Tag Archives: The Senate

Roundup: Kenney changes his tone

Posted on by

In the wake of Jason Kenney’s win in the Alberta election, he took to the microphones yesterday to try and sound statesmanlike, immediately ratcheting down his rhetoric on a number of files including his “turn off the taps” pledge (which never made any business sense) and his demand that the Trans Mountain Expansion construction get underway – acknowledging realities that he never did on the campaign trail. Of course, he still plans to kill the province’s carbon tax (and lift their emissions cap) which sets up for constitutional battles that they are doomed to lose. As for Rachel Notley, she becomes yet another woman first minister who has failed to win a second election, keeping that established pattern going. And I would encourage you all to read Jen Gerson’s roundup of the whole election, and the lessons in the end – that you can’t hope to paint your opponents as bigots and win, and that you can’t run a campaign about lashing out against the world without consequences.

This having been said, a narrative started emerging over social media as soon as it became clear that Kenney was winning last night, which was conservatives across the country were insisting that the NDP’s campaign as solely “nasty” and full of “personal attacks” which was why they lost. Kenney himself, during his press conference yesterday, insisted that he had a “positive campaign” that the media somehow missed. I’m not sure what part of lies and snake oil promises are “positive,” nor am I convinced that pointing out racism, misogyny and homophobia/transphobia is a “personal attack.” In fact, it seems to point to this aggrieved sense that I’ve seen where the Conservatives in Ottawa will go to bat for avowed racists because their racism was being pointed out – that being called a racist is somehow worse than the actual racism being espoused. That’s a fairly troubling mindset, and yet we’re no doubt going to be seeing a lot more of it as Justin Trudeau makes a concerted effort to point out the winking and nudging to white nationalists that Andrew Scheer has engaged in.

And now the hot takes – because everyone’s got one. Colby Cosh points out that this really wasn’t the Lougheed vs Klein fight that some people portrayed, and that the broader climate fight is in the works. Stephen Maher advises that Trudeau abandon his “sunny ways” (more than he already has) and start bare-knuckle brawling, adding that if Kenney lets his social conservatives loose, that could work to Trudeau’s advantage. Andrew Coyne notes Kenney’s adoption of a statesman-like tone in victory following “campaign exuberance,” and that Trudeau would be in a tough spot to not approve Trans Mountain if Kenney repeals the province’s environmental plan. David Moscrop wonders if the trends in Alberta are changing and whether its conservatism will hold for Kenney’s benefit. Tristin Hopper makes the salient point that the increasingly uncompromising nature of the environmental movement hardened Albertans against the NDP.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Missing the mark on encouraging participation

Posted on by

The House of Commons’ status of women committee tabled a report this week that is about getting more women into politics? The problem? That all of its recommendations are focused on what the government can do, when it’s not their job. Rather, it’s the job of political parties, and only some of them take it seriously. Add to that, the one recommendation that people tend to focus on — that the federal government give some manner of financial compensation to parties who recruit more women candidates — is bad policy because it simply rewards parties for putting women candidates in unwinnable ridings and lets them claim their percentages. The Conservatives had their own dissenting report as well, which focused on their notion of women running on “merit” rather than quotas (because there’s apparently no tokenism in their party), and wanted more focus on women who bully and discourage other women in politics. (The NDP’s own dissent focused on some of the language of the recommendations, and more funding for women’s groups, childcare, and so on).

And I have to stress that this is a party issue, not a government issue. Parties are the ones who set the rules for their nomination contests, and are responsible for recruiting their own candidates, and even more to the point, these should be grassroots efforts rather than coming on high from party headquarters. That means mobilising party members at the ground level to find and recruit more women, and to convince them to run. The Liberals have had success with this — they instituted a programme of getting people to find women in their communities and then asking them several times to run, because they know the research that shows that while a man would likely accept on the first request, women can take something like seven times being asked before they will accept to run. Overcoming that socialised reluctance is a big part of it, and where the focus needs to lie — on top of the parties making their nomination rules more clear (and less reliant on the “unwritten rules” as have been spoken of), and ensuring that things like childcare are being taken care of so that women can do things like door-knock and and canvas. None of this is something that the government can take care of, but the party grassroots needs to be aware of and work toward implementing.

