Tag Archives: Prorogation

Roundup: PROC needs to grow up

Posted on by

I find myself losing all patience with the state of Commons committees in the current parliament, and the shenanigans happening at the Procedure and House Affairs committee right now are really not helping matters – and to be clear, it’s all sides that are to blame here, with particular blame going to the prime minister himself for starting this particular farcical exercise of tabling a prorogation report and patting himself on the back for it, and then watching it all blow up in his face.

The notion of a “prorogation report” was always stupid. I get that the idea was supposed to be about trying to increase openness and transparency, and finding a way to demonstrate that tactical prorogations would be avoided, and so on, but it was dumb. The better alternative, as I pointed out in my book, was to restore prorogation ceremonies, where the government would have to have a public accounting of what they accomplished in the session and outlining how they felt that they accomplished the goals set out in the previous Throne Speech, before they set out for a new one. You get public accountability, and you get some pomp and ceremony from the Governor General or the deputy reading that speech (and it should be the GG – the practice of it being the Chief Justice is another one of those particular pieces of historical trivia that is infuriating in how it perverted norms that were carried on unthinkingly). But Trudeau didn’t go that route, despite having publicly mused about it, and here we are today.

The fact that the Liberals are filibustering at the committee is everyone’s fault. Yes, Trudeau should appear at committee to testify why he decided to prorogue – it’ll be a useless exercise in him delivering talking points, but it’s his decision and he should be questioned for it if this is the route that he chose to go. But trying to get Katie Telford violates the issue of not calling staffers because of ministerial responsibility, and summoning the Kielburgers and the people who run Speaker’s Spotlight to testify as well is beyond ridiculous, because they have absolutely nothing to say about the prime minister’s decision. Sure, the prime minister quite likely prorogued because of the constant WE Imbroglio circus going on – but those particular figures aren’t going to say anything useful to the committee about the prorogation report, which is what they are supposed to be debating. It’s all about trying to keep the WE Imbroglio in the spotlight for as long as possible, never mind that most Canadians have long since moved on from it, because the opposition parties think they can still use it to score points. Nobody is doing their jobs anymore, the notion of a prorogation report is a sham, and this whole exercise is just wasting parliamentary time, and exhausting the limited resources of hybrid sittings (especially the interpreters). Everyone needs to grow the hell up, and maybe, just maybe, Trudeau will have learned his lesson that this report was a dumb idea and he’ll do the right thing next time and restore the prorogation ceremony instead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Such a serious country

Posted on by

The country is fixated on the election south of the border, while we’re failing to effectively deal with a global pandemic, but what shiny thing caught everyone’s attention yesterday? The fact that Whole Foods’ uniform policy forbade employees from wearing poppies. The horror! The horror! Politicians from all stripes across the country were outraged – outraged! Doug Ford leapt into action to declare he would pass legislation to make it illegal for businesses to prohibit employees from wearing poppies, which is more than he’s done about dealing with the pandemic in his own gods damned area of jurisdiction, so make of that what you will. Erin O’Toole got worked up and posted a video calling on people to boycott “Woke Foods,” which is not only not clever, but not even close to a reflection of the situation – in fact, Whole Foods came under fire for not allowing their employees to wear masks that said “Black Lives Matter” on them, so that’s hardly being Woke™. (Then again, when you wield a shitpost-shaped hammer, everything is a woke-shaped nail). It was the lead question in QP. Three separate unanimous motions were passed in the House of Commons after Question Period to condemn Whole Foods, to encourage all businesses to let their employees to wear poppies, and to summon the Whole Foods CEO to the Veterans Affairs committee to explain himself. Everyone needed a piece of their outrage pie.

A couple of hours later, the veterans affairs minister, Lawrence MacAulay put out a release saying that he spoke to said CEO and everything was okay – employees would be able to wear poppies after all. Phew! Of course, we got all parties on-side for the most useless and ridiculous of symbolic controversies, because that’s just how serious we are as a country. Well done, everyone.

