Tag Archives: Rachel Notley

Roundup: A ridiculous court appeal

Posted on by

There is a court case in Ontario, now being appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, filed by election reform advocates claiming that the existing single-member plurality voting system is unconstitutional because it violates Charter rights. It was rightfully dismissed by the Superior Court judge, because obviously, but there is something I did want to remark on. No, I’m not going to go into another rant about why I’m not a fan of proportional representation systems, or how most of their arguments deliberately misconstrue how single-member plurality works, but rather about how this is yet another attempt to use the courts when you lose at politics.

Beyond this kind of challenge being just on this side of lawfare, what gets me is how these kinds of groups seem to have zero conception of just what they want the courts to order in terms of a remedy, because that’s a pretty big deal. You want the courts to declare that the current system violates the Charter? Ignoring for the moment that their arguments are specious and jejune, what exactly do they think the courts are going to do? Order the federal government to implement a PR system? Which one? Because that’s kind of a giant sticking point. One of the main reasons why the electoral reform committee in Trudeau’s first parliament failed is because the recommendations in that report were hot garbage—design a bespoke system with a bunch of factors that rendered it virtually impossible to achieve without some major constitutional changes. PR is not one system you can just plug-and-play—there are so many variations of it that can wildly affect outcomes that it’s not inconceivable that it would degenerate into a major fight for years, while the court’s declaration of invalidity hangs over them. How does that work, exactly?

There are similar problems with other court challenges, such as the ones purportedly launched by youth over climate change. What exactly do they think the courts are going to propose as a remedy in that kind of a situation—and if you say “follow the science,” you deserve a smack upside the head, because science is a process, not a declaration. Science is not policy. The courts cannot impose policy, which is why it’s a really dumb idea to resort to the courts when you lose at politics. But that’s what we’re getting a lot of, and it means using the wrong tools and wasting a lot of time and energy to attack the problem in entirely the wrong way.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian drones attacked an oil storage depot in western Russia, causing a massive blaze, as a way of unsettling voters ahead of their presidential election.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rachel Notley announces her departure

Posted on by

In a move that has been expected for over a month now, Alberta NDP leader and former premier Rachel Notley announced that she’ll step down as soon as her replacement is chosen, and no, she has absolutely ambition to run federally. It’s probably a good thing that Notley has decided enough is enough, thus avoiding becoming another Andrea Horwath, and frankly, considering how she managed to lose the debate against Danielle Smith, and from there the election, well, it was probably time to call it a day and let a fresher face take over.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that Notley’s time in Alberta politics was transformational—even though her rise to government was largely accidental (voters looking to punish Jim Prentice’s PC government for having the temerity to tell them to “look in the mirror” about demanding high services and low taxes had no other options as the provincial Liberals’ leader just bailed and the Wildrose were decimated after Danielle Smith crossed the floor with most of their MLAs), she managed to run a government that was reasonably competent in a province where one-party rule had left them corrupt and unable to do things like come up with realistic budgets that didn’t involve throwing money at problems. She did what every NDP organisation dreams of and decimated the provincial Liberal party, forcing the centrist voters in the province to her banner by running more to the centre herself, and essentially turning the province into a two-party race. But it’s also notable how her success also had a lot to do with moving away from standard NDP dogma.

Here are some reactions to her announcement (and I thought Jagmeet Singh’s was especially hilarious considering how she spent most of her time in office distancing herself from him), a few biographical details, and a look at her legacy.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Unsurprisingly, the higher intensity of Russian attacks led to a sharp increase in civilian deaths over December. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is attending the World Economic Forum in Davos to drum up more support from partners, and met with Antony Blinken while he was there. (No doubt Conservatives in Canada are going to hold this attendance at Davos against him, because conspiracy theories).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1747261931164192849

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exploring a national emergency response agency

Posted on by

Something that caught my eye over the weekend was an interview that Harjit Sajjan had with The Canadian Press over the weekend about building up some kind of national emergency response agency, so that we don’t have to constantly rely on the military for each event as we have been. It would likely be a network of local and regional agencies, but have some kind of federal coordinating role, but we do have some models domestically to draw on, such as the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre. The issue there is that it’s only geared toward one kind of event, whereas floods and hurricanes or tornadoes require different responses.

