Tag Archives: Reform Act

Roundup: Reverberations north of the border

Posted on by

We’re now in day one-hundred-and-twenty-two of Russia’s invasion of Ukriane, and it looks like the battle for Severodonestk is ending as Ukrainian forces are withdrawing before they are completely encircled. That means Russians are now advancing on its twin city of Lysychansk, across the river, which will secure hold on the Luhansk province. More heavy American weaponry is arriving, but we’ll see if it’s enough to change the balance.

Closer to home, there was a lot of reaction in Canada to the US Supreme Court overturning the Roe v Wade decision, which essentially re-criminalises abortions in many states. Conservative leadership candidate Leslyn Lewis was quick to jump on it to encourage an “adult conversation” about it in Canada, which apparently involves abortion doctors being mind-readers and taking away these rights from women in other countries. (Other Conservative leadership candidates, including Pierre Poilievre, have reiterated that they are pro-choice). There are also a bunch of voices, some of whom are concern trolling, others of whom are genuinely clueless, who point out that Justin Trudeau hasn’t done anything to enshrine abortion rights in the constitution, which is a) dumb, and b) counter-productive as it actually plays into the hands of anti-abortionists who would use the opportunity to introduce limits. Yes, Trudeau has promised more about access, and he has tasked both ministers Duclos and Ien with consultations on adding regulations to the Canada Health Act around abortion access, but that’s not something that can happen overnight, as there is a process for regulation, and as we have long established, putting strings on healthcare funding for provinces is touchy business. But provinces are where the fight is in Canada, because they control access.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1540380879519875073

There was also a number of news programmes yesterday which ran interviews with anti-abortionists in a completely uncritical fashion, allowing them to frame the conversation in their usual bullshit terms, and getting only the most minor pushback to some of their claims of popular support for their cause. These kinds of uncritical interviews are key to how misinformation and disinformation is spread through the media, because they have no capacity to do anything other than both-sides the issue, which again, allows misinformation and disinformation to spread because it isn’t challenged. We are fully in the age of disinformation, and our media outlets have learned absolutely nothing about how to deal with it, and yesterday was case in point about that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Caucus confidence and garbage legislation

Posted on by

It is now day one-hundred-and-four of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia has turned over several of the bodies of Russian fighters from that steel mill in Mariupol where they were holed up for weeks. Missiles continue to fall over other parts of the country, and president Volodymyr Zelensky warns that Russians are targeting the city of Zaporizhzhia in the south, as a means of advancing further into the centre of the country. As well, here is a thread about Russia’s cyberwar in Ukraine, and how they route Ukrainian internet through Russian servers when they take over territory as a means of controlling information.

Meanwhile, a lot of attention has been paid to the confidence vote that UK prime minister Boris Johnson was subjected to within his own party, which he barely survived, and at a much lower margin than other UK prime ministers survived theirs before they made their political exits. With 42 percent of your caucus against you, you cannot survive more than a few more months. It’s simply untenable. Of course, Michael Chong had to pipe up to make yet another pitch for his (garbage) Reform Act and trying to goad the Liberals into signing onto it, which is wrong, and tiresome. Like the Liberals did when Chong first proposed the bill, there was this assertion that this would be what would do in Stephen Harper because his caucus must hate him, erm, except they didn’t. And Chong is making the very same assertion here, which seems to be yet one more Conservative falling into the trap of believing that people hate Trudeau as much as they do. Additionally, as I have stated time and time again, MPs did not need Chong’s garbage legislation to be able to oust leaders—they already had that power if they chose to use it. Putting a legislative framework around those powers only curtails them by stealth, while pretending to “give” MPs powers they already have, it absolutely limited senators’ powers within their caucuses, and it gave leaders even more insulation by putting up thresholds to levels beyond what would ordinarily have been considered fatal to a leader. It doesn’t need to spread further.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1533902493322776576