It’s not just rules — it’s an ecosystem. Part of that is civics education, because we don’t teach students about things like nomination races and why they matter, and how to get involved. That’s one of the most fundamental parts of our system, and we don’t teach it. How do we expect more young women to get involved if we don’t tell them how? This is where the focus needs to lie if we’re to make any lasting change.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unenforceable garbage legislation

Posted on by

As expected, the Speaker ruled yesterday that he didn’t have the jurisdiction to police whether or not the different party caucuses adhered to the Reform Act additions to the Parliament of Canada Act, and thus Jane Philpott’s complaints will fall on deaf ears (just as Erin Weir was hoping to belatedly make the same complaints about his own expulsion from NDP caucus). And then we immediately got another wave of self-righteousness over the Twitter Machine about how terrible it was that MPs couldn’t even follow their own laws just after they passed them.

To recap the whole Reform Act saga: It was a dubious prospect from the very start because it was utterly misguided in what it was trying to accomplish, which was to nominally weaken the power of the party leader and strengthen the power of MPs. Everyone was treating this as a rebuke of the “dictatorial” Stephen Harper, so it became this big optics battle, never mind that it would have done nothing about the Conservative caucus and their mood, since the vast majority of them were still convinced that Harper walked on water. And while Michael Chong may have been noble in sentiment, he chose the wrong vehicle to make his proposed changes. The right vehicle would have been reforming leadership selection processes, which are the bane of our system, but he didn’t dare do that, so we got the Reform Act instead. And because no party actually wanted to do more than mouth the platitudes of the bill, they ensured it was so completely neutered in committee and made optional, with no enforcement, that we got the eventual garbage bill passed into law because it felt good to do so.

Here’s the thing: MPs didn’t need this bill to give them any more power. They already had all the power they needed, but they either choose not to exercise it, or don’t know about their own powers because, well, most of them don’t even know their own job descriptions. (This is why I wrote my book). And Chong’s garbage bill actually limited their powers under the guise of strengthening them. But would anyone articulate that at the time (other than me, howling into the void from the pages of the National Post)? Of course not. All of the hollow platitudes were siren song. And so once again, MPs passed a meaningless (but not actually harmless — the bill is actually democratic poison) bill into law with no intention of following through on it, because it felt good. And this kind of thing keeps happening because not enough MPs are serious enough about their actual constitutional roles. We need better informed MPs, or this kind of thing will keep happening.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Forcing a partial denunciation

Posted on by

While Andrew Scheer was goading Justin Trudeau to carry on with his libel lawsuit against him, it seems that Trudeau did manage to get Andrew Scheer to do one thing that he has thus far avoided, which was an actual denunciation of white nationalism, and that he actually said those words rather than talking around them. He didn’t denounce Faith Goldy for appearing with him at that “convoy” rally, and he didn’t say anything about his cherry-picking of wilful blindness of the “Yellow Vest” contingent with their racist and whites supremacist messages at that rally, but it was a start. Baby steps. 

Part of the backdrop for this was an exchange between Senator Leo Housakos and Chrystia Freeland at a Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, where Housakos said he didn’t see any white suprematist threat (which he later said was poorly worded), and Freeland laying down the law on it. 

Amidst this drama, the head of CSIS was appearing at a different Senate committee, this time to talk about Bill C-59, the national security bill, and he did state that the intelligence service was becoming more and more preoccupied with the threat of white nationalists and far-right extremists, even though religious extremism was still one of their largest focuses. It’s something that is of concern and we can’t ignore the winking and nudges that absolutely takes place, or especially the blind eyes that get turned, but we do seem to be having a conversation about it, so that’s probably a good start.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to make a garbage bill relevant

Posted on by

Over the past couple of weeks, Conservative MP Michael Chong has been trying to make “Fetch” happen – or rather, trying to make his Reform Act relevant again, first by taking to the Twitter Machine to outline the process outlined in the Act for ousting a party leader (as though the Liberals were seriously considering dumping Justin Trudeau), and later to insist that it laid out a process for expelling MPs from caucus. The problem? Well, there are several, but the most immediate one is that the Act requires each party to vote at the beginning of each parliament whether they will adhere to the provisions or not – and lo, none of the parties voted to. Not even Chong’s. It was always a garbage bill – I wrote a stack of columns on that very point at the time it was being debated – and it made things worse for parties, not better, and ironically would have made it even harder to remove a party leader by setting a public high bar that the pressure created by a handful of vocal dissidents or resignations would have done on its own. It also has no enforcement mechanisms, which the Speaker confirmed when Erin Weir tried to complain that it wasn’t being adhered to. But why did this garbage bill pass? Because it gave MPs a warm feeling that they were doing something to “fix” Parliament (and in the context of doing something about the “dictatorial” style of Stephen Harper under the mistaken belief that his caucus was searching for some way to get rid of him, which was never the case).  It had so neutered it in order to be palatable enough to vote on that it was a sham bill at best, but really it did actual harm to the system, but Chong was stubborn in determining that it should pass in its bastardized form rather than abandoning it for the steaming hot garbage bill that it was.

