Tag Archives: Syria

Roundup: The Leaders’ Debate Commission has some suggestions

Posted on by

We are now on or about day seventy-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russian forces are now pummelling the strategic port city of Odessa, especially to disrupt supply lines. This is particularly key for grain shipments, which are already being blocked by the blockade of the Black Sea, and which are going to keep driving up world food prices, and hit areas of food insecurity even harder. It also looks like Russia is increasingly using Soviet-era munitions, which suggests that they are rapidly using up their supply of precision weapons. As for the Ukrainian fighters still in Mariupol, they are appealing to the UN to evacuate their wounded as they did with the civilians beneath in the steel plant there.

Closer to home, the Leaders’ Debate Commission released their report on the 2021 federal election debates, and lo, they concluded that the formats were clumsy and had too many moderators. Gosh, you think? Setting aside the fact that they had pollster Shachi Kurl to moderate the English debate, which was a questionable choice at best, the fact that they had a line-up of journalist co-moderators boils down to the fact that the broadcasters and media outlets who participate insist on having their talent featured as part of their participation, and one has little doubt that they don’t want to participate if they don’t get their way on this, and Kurl was likely the compromise if nobody could get their own talent to be the sole moderator for the event, and lo, in her desire to be tough, she gave François Legault what he had been begging for the entire election, so good job there. (After all, it’s bad enough that the broadcasters have to give up a couple of hours of American programming prime time that they rake in the ad dollars from).

The report also noted the unhappiness with the debate format, but their recommendation of firmer control and “working with stakeholders” is a bit weak. Yes, we need a simplified format, but will the leaders actually play ball with that? The insinuation is that the leaders like the convoluted format because it is easier to draw clips from, and avoids prolonged engagements with other leaders that can draw them into *gasp!* a substantive conversation. And that’s really the rub with this whole thing—it really requires the participation of reluctant broadcasters and reluctant party leaders, and too many compromises get made along the way. I’m not sure what the solution to that winds up being in the end, because the alternatives we saw in 2015, with the myriad of debates and formats, had far less engagement and that’s not good for democracy either.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No undoing these elections

Posted on by

In Alberta, the province’s municipal affairs minister has declared that he can’t vacate a seat on Calgary’s city council given the revelations that surfaced against one councillor from a time before his election, when he was a police officer. And this is actually a good thing – you do not want to give provincial governments the power to suddenly start vacating seats on municipal councils in their province, because that can very, very easily be weaponised to settle scores, particularly when there is friction between the municipal and provincial governments. (Seriously, given the rank incompetence of several provincial governments, you do not want them to have this power, no matter that it may sound nice for this particular circumstance).

There is a certain amount of resonance in this with the situation around ousted Liberal candidate and now independent MP Kevin Vuong, While there is some social media backlash over his visit to a local business that needed their MP’s help on a CRA issue, there are plenty of people who are demanding that something be done about his election, be it having the Speaker declare his seat vacant or the like, but I worry about that because of the implications for what it means as a precedent (especially given the fact that charges were not pursued in the allegations against him, which a gulf from the kind of conviction that would ordinarily be used as an excuse to declare such a vacancy). There needs to be a very high bar because this is democracy, and one of the things that happens in a democracy is that sometimes the people get it wrong for whatever the reason, and in this case, there is the added issue that the party did a closed-door acclamation process rather than an open nomination, so they have to wear this as well.

In both of these cases, there is something of an object lesson about why it’s important to get things right when you’re considering who you’re voting for (and why local journalism matters). There is nobody who can swoop down and save you from your bad choices, so it’s very, very important that you choose wisely.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit McKenna

Posted on by

It’s now official – Catherine McKenna is bowing out of federal politics, citing that she wants to spend more time with her kids while she can (the oldest is off to university next year), but insisting that she still wants to do her part to fight climate change in other arenas. This was immediately met with questions about whether this is a signal that it can’t get done in government, which she flat-out denied, but we should remember that the federal government is limited in what it can do, because it only has so many policy levers at its disposal (which we should all realise after living through those limitations in this pandemic).