Meanwhile, there’s still a pandemic where the second wave is spiking in Canada, and none of the premiers seem to want to do anything about it. Doug Ford is set to loosen restrictions on some of the most hardest-hit regions of Ontario, while his promise to hire thousands of more long-term care workers lacks any details, which sounds about right for Ford. Jason Kenney is calling on people to voluntarily stop having house parties, but won’t make any actual restrictions, nor will he sign onto the federal contact tracing app. You’d think that we’d be spending the day raking these premiers over the coals for their unwillingness to do anything (because it’ll hurt small business – when they have the capability of offering supports for them), but no, we can’t even do that either.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Alberta’s big budget hole

Posted on by

Alberta released a fiscal update yesterday, and it was pretty abysmal, projecting a record-breaking $24.2 billion deficit. The problem? Was that the province’s finance minister spent much of it lying to the legislature and Albertans about the state of their books going into the pandemic, not to mention not having a real plan for the recovery. But it to put some of the staggering numbers in context, the province is taking in more revenue from gambling, alcohol and cannabis than they are from oil revenues – you know, what they have based their economy on. Meanwhile, their non-existent recovery plan is bro-heavy, and they still insist that they have a spending problem on services rather than a revenue problem from having the lowest tax rate in the country and no sales tax – and you know that’s going to mean the province is looking to slash and burn services, and they’ve already started by picking fights with doctors in the middle of a global pandemic, and those doctors are already shutting down their clinics and moving away. So yeah, Alberta’s got problems.

Economists Andrew Leach and Lindsay Tedds have more, starting with this preview thread by Leach that set the stage for the speech of lies that was to come.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1299171987655327744

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1299173816577347584

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole on the third ballot

Posted on by

On a third ballot result, Erin O’Toole won the Conservative leadership race. The big event turned into a very big disaster. It was delayed by over six hours because the machine they were using to open the envelopes with ballots started destroying thousands of ballots, and it was well past midnight by the time the first ballot was even announced – far beyond the day’s news cycle and past the deadlines for newspapers’ first editions, which had long since gone to print. While we were waiting, Andrew Scheer gave his farewell speech, which was bitter, and full of jejune understandings of conservatism or the political landscape – he railed against imaginary left-wing straw men, scared up a Bolshevik threat, lied about the media – to the point where he called The Post Millennial and True North (aka Rebel Lite™) as “objective” that more people should pay attention to, which is incredible.

https://twitter.com/btaplatt/status/1297768475939819521

As for the result, this was very much about the social conservatives flexing their muscles within the party. Both Leslyn Lewis and Derek Sloan got over 35% of the votes combined on the first ballot, and there were places where either of the front-runners came in third to Lewis, and she swept Saskatchewan, where MacKay came in last. And true to form, it was those social conservatives’ down-ballot support that played kingmaker to O’Toole over MacKay, who was inexplicably considered the “last Progressive Conservative standing” (which doesn’t make sense because he was in no way a PC MP, especially if you look at his voting record). O’Toole at least has a seat, so that means he can get to work immediately, but we’ll see how many bruised feelings are in the caucus and party ranks given how the campaign played out, especially given that O’Toole hired a professional shitposter to run his campaign.

For his victory speech, O’Toole graciously thanked his competitors, and thanked the “patriotic Canadians” who made the victory happen. He paid special mention to Quebec, where he won the most votes, and made it clear that he was going to keep Sloan in the fold, in spite of some of his odious statements. O’Toole insisted that he was going to unite the party, before he took pot shots at Trudeau. He said they would be proposing a new “positive Conservative vision,” and that they would be ready for the next election, which could be as early as this fall. And then it was onto the doomsaying about the direction of the country under the Liberals, complete with the economic illiteracy that has marked the modern Conservative party. “The world still needs more Canada – it just needs less Justin Trudeau,” O’Toole said, before insisting that everyone has a home in the Conservative party.

We’ll delve into the entrails of the regional breakdowns of the race, and the particular mechanics of it and how that affected the results, but I will tell you right now that I have little patience for these takes about how this result means that the party’s power is shifting eastward – that’s hard to believe given the concentration of their votes, even though none of the leadership candidates came from there. And frankly, the notion that the party requires someone from Alberta to helm it keeps it blinkered, and insular. That’s not how you build the kind of national party that the country needs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A curious set of leaks

Posted on by

There was an interesting bit of news out yesterday in that the husband of Trudeau’s Chief of Staff, Rob Silver, was accused of having lobbied officials in Bill Morneau’s office as well as the PMO about making changes to the emergency wage subsidy legislation so that the company he worked for would qualify for it (which they don’t as they are majority-owned by Quebec’s pension plan). Apparently, he was turned down and those officials said that they felt “uncomfortable” by it all, but it’s nevertheless raising questions, and the Lobbying Commissioner is going to review the incident (but it’s likely he fell within the rules of not registering because it falls under the 20 percent threshold). There’s also no suggestion that said PM’s Chief of Staff, Katie Telford, was associated in any of this, nor the PM, but that’s not really what’s interesting about it.