And now, with Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott’s ouster from caucus, Chong has been trying to make the rounds to claim that the move was illegal without a vote – err, except no party voted to adopt the provisions, which is pretty embarrassing. And yet he keeps trying to sell it to the public as though this were a done deal.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Denials and special committees

Posted on by

The pace of news out of the Double-Hyphen Affair fallout slowed somewhat yesterday – finally – but there were incremental developments starting with yet another interview by Jody Wilson-Raybould, in which she was somewhat more categorial about her insistence that she would never try to have the prime minister direct her successor (and yet she kept saying she wouldn’t respond to anonymous leaks, even though this whole Affair was touched off by anonymous leaks to the Globe and Mail, and she responded to those). There nevertheless remains some incredulity at the notion that an issue that supposedly cuts at the heart of prosecutorial independence in this country could have been smoothed over with an apology. Also, apparently the Vancouver–Granville riding association is staying in place and not resigning out of protest, so that is also a significant development.

Meanwhile, SNC-Lavalin is going to appeal the decision that denied them judicial review of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision not to grant them a DPA. They’re saying that they have new evidence that has come to light during this whole Affair – things like information on when decisions that were taken that don’t line up with information that the company provided to the DPP, about conditions that supposedly weren’t met for eligibility, and what they consider an abuse of process. They’re not likely to get very far with the appeal, but it’s a lifeline for them nevertheless.

On another front, there is now a live debate in the Senate regarding Senator Pratte’s motion to create a special committee to look into the issues surrounding the Affair, particularly separating the Attorney General from the justice minister, as well as the role of remediation agreements. It’s fairly fraught in part because there are a lot of unknowns in what he is proposing, given that it would establish a special committee rather than go through one of the established committees, and its known quantities in terms of membership. Nevertheless, the fact that his proposal has defined aims that are less likely to be read as partisan will mean that it’s more likely to get the support of the Independents, which is what will be important in getting the needed votes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Media rounds and brand damage

Posted on by

Freed from the expectation that they needed to stay quiet(er) in order to not jeopardise their chances of remaining in caucus, both Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott hit interview circuit, the former in Maclean’s and the Globe and Mail, the latter also in Maclean’s and on CBC Radio and Power Play. And there is no doubt that both of them thought they were doing the right thing, but I’m not sure they quite grasp some of the political realities that the prime minister is grappling with. They kept saying that if Trudeau had just apologised from the start, this all could have been avoided, but that would have meant admitting that he was in the wrong, and that’s both a problem on every level for him to do, and I get the impression that nobody thinks they were trying to interfere or apply inappropriate pressure. And because they both think they’re right, we’re in the situation we’re in. Philpott did tell Don Martin that she’s aware of other conversations that are still relevant to what happened, but she’s not going to dangle them out there (err, she just did) because everything that people need to know is already public, but she didn’t say that she thought the prime minister was lying. In her interview with the Globe, Wilson-Raybould admitted to clashing with Carolyn Bennett over the Indigenous Rights framework, but it was her comments to Maclean’s that really made me pause, where she said she didn’t really understand the Liberal Party anymore, and it makes me wonder if she actually understood them to begin with, given how the party morphed itself as the cult of Trudeau after his messianic leadership campaign, and that many of the new MPs are as a result of that rather than stalwarts who stood with the party through the lean opposition years. Oh, and Wilson-Raybould also sorta disputed that there were negotiations regarding ending the tiff with Trudeau, and some confusion as to whether that was before she quit Cabinet or in the weeks that followed, and we got a bit of clarification.

Speaking of Trudeau, there has been a lot of focus on the damage to his brand, in particular his Feminist™ brand in the past few weeks, and with the ouster of Wilson-Raybould and Philpott (not to mention Celina Caesar-Chavannes’ decision to leave caucus of her own accord). In particular, the symbolism of the whole Affair crashing down around the Daughters of the Vote event was a darkly ironic for the prime minister, with one of his former youth delegates calling his rhetoric hollow. Add to that, there has been an expectation built up around him that his “doing politics differently” led people to believe that when push came to shove that he wouldn’t act like a politician, in spite of all of the symbolism he invested in. (There is probably a lesson in there too about filling in the blanks when someone says they’ll be different, but won’t specify how). Over on Twitter, Moebius Stripper reminds us not to confuse the actual good feminist work of this government with its Feminist™ branding.