To that end, Sajjan is looking at different models and how different countries manage their agencies, so he’s not immediately jumping on an American FEMA model, but if there is one particular note of caution to sound it’s that we can’t rely on the premiers not ballsing this up or making ridiculous demands because none of them want to spend money on this kind of thing if they think they can get away with forcing the federal government to spend instead, while at the same time not willing to cede any jurisdictional sovereignty so that the federal government can actually do anything other than just give them money that they totally promise will be spent on this and not on tax cuts (really, we promise this time, for reals!)

There’s a reason we’ve come to rely on the military for this kind of work, which is that provinces don’t want to spend the money, and the federal government has so far refused to make provinces reimburse the Forces for doing the work (because they would be massacred in the headlines if they did), and provinces know that. It doesn’t help that the NDP think that this is really the only kind of thing that the military should be doing either. But something has to give, and let’s hope the federal government, of whichever stripe is in power if this gets off the ground, doesn’t simply roll over for the premiers’ usual nonsense on this.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians launched a massive drone attack on early Sunday aimed at the southern and western Ukraine, while Ukraine launched a drone attack against a Russian airbase in Russia’s Rostov province. As Russia presses to try and capture Avdiivka, Associated Press has seen drone footage in the area that shows at least 150 bodies in Russian uniforms littering the treeline.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole claims privilege over foreign interference

Posted on by

Yesterday in the House of Commons, Erin O’Toole rose on a point of privilege to say that his briefing from CSIS warned of “active” campaigns against him from China in four categories—that they are funding operatives to build propaganda campaigns against him, funding networks to amplify it, using WeChat for that purpose, and run voter suppression against his party and one MP in particular. His claim is that the government’s inability or unwillingness to act on the intelligence of foreign interference impacts his privileges as an MP.

I’m dubious that this constitutes an actual breach of privilege, because frankly, if disinformation campaigns, social media amplification and voter suppression are happening, well, his own party is just as guilty as the Chinese regime of doing exactly the same thing. I also fail to see what the House of Commons can do about addressing this supposed breach of privilege other than vote on sending a strongly-worded rebuke to the regime in Beijing. I also don’t necessarily trust that O’Toole is giving us all of the relevant details because he seemed to be very selective with what he wrote about his meeting with David Johnston on his Substack, and I cannot stress this enough, Erin O’Toole is a serial liar. Unfortunately, because he does it with a solemn tone and not, say, a clown nose and a unicycle, he manages to bamboozle a swath of the pundit class who are convinced that he’s the upstanding guy that they all want him to be rather than who he proved himself to be during his leadership, and that somehow, now that he’s no longer the leader, he’s gone back to being the guy they all want him to be. I don’t get it.

Meanwhile, the NDP used their Supply Day to call on David Johnston to step down so that the government will call a public inquiry. This while Pierre Poilievre is daring Singh to bring down the government, and Singh saying he won’t until trust is restored in elections (which is tactically stupid). The government insists they have confidence in Johnston, but it does raise the point that if everyone but the Liberals vote for this, it becomes politically untenable for the government to maintain the current course of action, even if it’s the right thing to do (because I remain unconvinced that a public inquiry will do absolutely anything more in this situation other than take three years, cost $180 million, and create a media circus with a daily drip of “revelations” that will amount to nothing but will nevertheless fuel said media circus). But this may wind up backing the Liberals into a corner and forcing them to call an inquiry, lest the damage get worse.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A bad report and a bad debate

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released another one of his highly dubious reports yesterday, this time on the incoming clean fuel regulations. Why is it dubious? Because it’s entirely one-sided and assumes no costs to climate change, and no adaptation on the part of industry in order to bring costs down to meet their obligations under the regulations, which is the whole gods damned point of these kinds of mechanisms. Oh, and this isn’t fiscal policy, so it’s not clear why he’s even doing this kind of report in the first place.

As you may have noticed during Question Period, the Conservatives jumped all over this report and its findings, and when they were questioned, their media staff were over social media accusing people of calling the PBO a liar. Well, it’s not that he’s a liar—it’s bad data, a bad report, and the numbers taken from it were used dishonestly and entirely in bad faith. And the PBO gets the attention he’s looking for, and around and around we go.

Rachel Notley vs Danielle Smith

For the purposes of researching my column last night, I subjected myself to the leaders’ debate in the Alberta election and it was…not great. Yes, lots of people gushed at how nice it was just to have two leaders going head-to-head and not four or five, but we don’t have a two-party system federally (and it’s a bad sign that Alberta has a de facto one provincially).

