits – because nothing sells in Canadian media like cheap outrage and hairshirt parsimony. The most we got to the cautionary tale was to beware unintended consequences, and that a future GG may have to invent a medical reason for a resignation (which the bill states that Cabinet would have to approve, which is entirely bonkers). Not one person – not one – raised the issue of institutional independence, and why it’s a Very Bad Thing to open the door to governments being able to threaten their financial well-being as a way to hold power over them, most especially when the beneficiaries of this independence (not only the GG, but also senators and Supreme Court justices) provide a check on the power of government. This is the level of discourse in this country? Seriously? And even more to the point, the host of the show kept steering the topic to this kind of populist, vindictiveness rather than the actual consequences of making an action like this. It is absolutely boggling, but it gives you a sense as to why things have degenerated as they have. This bill represents an existential threat to our parliamentary system, and it’s being played for petty drama and populist cheap shots.

We need better pundits in this country, and better politics shows. This is horrifying.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford fails, flails, and falsifies

Posted on by

As the numbers of this second wave of the pandemic continue to climb, Ontario premier Doug Ford continues to flail and grasp for any bit of cover that he can. Yesterday, while warning that the next set of modelling data are truly terrifying – but not actually doing anything about it – he tried to once again shift blame. And the not doing anything – making vague promises that he’ll consider more actions for Monday or Tuesday, rather than immediately, despite the fact that the current mockdown isn’t working and ICU capacity is at the red line in most of the hot spots, means that Mr. “I won’t hesitate” is once again hesitating, and there will be more lives lost on his watch.

As for the blame-shifting, Ford (along with a couple of other premiers) are howling that they’re running out of vaccines, after the slow roll-out – so slow that Ontario is already starting to give people their second doses. But, running out of vaccines is a good thing, because it means they’re going into arms. And more to the point, he knows that there are thousands of more Pfizer doses coming next week, the week after, and then again, the week after that, plus another bulk shipment of Moderna vaccines – and deliveries are expected to scale up further in February. They know this. This has been communicated for a while now, but he’s trying to deflect the attention to Trudeau once again to divert away from his own incompetence. (And apparently there were some hurt feelings among the premiers during Thursday’s first ministers meeting because Trudeau dared to criticize the provinces for their role in the slow roll-out. The poor dears).

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1347570045178818560

Meanwhile, here’s a roundup of vaccine plans and timelines being put out by the provinces and territories (assuming that they will actually meet them).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A tough case for Beyak’s expulsion

Posted on by

As the end of the fall sitting in Parliament approaches, the drama in the Senate is not abating as Independent senator Mary Jane McCallum has introduced a motion to have Senator Lynn Beyak expelled from the Chamber for her ongoing racism. There is a bit of procedural legitimacy to this: there hadn’t been a formal determination on whether or not to fully reinstate Beyak after her suspension order expired, and the debate on that was not concluded when prorogation happened. What is at play, however, is that the Senate’s ethics and conflict of interest committee had recommended that Beyak’s suspension be lifted because she did finally complete proper anti-racism training, removed the offending racist letters from her website and offered a more sincere apology to the institution. Senator Murray Sinclair publicly stated that he was willing to give her another chance at redemption. McCallum, it seems, is not.

This is going to be a very tricky to pull off, however – and would be a historic first. Normally when a senator gets into a lot of ethical trouble, they will resign so that they can preserve some sense of honour (along with their pension). Beyak, however, is unlikely to do the honourable thing, and will more than likely turn herself into some kind of free speech martyr, which is where much of the danger in McCallum’s approach lies. If this is handled ham-fistedly – as in “she’s a racist and shouldn’t be a senator” – then she is likely going to find a lot of defenders coming out of the woodwork from all sides, because they will feel that she has been a) denied procedural fairness, and b) will set a terrible precedent because as soon as one person can be expelled for their beliefs, then what belief will be on the chopping block next? Yes, racism is bad – but this is where people will start to look at slippery slopes, especially in this era of “cancel culture.” More to the point, the Ethics Officer said that she did everything that was asked of her, and the committee agreed, so trying to now argue for her suspension without an iron-clad case that she has breached the rules is going to be an uphill battle.