Amidst the awfulness and brand-torching, Chris Selley recalls weeks ago when the Liberals floated a trial balloon to say that Trudeau would apologise for…something, didn’t, and now the claims that Wilson-Raybould tried to force an apology. Paul Wells, meanwhile, is in a Mood, and he (quite properly) lambastes this while Affair as another in a line of incidents that reveals the true heart of this government, and the ramshackle way in which they run this government (and if you looked at what they’ve done to the Senate alone, I would absolutely agree).

Continue reading →

Roundup: The ouster of the dissidents

Posted on by

After a day of bated breath, and rumours of regional caucus meetings, Justin Trudeau decided to pull the plug and expel Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from Liberal caucus, ostensibly saying that trust had been lost. While Wilson-Raybould would not say that she had confidence in the prime minister, Philpott went on camera that morning to say that she did, that her loss of confidence was solely in the handling of that one issue but otherwise she was still a good Liberal, but that wasn’t enough. For her part, Wilson-Raybould sent a letter to her caucus mates to plead her case, that she felt she was standing up for the values they shared and was trying to protect the prime minister from a “horrible mess,” but it didn’t sway any minds it seems. In the intervening hours, the texts and notes that Gerald Butts submitted to the Commons justice committee were released, and it mostly focused on the Cabinet shuffle, with the assurances that she was not being shuffled because of the SNC-Lavalin file, but because they needed someone with high profile for one of the highest-spending departments and she refused Indigenous Services. (Wilson-Raybould was also convinced that they were planning to replace her chief of staff with one of two PMO staffers she accused of trying to pressure her, which Butts said was not the plan, and which has not happened, for what it’s worth). I did find that Wilson-Raybould’s concern about the timing of the shuffle was suspicious, considering that the SNC-Lavalin file was on nobody’s radar until the Globe and Mail article, and her warnings of Indigenous anger if she was shuffled is also a bit odd considering that her record on addressing those issues while she was in the portfolio were…not exactly stellar.

When the “emergency” caucus meeting happened, Trudeau had just informed the pair that they were expelled, and he gave a lofty speech about trying to do politics differently, and sometimes that was hard and they didn’t always get it right, but he called recording the conversation with the Clerk of the Privy Council to be “unconscionable” (though it bears reminding that Philpott did not partake in this), and that they needed to be united because Liberals lose when they fight among themselves – and then he went into campaign mode. Because of course he did.

In the aftermath, Philpott put out a message that described her disappointment, and noted that she never got the chance to plead her case to caucus – though one imagines that for most of the caucus, the interview with Maclean’s, the hints of more to come, and what appeared to be a deliberate media strategy was her undoing, and her last-minute declaration of loyalty wasn’t enough to save her. She does, however, appear to want to stay in politics, so that remains interesting. Wilson-Raybould tweeted out a message that was unapologetic, rationalised her actions, and talked about transcending party, so perhaps that’s a hint of her future options. Andrew Scheer put out a message saying that there’s a home for anyone who speaks truth to power among the Conservatives, which is frankly hilarious given how much they crushed dissent when they were in power. (Also note that the NDP won’t take floor-crossers who don’t run in a by-election under their banner, and if they “make an exception” in this case, that will speak to their own principles. As well, if anyone thinks that they’re a party that brooks dissent, well, they have another thing coming). Liberals, meanwhile, made a valiant effort at trying to show how this was doing things differently – because they let it drag on instead of instantly putting their heads on (metaphorical) spikes. And maybe Trudeau was trying to give them a chance – he stated for weeks that they allow dissenting voices in the caucus – but the end result was the same.

In hot takes, Andrew Coyne says the expulsions serve no purpose other than vindictiveness, and that it’s a betrayal of the role of backbenchers to hold government to account. Susan Delacourt marvels at how long this has dragged out, and whether it’s a signal of dysfunction in the centre of Trudeau’s government that it’s carried out as it has. Robert Hiltz zeroes in on the lines in Trudeau’s speech where he conflates the national interest with that of the Liberal Party, which has the side-effect of keeping our oligarchical overlords in their comfortable places.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The caucus question