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1296947674046959617

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1296952196022571009

For the past two weeks, as the leaks about Bill Morneau started coming out in advance of his departure, we also saw a number of warnings over social media about Liberals being their own worst enemies and that now was really not a good time for a civil war within the party. The fact that there were anonymous leaks to both VICE and the National Post about this incident shows that someone is suddenly awfully keen to talk, hoping to possibly embarrass PMO in some way, and considering that the leakers are showing how virtuous they were in standing up to Silver might make one assume that those leakers are loyalists of Morneau who are trying to, if not burnish his reputation, then certainly tarnish his detractors. I do wonder if this is a limited screw-you to Trudeau, because I haven’t yet seen camps loyal to Chrystia Freeland and François-Philippe Champagne forming and trying to oust Trudeau so that one of them can take over just yet. That said, this year has proven to be full of surprises, so we’ll see.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Combing the document dump

Posted on by

The mass of WE-related documents were the subject of yesterday’s news fodder, and the fact that they largely corroborated the government’s assertion that the civil servants were the ones who suggested WE Charity be the vehicle to deliver the Canada Student Service Grant programme. They did, however, make a couple of notes that raised eyebrows – one was another communication between Bardish Chagger and the Kielbergers (though she has responded to dispel those concerns, saying it was a general comment she had made as the CSSG was not on her radar at the time), and the other were communications between Bill Morneau’s office and the finance department officials where Morneau’s office were described as “besties” with WE – which doesn’t necessarily prove that this was some orchestrated campaign to benefit WE. There were also documents wherein Jean-Yves Duclos was clearly not comfortable with WE being the only delivery vehicle for the programme because they don’t have sufficient depth in Quebec, though he was being assured otherwise.

To these revelations, and the fact that some of the pages had redactions on them (which is standard for both Cabinet confidences and instances where privacy is involved), the Conservatives and Pierre Poilievre in particular put on a melodramatic press conference full of air quotes and flung pages, and the howling accusation that there was a cover-up in the works. Because we all know that when you don’t find the answers you want, there must be a conspiracy at play. It’s not unexpected, and I’m not sure he won over any converts among the Canadian public, but hey, this is all theatre for him, like so many things in Canadian politics.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland precedes a prorogation

Posted on by

The fallout from Bill Morneau’s resignation yesterday culminated in a brief Cabinet shuffle that saw Chrystia Freeland appointed to replace him as finance minister, and Dominic LeBlanc taking over her intergovernmental affairs responsibilities. This makes Freeland the country’s first woman federal finance minister, and there was much back-patting over that particular glass ceiling being shattered. The bigger news, however, was the fact that prime minister Justin Trudeau decided to prorogue Parliament to return on September 23rd – the same week they were intended to return anyway – for a new Speech from the Throne that would outline a new set of priorities for the government in order to focus on rebuilding the economy. Trudeau said that it was the time to move forward rather than revert to the status quo, and that we need bold new solutions rather than being held back by old ways of thinking. He also said that the pandemic was an “unprecedented opportunity,” a chance to build a more resilient Canada, which is healthier, safer, more competitive, more welcoming, and fairer. “This is our moment to change the future for the better,” he declared, adding that the window of opportunity wouldn’t be open for long.