It’s important to remember why Senators have these kinds of protections, which is to preserve institutional independence. The Senate is one line of defence in parliament against a government with a majority of seats in the Commons who can ram through unconstitutional legislation by sheer numbers. The Senate has not only an absolute veto on everything short of constitutional amendments (for which they only have a six-month suspensive veto), but they have security of tenure so that they can’t be replaced should they stand in the way of a government trying to do something like pass an unconstitutional bill. The flip-side is that it makes problematic senators much harder to get rid of, which is generally why prime ministers should be very careful about who they appoint (which Stephen Harper very obviously was not). Yes, they can discipline their own – that comes with parliamentary privilege – but I have my doubts about McCallum’s case here. She is going to have do more than just call this institutional racism.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The slow part of the economic recovery

Posted on by

It was a big day for economic news – the Bank of Canada stating that they expect interest rates to continue to be at near-zero until 2023, as the economic recovery moves into a much slower phase as we wait for a vaccine for the pandemic. They also stated their plan to change how they buy bonds going forward. A few hours later, Chrystia Freeland gave a major speech wherein she stated that the government was going to keep spending until the pandemic was over, because they can at a time of such historically low interest rates, and because it provides businesses and households a necessary bridge through the economic turmoil until the pandemic is over. And for those of you in the back, it’s not 1995, and even with all of this added spending – which is time-limited – is not going to create a debt bomb. It’s just not.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1321497252783775744

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1321498671389777920

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1321498708551241729

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1321507072773685250

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1321499588683948032

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1321496597000323080

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1321500584046784512

Of course, conservative pundits set about clutching their pearls that the government is taking on the debt instead of households, apparently not comprehending that they have more tools and levers at their disposal than households – but these are the same chuckleheads who equate government debt with credit card debt. The Bank of Canada’s Monetary Policy Report noted that much of the recovery to date has been on the back of consumer spending, which is one more reason why allowing households to go insolvent and enforcing consumer austerity would only harm the economic recovery – we saw this in the Great Depression, where consumers who had money but didn’t spend it because of the social stigma prolonged the depression for years. And yet, we keep hearing “taxpayer dollars!” and “leaving debt to our children,” as though leaving them a weak economy is any better – particularly if that debt is affordable and is treated as an investment with programmes like childcare, that creates more economic returns. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp – and yet…

Meanwhile, here is Kevin Carmichael’s parsing of the Bank of Canada’s rate decision and Monetary Policy Report, while Heather Scoffield gives her own thoughts on Freeland’s speech.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The importance of keeping up democratic appearances

Posted on by

As the most populous areas of the country head back into some form of lockdown (thanks in large part to the premiers being generally useless), prime minister Justin Trudeau said that the two by-elections will continue as planned, as it’s important for Canadians to see that democracy keeps functioning in spite of the pandemic, and said pandemic could be worse later if there are delays, so best to do it now. In case it wasn’t obvious, new Green Party leader, Annamie Paul, has calling for the delays, as though it would make any actual difference for her doomed campaign in Toronto Centre given that it’s a “safe” Liberal seat. (I mean, miracles can happen, but it would be just that – a miracle, if she didn’t come in fourth again as she did during the last election).

There is, however, a bit of irony to this as the Liberals are also looking to make it easier to forgo nominations in ridings that they currently hold, doing away with the actual grassroots democracy of letting members of the riding decide whether or not they want to oust their incumbent or keep them around. In the last election, the party decided that there was a relatively high bar for a nomination to be protected (which is an abomination, don’t get me wrong), but now they’re looking at making that high bar much lower. And given that Trudeau decided to forgo proper nomination processes for the two by-elections, in spite of the fact that there were declared challengers to those who ended up being chosen, it really doesn’t seem like he’s demonstrating that grassroots democracy can still function in spite of the pandemic. Funny that.