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lightbound goes rogue

Posted on by

It was something of a spectacle yesterday to watch Liberal backbencher Joël Lightbound call a press conference to denounce his party’s handling of the pandemic, and to call for a roadmap to end public health measures—never mind that the vast majority of those measures are provincial in nature—and to deploy the farcical Conservative talking points about how “divisive” the prime minister has been about vaccine mandates. (Full transcript here). Some of it made little sense—this virus doesn’t operate on timetables, mandates were deemed necessary because carrots weren’t working anymore and governments needed to employ more sticks to drive up vaccination rates because we still need more people to get fully vaccinated if we want to have any hope of achieving some level of herd immunity, and yes, there are some deeply selfish people who refuse to get vaccinated, and we should absolutely call them out on that fact. (And to the point about complaints of the prime minister’s alleged name-calling around the grifter convoy, he clocked them for what they were, and if a few credulous numpties attaching themselves to this band of grifters, extremists and conspiracy theorists gets offended, they should take a hard look at the company they keep).

This being said, we need to ensure that there is room for MPs to dissent, and the Liberals have been better than most about that in their current incarnation. They have a handful of MPs who routinely go rogue, though generally in not so spectacular a fashion as Lightbound did yesterday. This being said, the comparisons to Jane Philpott and Jody Wilson-Raybould have been circulating, but I don’t find the circumstances remotely similar. Wilson-Raybould had begun a media campaign against the prime minister, and the revelation of the recordings she made of private phone calls was a signal that she was unlikely to be trusted again, which is a huge problem. Philpott, on the other hand, was naively trying to run her own media campaign, cleverly trying to dole out tidbits to various outlets in a coordinated strategy, while she was also found to be taking notes in caucus (which is forbidden—they take away your phones and materials because caucus confidentially needs to be enforced), and again, that led to issues of trust because her media strategy was in the open. That is not the case here, and Lightbound says he continues to have confidence in the government, but felt the need to speak out. While he resigned his position as the party’s Quebec caucus chair, we’ll see if he retains his post as industry committee chair, or if he gets sent off to scrutiny of regulations to cool his heels for a while.

Meanwhile, Althia Raj wishes that we saw more MPs going rogue like Lightbound, while Paul Wells delves deeper into Lightbound, the dynamics at play, and the problem that this government has in its inability to communicate or manage issues.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole out, Bergen in

Posted on by

It wasn’t even a close vote—Erin O’Toole has been deposed as Conservative leader on a vote of 73 to 45, and he is done for. He says he’ll stay on as an MP, but we’ll see how long his appetite for that lasts now that is ambitions have been dashed. But rather than face the media, O’Toole put out a six-minute statement over social media that tried to claim the party was the founding party of Canada (nope—his party was created in 2003), and a bunch of other things to try and burnish his image on the way out the door. “This country needs a Conservative party that is both an intellectual force and a governing force. Ideology without power is vanity. Seeking power with ideology is hubris,” he recited. Erm, except the pandering to populism is not an intellectual or governing force, he couldn’t even identify an ideology given that he kept flopping all over the place, depending on who was in the room with him at the time. And he keeps floating this notion that Canada is “so divided!” but this has been his go-to talking point for a while, trying to intimate that there is a “national unity crisis” because Alberta didn’t get its own way and get a Conservative government (that would take them for granted and ignore their concerns), never mind that it’s not actually a national unity crisis, but mere sore loserism.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1488987184241811458

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1489082431936372742

Later in the evening, out of seven potential candidates, the party voted for Candice Bergen to be the interim leader, which is a curious choice given how much she swings to the angry populist side of the party, from her unapologetically sporting a MAGA hat, to her full-throated support for the grifter occupation outside of Parliament Hill currently. It makes one wonder about both the upcoming leadership and what that says about unifying the different factions of the party, or whether the party will splinter because these factions may prove irreconcilable. And perhaps it should be a lesson that hey, maybe you shouldn’t just lie to each faction saying you really belong to them, and hope the other side doesn’t find out.