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1409621322649440256

McKenna, who also stated flat-out that she’s not going to run for mayor, dismissed the attacks against her as “noise,” and that they weren’t successful because she did the work of getting the carbon price in place, and made more tangible progress on the environment file than we’ve had since the Mulroney era. But we can’t forget that the abuse was real, it was horrific, and she needed police protection because the threats were so bad. This should be one of those moments of reflection about where we are as a society that these kinds of misogynistic are able to keep happening with little to no recourse for the victims, and few consequences if any for the perpetrators. McKenna did note that she does still want to work with social media companies to address this, but we’ll see if anything actually happens.

https://twitter.com/cathmckenna/status/1409522139380785157

Of course, this has entirely been overshadowed by the spectre of Mark Carney entering the political arena, which he categorically should not, because even if he’s been out of the Bank of Canada for seven or eight years, it still has the possibility to taint the institution by association, and him declaring himself to be sympathetic to the Liberal cause is not helping either – especially given that Pierre Poilievre is currently attacking the institutional independence of the Bank by positing that they are somehow in cahoots with the government, and that they are simply “printing money” to finance the government’s deficits which will drive up inflation – entirely ridiculous notions given that quantitative easing is not actually “printing money” and that their whole mandate is to control inflation at around two percent, which they have been very good at. Nevertheless, people are believing Poilievre’s bullshit (especially as other media won’t actually call it out as such), and this will only get worse if Carney actually enters the political arena. And because the media and the pundit class have decided that they like this narrative of Carney being some kind of heir apparent and saviour, they are trying to make it happen, damn the consequences. It’s not a good look, and yet here we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kabuki theatre around the Elections Act changes

Posted on by

There are days when the state of our parliament achieves the level of farce, and we appear to be having another of those moments. Minister Dominic LeBlanc sent a letter to opposition party leaders – which seems to be a more common occurrence the days – urging them to pass the bill that would allow for pandemic-related changes to the Canada Elections Act per the request of the Chief Electoral Officer. This bill was tabled back in December, and we have just exhausted the sitting weeks in March, and it still has not even made it to committee, in part because the Conservatives have spent weeks using procedural tactics to delay debate on most every piece of legislation on the Order Paper.

LeBlanc apparently mentioned the upcoming budget in the letter, because that is a confidence measure and this is a hung parliament, so it is possible that the government could face a non-confidence vote and trigger an election at pretty much any point. And so during what debate there has been on this bill, the opposition MPs keep saying that there’s no imminent election unless the Liberals plan on calling one, and the NDP are going so far as to say that they simply need to work together to avoid one. Essentially, they get to accuse the government of opportunism for trying to do their due diligence at the request of the Chief Electoral Officer, which is cute for everyone involved.

But here’s the real kicker that makes this all a farce – the bill has an implementation period of 90 days after royal assent. The House isn’t sitting for the next two weeks, and even if they managed to have a Second Reading vote, speed it through committee and rush it to the Senate, I don’t image that it could be passed both chambers before the 23rd of April at the earliest, and only then would that 90-day clock start. That means that the changes couldn’t be fully implemented until the very end of July, meaning that even if the budget were the crux by which the government could fall (those votes would likely happen sometime in early May), there is no way that these changes could pass before a spring election could be called (considering the usual writ period of about six weeks). Any party pushing for an election without these changes would be suicidal. The government really has no interest in calling an election (seriously, and I’ve spoken to ministers who lament the number of items they have on the Order Paper that they need to see passed), especially because we are now into a Third Wave of this pandemic and there is no possible way we can vaccinate our way out of it without a time machine, so all of this chest-thumping by parties (and pleading by bored pundits) is for naught. This is all a bunch of Kabuki theatre for the sake of scoring points. We are not a serious country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chalk up a couple of own-goals

Posted on by

Political own-goals can be painful but also hilarious, and we saw two of them happen yesterday. The first was courtesy of the federal Conservatives, whose intended shitpost went awry when they wound up praising the Liberal government. It was obviously deleted within an hour or so, but the damage was done, and the day was spent with Liberals tweeting that the Conservatives told the truth for once. Oops.