All snark aside, I will note that the one positive out of these changes is that the party seems to be taking the search for more diverse candidates a little more seriously, and ensuring that the riding associations in unheld ridings needs to document that they did search for candidates who were women, as well as Black Canadians, people of colour, people with disabilities, or members of the LGBT community. The party did have some success with recruiting more women when they adopted a system of having people search for potential candidates, forwarding the party their name, and having the party follow up with them several times (because there is documented research that shows that women need to be asked multiple times before they will say yes, often because they feel underqualified even when they are more than qualified), so perhaps they will see some more success by extending this to other underrepresented communities. Time will tell, of course – particularly if they start using the pandemic as an excuse not to keep the grassroots process going as it should be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Responsibility for re-opening

Posted on by

For his Monday presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau didn’t have a lot of news – mostly talking about how the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy was now available for application, and that payments would be going out next week for businesses that are approved, and that they were working with the opposition on legislation for the new measures for students announced last week. And sure enough, later in the day, notice was given that the Commons would sit in some capacity on Wednesday, after their “special committee,” to pass said bill. (No word yet on whether the Senate gets recalled for Wednesday evening or Thursday morning). During the Q&A, Trudeau had to once again reiterate that he was loathe to enact the Emergencies Act, which people are still demanding that he do for some strange reason. He also stated once again the even though provinces may have different timelines when it comes to re-opening their economies (because, once again, each province has a different epidemiology), those provinces have rights and obligations around local measures, while the federal role was to provide guidelines that they should follow. Again, the notion that he should swoop in and take over their areas of jurisdiction remains a deeply frustrating one.

This jurisdictional howling will only get worse as both Ontario and Quebec unveiled their re-opening plans yesterday, Ontario starting with guideposts before they will move to next steps, while Quebec has decided that they will start opening some schools in two weeks, which has everyone alarmed that it’s too soon, and that they don’t understand the epidemiology of this disease, because it can and does affect children and they may actually be asymptomatic and become major spreaders. So that’s fun.

Meanwhile, the first “virtual” meeting of MPs in a Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic meets today, and everyone is going to call it a “historic first virtual sitting of Parliament,” and they’ll be wrong. Because it’s not a sitting of the Commons, it’s a special committee, that the Speaker will be chairing from a committee room in the West Block. And you can bet that Trudeau and others will pat themselves on the back for this, and “Because it’s 2020,” and that kind of noise, but it’s an absurdly unwieldy committee, and that’s it. Treat it with only that amount of reverence. (And look for my column on why this matters later today).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A big wage subsidy

Posted on by

For his Friday presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau had big headlines but few details – that the government was going to boost the wage subsidy for small and medium-sized businesses to 75 percent from the originally announced ten, along with a few other tax deferral measures to help businesses retain their liquidity. The details, however, aren’t going to be released until around Monday, but Trudeau stated that it was more important to get the message out that this help was on the way so that they would ensure that these businesses retained their employees (or even re-hire them) rather than lay them off so that they can collect EI or the new emergency benefit for the duration. Speed over perfection is the new motto of the times. (On a side note, Andrew Scheer was going around taking credit for this subsidy, when I know for a fact it was other people working behind the scenes, but Scheer needs to try and justify his existence).

This announcement came in the wake of a new PBO report that estimated the size of the deficit based on the measures that had been announced to that point, but what was particularly significant was that his modelling was that physical distancing would be in effect until August, which sent the various reporters into apoplexy, as they started demanding to know how long that Trudeau thought that current conditions were going to last – as though that was a question he could reasonably answer at a time where the Quarantine Act has only just been enforced, and we have returning snowbirds who think that these rules don’t apply to them, and where it’s still too soon to see how much of an effect the current measures have had. Quebec is seeing a spike in cases because their spring break was two weeks ahead of everyone else’s in the country, and it’s showing up in the data now.