Meanwhile, Paul Wells enumerates O’Toole’s failures, and worries about the direction the party is headed now that it seems to be tearing down the few firewalls it had to keep the worst of Trumpism out of its playbook.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s day of reckoning

Posted on by

Regardless of the outcome of today’s caucus vote, Erin O’Toole is finished as leader—the only question is how long he lingers. Thanks to the (garbage) Reform Act, what should have been an exercise in reading the room has come down to weaponization, threats, and now a legalistic battle of wills where anything less than fifty-percent-plus-one will mean O’Toole will try to lord over the caucus until an eventual grassroots leadership review, which may or may not be sooner than the current date scheduled (pretty much acceding to what Senator Denise Batters sidelined for calling for). But the fact that we’ve even reached this point, months in the making, where more than a third of his caucus is alienated, means he’s unable to lead the party no matter what, and frankly, the (garbage) Reform Act is just making this situation worse than it needed to be.

O’Toole apparently spent the day working the phones, and apparently has been saying that he’s willing to change his policies if he survives—but isn’t that part of the problem that got him here? That he keeps changing his positions depending on the audience he’s in front of? I’m not sure how he thinks this promise helps him. Also, “coincidentally” an Astroturf grassroots group calling itself the “Majority Committee” launched itself yesterday morning, conveniently parroting the exact same lines O’Toole used in his challenge letter to his caucus, so that doesn’t look staged at all. Meanwhile, his former allies are lining up against him, a number of former MPs have added their names to an open letter calling for him to step down, so any illusion that continuing on as leader after this is really just delusion.

https://twitter.com/BobBenzen/status/1488633402400071682

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne argues that it’s not O’Toole that needs to be ousted, but rather the unhinged yahoos in the caucus that are causing the party its biggest headaches. (I don’t disagree, but appealing to the yahoos is part of O’Toole’s problem). Althia Raj correctly notes that whatever the outcome of tomorrow’s vote, it’s untenable for O’Toole to stay. Matt Gurney (by video) wonders if this winds up leading to the break-up of the party.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1488522864269705222

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1488526887408353282

Continue reading →

Roundup: A refreshed Cabinet for a new parliament

Posted on by

So, that was the big Cabinet shuffle. It was extensive, and we saw three ministers dropped entirely (not the first time), a few promotions, a few demotions, and a lot more hybrid and chimeric ministries which will make governance a challenge to say the least. Nevertheless, here we are. Some observations:

  • This was not a new Cabinet or ministry – this was just a shuffle. It’s also not a third term or mandate, because we don’t have those in Canada – it’s the third parliament that the current ministry has spanned.
  • Marc Garneau’s exclusion from Cabinet has fuelled rumours he’s about to become ambassador to France. My presumption is that Bardish Chagger’s exclusion is because she is going to be the new Whip, as the old Whip and his deputy are now in Cabinet. Jim Carr’s departure may be health-related.
  • After Trudeau had rather bravely centralized all of the economic development agencies under one roof and didn’t have them beholden to local ministers and the corrupting influence that offers, he has relented and re-established the practice of regional economic development ministers again, and undone the work of trying to clean up the mess they create.
  • The most important portfolios – finance, defence, foreign affairs – are now all held by women. Anita Anand is the second woman defence minister in Canadian history (the first being Kim Campbell), and her background as a law professor specializing in governance can only help in a role where there has been a crisis in civilian oversight. As foreign affairs minister, Mélanie Joly will have to deal with the tensions between the US and China (and our general lack of a coherent foreign policy).
  • Splitting up Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was a good and necessary thing; giving Bill Blair emergency preparedness and not public safety is an even better thing because Blair was essentially at risk of capture in the role as a former police chief (with a questionable record around actions of the Toronto Police during the G20 to boot).
  • There are nine new faces in this configuration of Cabinet, and more diversity – the first Black woman since Jean Augustine, the first out lesbian minister, and the queerest Cabinet in Canadian history.
  • Putting Steven Guilbeault in environment may yet be a huge disaster given how badly he mismanaged Bill C-10, but Jonathan Wilkinson in natural resources will likely mean a steadier hand on some of those files where the two overlap.
  • Carving off an associate health minister portfolio for Carolyn Bennett to deal with addictions and mental health is a bit of a throwback to when she was the first minister of state for the newly-created Public Health Agency of Canada, back in the Paul Martin era. Jean-Yves Duclos in health – an economist who did a lot of work on poverty reduction – means he’s not going to be fooled by provinces trying to get more money out of the federal government that they plan to spend elsewhere.
  • Trudeau says he plans to lead the Liberals in the next election, but I’m not sure I believe him, and of course he’d say that now. He wouldn’t actually say he plans to leave until it comes time to do so, lest he turn himself into a lame duck without any moral authority to get anything done.