The other was in Alberta, where a committee was examining the Energy Department’s budget, and questions arose about the spending on the province’s “war room,” whose job is supposed to be pushing back against the supposed “falsehoods” about their energy sector. You may have heard that last week, said war room decided to do battle against an obscure Netflix film called Bigfoot Family that shows a battle against an oil magnate seeking to blow up an Alaskan wildlife preserve. As a result of the war room’s ham-fisted campaign, the movie made the top ten streamed films, and had pretty much the opposite effect of what was intended. Nevertheless, the province’s energy minister, Sonya Savage, defended the attack against the film, and some UCP MLAs were praising the war room’s ability to make a film reach the top ten to be “pretty awesome.” Erm, they achieved the opposite and had more people watch the film they wanted to censor, guys. It’s so mind-numbingly dumb, and I just cannot even.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Conflating the “leader’s courtesy”

Posted on by

New Green Party leader Annamie Paul is running for a seat in the upcoming Toronto-Centre by-election, and this has already caused a bit of a friction between outgoing leader Elizabeth May and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. Why? Because May argues that Singh should repay the courtesy that the Greens extended him when he was running for his own seat in a by-election in the previous parliament and not run a candidate to oppose him. The problem? That May’s conception of “leader’s courtesy” is not really what she thinks it is.

First of all, “leader’s courtesy” largely only existed when it came to government or official opposition – third, fourth, and fifth-place parties are not really owed any particular courtesies. Second, what this particular courtesy involves is a member of the new leader’s own party voluntarily resigning their seat so that the new leader can run there in order to get into the Commons as soon as possible – it’s generally not about unheld ridings, even if it just happens to coincidentally be the same riding where Paul ran in the last federal election. The Liberals are certainly not obligated to not run to keep their own seat for the sake of giving Paul a seat, no matter if she is a Black woman. Hell, they’re running a Black woman of their own in the riding. Not to mention, less than a year ago, during the election, Paul came in a distant fourth place in the riding with a mere seven percent of the vote-share. Bill Morneau, incidentally, got 57 percent, and the NDP came in second at 22 percent – even if Singh did the “classy” thing, as May demanded, and didn’t run a candidate, it’s still unlikely that Paul would win – especially when she’s running against a legitimate media personality like Liberal candidate Marci Ien.

I would also add that demanding that the other parties surrender their candidates so that Paul can win it because she’s a Black woman leader smacks of tokenism, and is an implicit declaration that she couldn’t win the seat on her own. Not to mention, it deprives the voters of the riding the chance to make the decision on who they want to represent them. Again, the historical “leader’s courtesy” was about a riding that the party held, and it was usually intended to be a short-term measure so that the leader would have a seat, and would then run in their intended seat in the next election and return the riding to the MP who stepped aside for the leader. This is clearly not what is happening in Toronto Centre, so unless May wants to resign her own seat so that Paul can run there, she’s conflating just what exactly this “courtesy” really is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A shock-and-awe number

Posted on by

The Conservatives are crowing about their membership numbers in the lead-up to their leadership vote, where some 269,000 Canadians are now eligible to vote – not that they all will, but it’s a shock-and-awe number that they say are bigger than any previous Conservative (or its predecessor parties’) leadership contest – though not quite as large as the Liberal contest that elected Justin Trudeau. And while on paper it’s great that there are so many people who have joined the party, this is one of those traps that have created so many of our problems in this country.

The original sin in Canadian politics was the Liberals’ decision in 1919 to move away from caucus selecting their new leader after Wilfrid Laurier’s death to a delegated convention. From then on, under the guise of being “more democratic,” they ensured that their leaders could henceforth not be held to account by the MPs of their caucus – nor the party, really, because “leadership reviews” are largely bogus exercises (sorry, Thomas Mulcair!). And what ends up happening is that when you have a big number like 260,000 party members, when the leader who winds up being selected in this manner gets into trouble, he or she tells their caucus “I have the democratic legitimacy of these 269,000 votes – the average riding has 75,000 electors. I have the bigger mandate.” It has been the way in which the centralization of power has been justified, and all of abuses of that power have followed.

The other problem is that these kinds of memberships tend to be transactional for the duration of the leadership contest. A good many of these members won’t stick around and to the work of nominations or policy development, which is another reason why these shock-and-awe numbers wind up being hollow in the long run. We do need more people to take out party memberships in this country, but it has to be meaningful engagement, and a leadership contest is not that. It only serves to perpetuate the problems in our system.