My not-too-original observations were that Notley was weirdly on the defensive most of the night, while Smith was pretending to be the upstart challenger rather than the incumbent, attacking Notley on her record at every turn when Notley wasn’t effectively throwing many punches herself. Yes, she did well on the healthcare and education portions, but was not effectively countering Smith’s confident bullshit throughout, and that’s a real problem in a lower voter-information environment, where that confidence plays well regardless of the fact that Smith lied constantly with a straight face. On the very day that Smith was found to have broken the province’s Conflict of Interest Act, Notley had a hard time effectively making this point, while Smith claimed vindication because it showed she didn’t directly call Crown prosecutors, while it full-out warned that Smith’s behaviour was a threat to democracy, and Notley could barely say the words.

Programming Note: I am taking the full long weekend off, so expect the next post to be on Wednesday.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There are reports of more air raids in Ukraine early Friday morning. Russians fired 30 cruise missiles against Ukrainian targets in the early morning hours on Thursday, and Ukraine shot down 29 of them, with the one that got through striking an industrial building in Odessa, killing one and wounding two. There were also further gains made around Bakhmut, and even the Wagner Group’s leader says that they have bene in retreat. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy set up a reintegration council in order to provide advice for the restoration of Ukrainian rule when they liberate Crimean.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1659213321927794693

Continue reading →

Roundup: Threats against MPs becoming routine

Posted on by

Every now and again we get reminders that these are not normal political times, and that older political norms are starting to slip away as the memification of politics takes over, and polarization has been made worse. Threats against MPs are far more prevalent than they ever were, and lo, Liberal MP George Chahal posted some of the threats his office received last week.

It’s grotesque, and even more the point are those in the comments who defend these kinds of messages and actions as somehow being justifiable or justified. Nothing can justify it, and unfortunately, this state of affairs is being worsened by the fact that our norms continue to be eroded, because they drive clicks and get fundraising dollars. This is the kind of thing that everyone should be standing against, but I fear that at best, we’ll get a tepid denunciation of this from political leaders across the board, even though some should be most emphatically making the point that this kind of thing isn’t okay.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces have been advancing in two directions toward Bakhmut, but are not ready to take the city centre yet, apparently. This while there was a massive overnight barrage of drones from Russia, damaging an energy facility in Khmelnytskyi region, killing two civilians in Kostyantynivka, and shelling in the Kharkiv region. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with the Pope at the Vatican and sought support for Ukraine’s peace plan (for what good that does). Zelenskyy also made stops in Paris and Berlin, where he said that a counter-offensive will not strike into Russian territory because their sole aim is to reclaim their own territory from Russian occupation.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1657501338719199233

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1657875550361272321

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1657643236989517825

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole emerges, with zero self-reflection

Posted on by

It’s day one-hundred-and-seventeen of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the standoff in Severodonestk continues amid worsening morale on both sides. There are reports that whole Russian units are refusing orders, between poor front-line conditions, poor equipment and lack of personnel. While president Voldymyr Zelenskyy visited cities in the south of the country, promising not to abandon them, NATO’s secretary general is warning members that this conflict could last for years at this pace.

Closer to home, Erin O’Toole has finally emerged from his basement podcast studio and ventured back to Ottawa, and he gave an interview to Chris Hall on CBC Radio late in the week, which was broadcast Saturday. I’m not sure what I should have been expecting, but it was about as self-serving as one might expect, and shows pretty much no self-reflection about his loss, or the fact that he has a problem telling the truth, which was just as evident in this interview as it’s been elsewhere. Sometimes people grow a conscience or a spine after a little time away from the office, but O’Toole certainly doesn’t seem to have done that.

To wit, he kept insisting that he was trying to find a “balance” when it came to the occupation, and that he wasn’t engaging with its leadership (debatable) but he wasn’t going to forbid his caucus from meeting with constituents (never mind that we could all see that their primary demand was to overturn democracy). He insisted that the party has never tried to politicise “personal health choices,” referring to vaccinations, but seriously? You have a significant portion of your caucus who opposes the personal health choices around abortion and who strongly politicise it, and you have others who are openly spreading conspiracy theories around vaccinations. He claimed that when people come up to him with WEF conspiracy theories or the likes that he tries to challenge them, which we know is bullshit because he has openly promulgated a variety of conspiracy theories as leader, and has been silent about his caucus promoting others. He is trying to blame China for the loss of several seats, crying disinformation over WeChat, but apparently irony died because he and his party have absolutely no qualms about disinformation on domestic issues when it suits them. As for his loss as either party leader or in the election, he offered no personal reflection or insight, aside from an admission he didn’t communicate well enough, but really? Nothing about realizing that you can’t try to play both sides out in the open, or that you shouldn’t be switching your positions on the daily, or that you utterly lacked convictions on anything? No, just that you didn’t communicate well enough. Okay, sure. Keep telling yourself that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s Cabinet Shuffle Day!