And now, the talking heads. Aaron Wherry hears from a Senior Liberal Source™ that the message of this Cabinet is the need for urgent delivery of promises. Heather Scoffield makes note of the activists leading the environment and housing files. Jason Markusoff highlights the squirming that Jason Kenney and others are doing now that Steven Guilbeault is the environment minister. Althia Raj sees some attempted legacy-building in Trudeau’s choices.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rejections without significance

Posted on by

Because it’s a story that refuses to die, we now know that both the Bloc and the NDP have rejected the four main votes in the (garbage) Reform Act, and now we await the Liberals, who will in turn doubtlessly reject it as well whenever they finally have their first official caucus meeting, and of course, we have political scientists trying to derive meaning from these refusals, as they have tried with the Conservatives agreeing to the four votes.

The simple truth, however, are that these votes really don’t matter because the legislation is garbage. The power to elect caucus chairs doesn’t require its adoption, as we’ve seen, and the power over the expulsion of caucus members is largely illusory anyway because it tends to depend on what the leader says either way. I would be hugely surprised if the caucus and the leader ever parted ways on whether or not to boot someone out of the club, as that would create a schism and be a sign that the leader was on the way out. As well, the power of the caucus to pressure a leader to resign is actually better off without the Reform Act because what the Act winds up doing is protecting the leader by setting a high threshold and requiring a public declaration to trigger a vote, which can invite retribution. It has been far more effective to push a leader out with one or two public declarations by brave members that signal the writing on the wall rather than demanding a twenty percent threshold.

In the Hill Times piece, the Act’s author, Michael Chong, pats himself on the back for codifying these sorts of caucus decisions, but codifying them is part of the problem. Our Westminster system tends to work best under conventions that aren’t codified because it affords them flexibility and the ability to adapt, whereas codification is inflexible, leads to testing of the system and the pursuit of loopholes and getting around what has been codified. It’s the same with setting that threshold to push out a leader – it winds up insulating the leader more than empowering the caucus, and we’ve seen leaders resign with far less pressure than what this codified system affords, not to mention that by Chong codifying that party leaders must be selected by membership vote in the actual Parliament of Canada Act as a result of this garbage legislation, he has made it even harder for parties to return to the proper system of caucus selection and removal of leaders as we need to return to. Chong has screwed Parliament for a generation, and it would be great if the talking heads would stop encouraging him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh has a list of demands

Posted on by

In the wake of his party’s post-election first caucus meeting, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh held a press conference yesterday to do a bit of chest-thumping and pretend that he holds some kind of balance of power in the forthcoming parliament, or that he can play kingmaker. If anything, he undermined his own position with his list of demands, because he doesn’t have any real leverage. His party is substantially weakened after the election, particularly given that they spent all kinds of money and gained a single seat out of it, and they are likely in debt once again and in no shape to go to another campaign anytime soon – especially if they want to figure out what they did wrong and have time to course-correct.

As for his list of demands, we are back to a lot of the usual nonsense where Singh doesn’t seem to grasp implementation – or jurisdiction. To wit:

  • Paid sick leave – that is being expanded to ten days for federally-regulated workers, but that’s only six percent of the workforce. The rest is provincial.
  • Halting clawbacks from GIS for seniors who accessed CERB – the GIS is means-tested and meant for the poorest of seniors, so it’s not surprising that CERB or other benefits could impact the means test.
  • Clean drinking water in Indigenous communities – this is in progress. Willpower won’t make it go faster.
  • A federal vaccine document for internal travel – this cannot happen unless provinces sign on, and until a couple of weeks ago, there were provinces still hostile to the very notion. The federal government cannot unilaterally create such a document because the provinces control vaccination data.
  • Dropping the appeal of the Human Rights Tribunal decision in the First Nations Child and Family Services case – this may yet happen given how completely the Federal Court decision against them last week was, but there were legitimate issues being litigated regardless that compensation is already being negotiated, irrespective of a further appeal.
  • Demanding higher health transfers – the federal government fully plans to negotiate those, but it won’t be without strings, especially as certain provinces sat on the pandemic-related transfers and put them towards their bottom lines rather than spending them on the pandemic.