 

Good reads: Continue reading →

Roundup: Defunding the Police

Posted on by

A lot of the discussion over the weekend has been taken up by the “defund/abolish” police narratives that have been part of the Black Lives Matter protests, both in the US and Canada, and while it’s not literally abolish or defunding police (thread here, also a good op-ed by Calumn Marsh here) – which doesn’t actually help their cause when it simply invites kneejerk reactions – I just wanted to offer a word of caution that a lot of these goals with this movement are things that cannot happen overnight. Building the kind of capacity for other social service agencies to take over the work that we have foisted upon police because we didn’t want to pay for them elsewhere will mean that it will take years before any kind of shift can possibly happen, it also makes other assumptions about the state of the current mental healthcare system (thread here), for example, that may not reflect reality. Another bit of context here is that American police are often poorly educated and trained, which is less often the case in Canada, so calls for reductions in salaries as part of this radically reformed force make me wonder if we may be doing more of a disservice to the ultimate goals, where you would want people more likely to have some critical thinking skills and able to better execute judgment. So while it’s a noble idea, we should be cautious about putting carts before horses.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1269643795286687744

Meanwhile, here’s a look at how the RCMP has not been responding to reports or investigations made by its Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, and how at least one has been waiting for responses since 2013. And yes, this is the same complaints commission that the government wants to add CBSA to its mandate (which I will remind you will only mean that CBSA will continue to investigate itself and simply report to this body).

With this in mind, here is Philippe Lagassé with some thoughts on what “civilian control” of the police could or possibly should look like.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1269268004325507073

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1269289824869126147

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1269292825000148993

Continue reading →

Roundup: Convention confusion

Posted on by

The Conservatives announced over the weekend that their policy had convention had been postponed to November in order to give more time to their leadership contest – but then had to spend the rest of the day explaining that no, this didn’t mean that the leadership was going to be held in November, and no, they hadn’t made any final decisions on the leadership, and so on. Because it would have been great if they’d actually said that in their press release.

With this in mind, I figured I would do my best to clarify what part of the problem is here, which is that they don’t actually have leadership conventions anymore, but “leadership events” where all of the mailed in ranked ballots get counted up in a dramatic way to try and replicate the fun and excitement of a delegated convention. One might assume that they might try to kill two birds with one stone and have both events at the same time, but we’ll see if that is actually the case.

This having been said, we also need to remember that so long as we have a system where there is direct election of party leaders by their membership, and that those leadership candidates are running on policy slates as though this were an American presidential primary, it starts making party policy conventions into a bit of a farce. Why? Because so long as leaders feel empowered to move ahead with the policies that they have a “democratic legitimacy” to enact, then what does the grassroots policy preferences matters? We’ve seen this erosion across parties for years, and it will continue apace under this Conservative system just as it has with everyone else so long as we keep up this bastardized system of membership votes for leaders.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Don’t bug the LG. Ever.

Posted on by

In a move that is as brazen as it is utterly galling, Jason Kenney’s government legislated the province’s elections commissioner out of existence, after he levied tens of thousands of dollars in fines over the UCP leadership shenanigans. To make it all the more gob-smacking, Kenney and the minister in charge of the bill claimed that this wasn’t politically motivated, which earns a “Sure, Jan.” But even more appalling was the response from opposition leader Rachel Notley, for which I am about to suffer a rage-induced stroke.

https://twitter.com/Jantafrench/status/1196555704200351744

No. No, no, no, no, no. No. You DO NOT involve the lieutenant governor in this. She does not have discretion to accept or reject bills. She is not the “boss” of Jason Kenney. She cannot reject bills on the advice of the opposition, or her own recognizance for that matter. Her job is to accept the advice of the first minister who commands the confidence of the legislature, which Kenney does – even if the bill is unconstitutional. Her job is to act as a constitutional fire extinguisher, and we are a long way from there. Here’s Philippe Lagassé with more:

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1196608180488482818

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1196609606220500992

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1196610409521930240

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1196612302348464130

I’m going to add an additional point about this being an appalling lack of basic civic literacy from the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the province, but it implicates the entire media ecosystem as a whole, particularly when they ignorantly act as though a vice-regal has discretion about things like government formation, as exemplified with the stories of the hung parliaments in BC and New Brunswick, and even when shows like Power & Politics wrongly said that Trudeau “asked permission” from Her Excellency, Julie Payette, to “form a government” when they were the incumbent and already had a government and didn’t need to form one, let alone the fact that her job is not to grant permission. But stories like that plant the idea in people’s minds that she or any other vice-regal has personal discretion and can decide who will or will not form a government and apparently allow or disallow legislation, much like the pervasive idea that you can write to the Queen and she’ll do something about whatever it is you’re complaining about. That’s not how the system works. This shouldn’t be rocket science, but apparently these very basics are not being understood by those who are supposed to know these things because it’s their jobs to.

Continue reading →