Posted on by

We are now well into Cabinet leak territory, and right now the news is that Chrystia Freeland will indeed be moving – but we don’t know where. We do know that François-Philippe Champagne will replace her at Foreign Affairs, that Pablo Rodriguez will be the new Government House Leader (after we already heard that Steven Guilbeault will take over Canadian Heritage), plus Seamus O’Regan moving to Natural Resources, that Jonathan Wilkinson is taking over Environment and Catherine McKenna will take over Infrastructure. We’re also hearing from Quebec media that Jean-Yves Duclos will take over Treasury Board, and that Mélanie Joly is due for a promotion – but no hint as to what it means otherwise. Still no word on Public Safety, which is a huge portfolio that will need a very skilled hand to deal with in the absence of Ralph Goodale.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1196922355181924352

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1196922357073489920

https://twitter.com/JenniferRobson8/status/1196959319994056705

Meanwhile, some of the other roles that Trudeau needs to decide who are not in Cabinet will include the whip, parliamentary secretaries, and considerations for committee chairs (though he won’t have the final say on those as they are ostensibly elected by the committees themselves, and it’s the whips who largely determine who will sit on which committee). Committees are especially important in a hung parliament, so this could mean big roles for those who didn’t make it into Cabinet.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Finding that Alberta voice

Posted on by

The questions about how prime minister Justin Trudeau will get Alberta and Saskatchewan voices into his reshuffled Cabinet continue to swirl about, and we’re already hearing some fairly crazy theories being bandied about – particularly that Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi is going to be tapped for Cabinet, either as an appointee to Cabinet who is not a parliamentarian, or as a Senator. Oh, but there aren’t any vacancies? Well, there is always the emergency provision in the Constitution that the Queen can appoint four or eight additional senators in order to break a deadlock, as Brian Mulroney did to pass the GST. Would this count as a deadlock? Probably not, and the Queen may privately warn Trudeau that this would likely be construed as an abuse of those powers for his political convenience.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187454644315983872

Naming senators to Cabinet is actually routine – in fact, the Leader of the Government in the Senate is supposed to be a Cabinet minister, and while Stephen Harper ended the practice in a fit of pique over the ClusterDuff Affair, needing to give himself more distance from the Senate; Justin Trudeau carried over the practice in his bid to make the Senate more “independent” while appointing Senator Peter Harder to the sham position of “government representative,” while Harder maintains the half-pregnant façade that he is both independent and represents the Cabinet to the Senate and vice-versa (which is bonkers). There should be no issue with Trudeau appointing one of the existing Alberta senators to Cabinet (more from David Moscrop here), or appointing someone to the existing vacancy in Saskatchewan (and Ralph Goodale has already said he has no interest in it).

As for the notion of appointing someone who is not a parliamentarian, the convention is generally that they will seek a seat at the earliest opportunity – usually a by-election to a relatively safe seat. Jean Chrétien did this with Stéphane Dion and Pierre Pettigrew, so there is recent enough precedent. The hitch is that there are no seats in Alberta or Saskatchewan that they could run someone in during a by-election, and the closest would be a promise to appoint someone to the Senate seat from Alberta that is due to become vacant in 2021 (lamenting that it will be the mandatory retirement of Senator Elaine McCoy). It’s not very politically saleable, however. Nevertheless, Trudeau has options, but some of them involve swallowing his pride. (I have a column on this coming out later today).

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187536180017061889

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187547076470755328

Continue reading →

Roundup: Confidence and throwing money at problems

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau took the day off of campaigning, Andrew Scheer attended the grand opening of a Buddhist temple in Bethany, Ontario, before doing meet-and-greets in Peterborough and Newcastle. There, Scheer said that he was confident in the party’s vetting process, despite having to dump a candidate earlier in the week (given that her homophobic posts go well before the election period).

Jagmeet Singh visited Grassy Narrows, where the local chief is running for the NDP, and pledged more money for drinking water in First Nations communities (although it’s rarely an issue of not enough money, but other capacity challenges, which the current government is addressing – partially why it is taking as long as it is to get movement on some of these challenges, on top of the fact that they took responsibility for a number of drinking water outlets that used to be private and are addressing them as well).

Continue reading →