As for Singh’s threat to “withhold votes” if he doesn’t get his way, it’s a bit curious what he means. Does he mean he would vote against bills including the budget implementation bill for the fall economic update, which would have plenty of additional pandemic supports or items he supports? Or does he mean he’d simply not vote, which would mean the Liberals wouldn’t need to get Bloc support to pass their measures (which they would likely get as the Bloc also are in no position to go to another election). Because if it’s the latter, then he’s basically made himself irrelevant for the foreseeable future.

Programming note: I am taking the full long weekend off from blogging. See you next week!

Continue reading →

Roundup: A vote devoid of real meaning

Posted on by

As expected, the Conservative caucus voted for the (garbage) Reform Act proposals that give them the option to demand a leadership review, and as expected, the media fell all over themselves to interpret some kind of significance into this, including the fact that the same thing happened after the last election when Andrew Scheer was still the leader – never mind that the Reform Act had precisely zero to do with Scheer’s demise.

And while everyone was smiling and preaching unity coming out of the meeting, there are still sore MPs, who are concerned about the losses they suffered, and that their promised gains in places like the GTA didn’t materialise. MP Scott Reid is openly decrying that the party is being run like a “petty tyranny” where policy positions like the carbon price was imposed on them without discussion or even notice (as Reid was running to be caucus chair). So clearly they still have some healing to do, but I wouldn’t read any significance into the (garbage) Reform Act vote, because all it will do is insulate Erin O’Toole.

Meanwhile, I am concerned at some of the delusion that seems to have set into the party, as O’Toole went into the meeting telling the assembled reporters that it was the Liberals and People’s Party who spent the campaign misleading people and sowing division. I mean, serial liar Erin O’Toole, who attempted to make the falsehood of a non-existent Liberal plan to tax home equity a campaign issue, says it was the other guys who thrived on misleading people. I’d say it was unbelievable, but it was simply one more lie that O’Toole effortlessly spouts. Later in the day, Michael Chong was on Power & Politics, and when O’Toole’s constantly shifting positions on issues like gun control were raised, he called it a “Liberal trap.” Erm, it’s O’Toole’s shifting position – that’s on him. Chong also declared that it was wrong to make vaccination a wedge issue because anti-vaxxers felt like “hunted prey,” which is…warped. When you have a group of people who are prolonging the pandemic and endangering the lives of others, whether it’s directly with the virus or because they have overwhelmed the healthcare capacity that vaccinated people require, they should be made to feel social stigma. That’s the point. That Chong is going to bat for them demonstrates why his party continues to be tone deaf about the course of this pandemic.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1445387619215552520

Continue reading →

Roundup: Awaiting the (garbage) Reform Act votes

Posted on by

Today is the Conservatives’ first caucus meeting of the new parliament – in person, no less – and everyone is anxiously awaiting news of whether they plan to vote on the (garbage) Reform Act provisions that would give caucus the ability to call for a leadership review. While I wrote about this for my column, coming out later today, I will make a few additional notes here.

As the column spells out, these provisions don’t actually provide an accountability mechanism, and they will wind up protecting O’Toole more than they will threaten him. So when I see MPs like Tom Kmiec saying that he wants MPs to accept the (garbage) Reform Act powers on a leadership review, citing that it provides a clear process, what he omits is that the 20 percent threshold insulates O’Toole, because those 24 MPs would need to openly sign their names to a letter to the caucus chair, meaning they will be easily identifiable for retribution if O’Toole survives the subsequent vote and/or leadership review, and that retribution can include not signing their nomination papers. That’s not an insignificant threat against them.

Meanwhile, Senator Michael MacDonald, a former Harper-era organizer, is urging a vote on a leadership review, citing O’Toole’s decision to say anything to whoever was in the room as being a threat to the party’s future chances.

Continue reading →