It was also worthwhile noting that Bill Morneau and Stephen Poloz had another joint press conference today – Morneau to reiterate some of the messaging around the new wage subsidy, and Poloz to take questions about the emergency rate cut that the Bank of Canada announced shortly beforehand, where they cut rates to 0.25 percent, which is as low as they’re going to go, but to also engage in quantitative easing (which is not actually printing money as he spelled out). Their joint appearance seems to be remain under the aegis of trying to reassure the public and the markets that our fiscal heavyweights are on the case, but when this is all over, we will need to see our parliamentarians examining the relationship to ensure that monetary policy truly remained independent and not coordinated with fiscal policy, no matter how dire the economic situation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dubious studies on populism

Posted on by

A study out of Simon Fraser University shows that a rising number of Canadians are only “moderately convinced” that we should be governed by a representative democracy – nearly 60 percent, which is up 15 percent since 2017. As well, 70 percent of those surveyed don’t feel that government officials care about the concerns of “ordinary Canadians,” along with rising support for populism and anti-immigrant sentiments. This shouldn’t really surprise anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to what is going on in the world, but let’s first of all get out of the way that these percentages are fairly shoddy reporting once you dig into the study, which finds that Canadians are still very much in favour of democracy, and that the representative democracy still figures better than the other alternatives (direct democracy, rule by experts, strong ruler, military rule), and much of the reporting on the anti-immigrant sentiment is fairly torqued.

To be clear, I have a great many concerns about the methodology of the study, which offers some fairly torqued binaries for participants to choose from and then tries to draw conclusions from that, leaving no room for the kind of nuance that many of these positions would seem to merit. As well, their definitions of populism are too clinical and don’t seem to really reflect some of the attitudes that those who respond to the sentiments, so I’m not sure how much utility this methodology actually has in a case like this (or in this other study which looks at pockets of “forgotten workers,” which at least admits there are no obvious answers to stemming the tide of this sentiment). Nevertheless, there is some interesting regional breakdowns in where certain attitudes are more prevalent than others, and which identified populist sentiments register more strongly in some regions over others.

This having been said, the questions on people feeling frustrated with how democracy works are pretty much why I do the work that I do, particularly with the book that I wrote, which is all about identifying where things are breaking down (reminder: It’s not structural, but rather the ways in which people are not using the system properly), and showcasing how it should be operated, which is with the participation of voters at the grassroots levels. But if we’re going to get back to that system, that requires a lot of people at those grassroots demanding their power back from the leaders’ offices, and that also means needing to get out of the thrall of the messianic leader complex that we keep falling into, going from one messiah to another once the current one loses their lustre (which I do believe also feeds into the populist sentiments, who also latch onto messianic leaders). This can’t just be people complaining about the quality of the leaders out there – it’s about how we feed the system. If we input garbage, we get garbage out of it, and this hasn’t connected in the brains of enough voters yet. One day, perhaps, it might, but we don’t appear to be there yet, and the torqued binaries of a survey like this don’t help us get any better of an understanding of what it will take for people to wise up and get serious about our democratic system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not what parties are for

Posted on by

As part of a longer piece (linked in the section below), the campaign director of the Liberal Party offered a loathsome sentence yesterday, and it’s just so completely disheartening.

No. The role of the party is not just to win elections and to fundraise. In fact, this kind of attitude is why the political system in Canada is in the state that it’s in. Parties are just seen as election vehicles rather than the grassroots organizations that deal with ground-up policy development, selection and nomination of candidates, or holding either their local representatives or the party itself to account. There is a whole structure that parties are supposed to play in the political ecosystem of being the interlocutors between ordinary people and the caucuses in the capital – it’s not just about mobilizing volunteers to make phone calls and knock on doors during a campaign. It’s not just about election machinery. It’s about the lifeblood of politics.

But this is where we are – our bastardized leadership selection process, twisted into a parody version of American presidential primaries, has centralized power, and hollowed out parties so that they are no longer performing the functions they were designed to do, and instead are merely vassals to the personality cults that have added brand recognition. It’s utterly debased how the system is supposed to work, and campaign guys like these help to fuel the demise.

Continue reading →