During the Q&A, Trudeau only had praise for Morneau and wouldn’t elaborate on the leaks that happened up to his resignation. Regarding the Governor General, he said that he had confidence in the third-party investigative process launched by PCO. On his children going back to school, he said that they were discussing the matter “actively.” Regarding Freeland’s previous writing on taxing the super-wealthy, Trudeau said that he has been having this conversation with Freeland since he recruited her to politics, which is why the first thing they did was raise taxes on the top one percent, and that they wouldn’t raise taxes at this time. Regarding prorogation, Trudeau tried to differentiate his move with Harper’s 2008 prorogation by saying that while Harper was trying to avoid a confidence vote, he was instead putting one on the table with the Speech (err, except the logic falls apart when you realize that Harper also had a confidence vote following that prorogation, which he survived). He said that they continue to cooperate on any WE investigations, and that they released those thousands of pages of documents to the committee so that they can study them over the next month of fallow period, and that the opposition can keep asking questions when Parliament resumes. And when asked if he would be on the ballot next election, Trudeau said he would be and that he was “excited about the opportunity and the responsibility.”

We also got an extended response from Freeland, beyond her praise for Morneau, both about breaking the glass ceiling around women in the finance portfolio, and the government’s feminist agenda, which was important because of how this crisis has disproportionately affected women. Regarding her own disagreements with Trudeau – because of the narrative being promulgated about Morneau’s ouster – Freeland said that she and the PM had recently reflected “with good humour” on times they disagreed, and that she felt that having those different points of view, with the ability to have open, respectful, candid conversation about them (behind closed doors) brought government to a better decision. So there’s that.

On the subject of prorogation, this is vastly different from 2008, and anyone who tries to compare the two is either being disingenuous or has a comprehension problem. The WE Imbroglio is hardly a scandal – yes, it highlights the PM’s poor judgment, and that should be the cue that it’s time for him to leave, but that’s about it. The attempts by the various committees to find a smoking gun haven’t been able to find one, and several of them are exceeding their mandates in trying to force more investigations. Prorogation won’t end any ongoing committees, but delay them, though I’m really not sure there’s much more to be gained by continuing them, for what it’s worth. This being said, Trudeau proroguing now instead of waiting until the eve of his scheduled Throne Speech is not exactly a smart move given the current pandemic context, because if there is a need for an emergency recall of Parliament for a new legislative measure as a result of said pandemic, they will need to have a Throne Speech before that can happen. While I’m sympathetic to those former staffers who said that the government needs to focus on their Throne Speech and budget, and that the WE stuff was a real distraction from that, I would say too bad – the government made its bed and needs to lay in it. It was unnecessarily provocative and only increases people’s cynicism about Trudeau breaking his promise not to use tactics like these for political gain.

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield makes note of the juggling act that Freeland will need to employ in order to balance the goals she’s facing, but notes her experience as a working mother will help. Susan Delacourt points out that Freeland is the only “star candidate” of Trudeau’s that is still standing and hasn’t been tarnished along the way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flashbacks about prorogation

Posted on by

It was a day of flashbacks to 2008, as Boris Johnson asked the Queen to prorogue the Parliament in Westminster, and social media had erupted with cries of “coups,” “dictatorships,” and wannabe constitutional scholars ignoring nearly two centuries of Responsible Government as they tried to implicate the Queen in granting Johnson’s request. Of course, there are some fundamental differences between now and the 2008 prorogation, such as the fact that there will still be a “washing up period” of a few days, as is traditional with UK prorogations, and time where the opposition can still try to move some kind of motion to try and stop a no-deal Brexit, though I’m not sure what mechanism they would use. A private member’s motion would be non-binding (and would carry only the symbolic weight of the Chamber), while a private members’ bill would try to impose some kind of negative obligation on the government – even if it could be sped through in those final days – and if there is no no-deal option on the table, it would then impose the necessity to have some kind of deal, which the Commons has already rejected. There is also the option of moving a non-confidence motion in those remaining days, which could topple Johnson’s government, ostensibly. The prorogation is also for a couple of weeks, and will return Parliament by October 14th, which still leaves it time to do something about Brexit before the October 31stdeadline. Johnson’s move may be dubious – and a dick move – but it could have been much worse. It’s not a coup. It’s not demolishing democracy. And it’s not eliminating parliament as an obstacle to Johnson – in fact, it may have only made it worse, as the move signals his desperation.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166695661108105216

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166717156140244992

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166680410392289280

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166683151588057089

All of this being said, we need to also remember that some of the received wisdom of the 2008 prorogation crisis needs to be challenged. For example, people keep insisting that Michaëlle Jean was wrong to grant Harper the prorogation (ignoring that if she refused the advice of her prime minister, he would have been obligated to resign, which would have created a whole other constitutional crisis), that an opposition coalition would have been able to take over. The problem is that said coalition was never really viable, and pretty much everyone knew it. And this was proven correct by the fact that it did not survive the prorogation period. Had it done so, had they banded together and moved a motion of non-confidence, then formed a coalition, then sure, it would have proven that it was viable, and it would have reinforced that the system was working (as it did in when Sir John A Macdonald did not survive a prorogation to avoid a confidence vote around the Pacific Scandal). But the coalition fell apart, proving that Jean was right to simply grant the prorogation – making Harper stew about it for a few hours – and doing her job in acting on the advice of a first minister. But you’re going to hear a rehash of the coalition fanfic of the day, and we need to remember that it was only that – fiction.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt offers her thoughts on the prorogation, the disconnect between parliaments and the outside world, and the idle speculation about whether Stephen Harper’s 2008 prorogation may have inspired Johnson.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The data for the debunking

Posted on by

I love a good takedown of some tired talking points, and lo, we have another doozy. You know how Andrew Scheer’s whole schtick and electoral campaign strategy is that carbon pricing makes life unaffordable for people because it drives up costs? This is the narrative he’s pinning his fortunes on, and lo, we find more data that it’s simply not true. Data from Alberta, which implemented its carbon tax two years ago, found that the inflation levels weren’t any different from other provinces, meaning that carbon taxes didn’t drive up prices. Mind you, having data won’t stop Scheer’s carousel of lies, because lying to people to make them angry is what he thinks is going to win him the election (and it might), but it’s still a lie, and we have yet more proof that it’s a lie.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the other side isn’t being sloppy with its own messaging. Rachel Notley is trying to go after Jason Kenney talking about tolls, but she undermines her own arguments for a carbon tax because it’s the logic works the same way. But that’s the attempt at populist messaging for you. Unfortunately.

Meanwhile the Yukon has come up with their carbon pricing system, which involves a certain level of rebates, with higher levels to those in remote areas – something that is of particular concern for those living in any of the Territories.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving succour to racists to own the libs

Posted on by

That heckler the PM had an encounter with late last week turned into a big Thing today as it was revealed that she was a member of far-right and anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant groups in Quebec, and that her heckles were a set-up that Trudeau walked into. Trudeau himself offered no apologies for his response, but wouldn’t you know it – the Conservatives have decided to go to bat for this woman.

No, seriously. “Asking a question about the budget.” That was not “asking a question about the budget.” The translation of her (shouted) question was “I want to know when you are going to refund the $146 million we paid for your illegal immigrants.” That’s not a polite policy difference about interprovincial politics, as so many other conservatives have tried to intimate, that her question was the same one asked by three different provincial governments. It was followed up by her asking if Trudeau was tolerant of “Québécois de souche,” which some people translate as “old stock Quebeckers,” but that lacks the racially-charged nuance of the phrase, which some have likened to the “Quebec-speak variant of Master Race.” Add her “question about the budget” to this racially-charged phrase shows that she’s not concerned about the budget – she believes that these asylum seekers are stealing from Quebec. But, you know, it was “a question about the budget.” But wait – it gets better.

Andrew Scheer decided to weigh in and, ignoring all of what happened and the context, and the woman’s racially-charged language, Scheer attacked Trudeau for “name-calling” and “demonizing” people who are critical of him. Trudeau calling an avowed racist, with a history of public racism, a racist, is apparently “a vile [personal] insult” because he’s afraid of “legitimate criticism.” So yeah – way to go for offering succor to racists and white nationalists to “own the libs.” And while this woman’s apologists go on about how Trudeau “inflamed the situation” rather than answering her question – as though it was asked in good faith (it wasn’t) and wasn’t going to be immediately followed up with her racist remarks (which it was inevitably, given that this was demonstrably a set-up), you have to wonder just how wilfully blind Scheer and company will be in order to try and make Trudeau out to be the real monster.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1031727549896957952

Meanwhile, John Ivison says that confrontations like these are political gold for Trudeau because he can run against the image of a xenophobic Conservative party, which plays well to a certain segment of the population, while Chris Selley says that Trudeau needs to be careful when calling out intolerance because of his party’s own obnoxious tendencies.

Continue reading →