Posted on by

The question of the future of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott in the Liberal caucus is a very live question as sentiment seems to be turning against them – though one imagines that Wilson-Raybould’s ouster is probably of bigger concern to most Liberals given the revelation of the tape she made of her conversation with Michael Wernick. Apparently, the various caucus chairs have been meeting, and pushing for an emergency caucus meeting before the regularly scheduled Wednesday meeting to try and resolve the issue before then. Some of them want a declaration from the pair that they support the leader before they will consider letting them stay – and Wilson-Raybould would not give that when scrummed after QP yesterday, saying she believes in the party and what it stands for, but would not give any assurances about the leader. (She also scoffed at the idea of resigning, insisting that she was doing the best job she could). Of course, the fact that she made the secret recording means that she has broken the trust of colleagues, even though she has made the excuse that Wernick was neither a member of caucus, nor her client. (I would add that it doesn’t explain her conduct during that call, which contained a number of irregularities, leading questions and directed conversation in search of quotes). There are questions still about Philpott, and where she will position herself since the release of the tape, and some Liberals have suggested that perhaps she was “used” by Wilson-Raybould. (And one has to wonder if the tape would change her own notions about her support for Wilson-Raybould).

I have to say that I’m struggling on the question of whether or not Wilson-Raybould should remain in caucus, because while I believe there is room for dissent, and even for MPs who don’t support the leader – because it’s a gods damned political party and not a personality cult – I also find that the tape causes me a great deal of concern for the reasons articulated above, as do the opacity of her motivations for behaving in the way she has, particularly around the tactical use of silence on something that you would think she’s be pulling the fire alarm over if it was what she is hinting. Too many things don’t add up, which is both distressing and exhausting for someone trying to understand what is going on. I get that there are Liberals with battle scars who don’t want a replay of the Chrétien-Martin years (or the Dion-Ignatieff wars, or even Turner-Trudeau Senior if you want to go that far back), and there is the worry that Wilson-Raybould’s presence in caucus will be a potential source of internecine warfare that Liberals apparently excel at, or that Trudeau should be putting some metaphorical heads on spikes to reassert his dominance, or any of that, but again, this is a political party, not a personality cult. This is not and should not be Trudeau’s party, but there is a live question about the damage she has done to the party and its chances in the election given the way that this has rolled out, and members of caucus will need to consider that. It’s not an easy task, and they should think carefully, because expelling those two could create bigger narrative problems for them in the longer term. But it’s also not up to me to decide (and I’m not one of those journalists who enforces caucus loyalty), so I await to see what everyone in the caucus room decides.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives decided that their next pressure tactic would be for Pierre Poilievre to “filibuster” the budget debate – err, except it’s not really a filibuster because it can only take place during the time allotted for government orders, and the Standing Orders limit the budget debate to a maximum of four days, those days being at the government’s choosing. So essentially, Poilievre is holding himself hostage, and by him taking up all of the speaking time over those four allotted days, he’s essentially ensuring that nobody else has to prepare a speech of their own, so all of the MPs on House duty can simply spend their time doing paperwork at their desks while he carries on. So…I’m not sure what exactly the Conservatives are hoping to accomplish. It’s another ill-conceived move by a caucus who mistakes tactics for strategy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Backlash from the tape

Posted on by

Following Friday’s release of the documents and audio tape provided by Jody Wilson-Raybould, and now comes the backlash. Which at this point I think is the backlash to the backlash to the backlash to the backlash, or something. It’s like they’re ships firing broadsides at one another endlessly, and they’re all taking on water, but nobody will stop, and it’s just so exhausting. But here we go (again).

To begin with, Bill Morneau’s office is disputing the characterisation of conversations their staff had with Wilson-Raybould’s staff, and Gerald Butts tweeted that he’s submitting more of his documents to the committee, which will be released publicly when they too are translated. Michael Wernick’s lawyers are saying that Wernick didn’t brief the PM on the call with Wilson-Raybould because of holidays and the fact that Scott Brison’s announced resignation consumed matters subsequently, and that they didn’t talk about SNC-Lavalin until the Globe and Mail story came out (which one former staffer says is entirely plausible, though not everyone is buying it). Patty Hajdu went on television to say that Wilson-Raybould’s recording of that conversation was unethical, and that she doesn’t think she can trust her in caucus not to record their private conversations any further, though she’ll leave any decisions about ousting her to the caucus itself. And then there was a whole tangent arising from those documents about whether Brian Mulroney directed Kim Campbell as justice minister regarding the David Milgaard case, which led to competing versions of what happened in Mulroney’s memoir’s versus Campbell’s (and she tweeted out more clarifications over the weekend).

As for Wilson-Raybould, she says she’s “absolutely ready” for whatever happens next, and insists she was doing her job and “speaking her truth.” She also stated that Jane Philpott didn’t resign for her benefit, but because of Philpott’s own sense of integrity (which may be a way of trying to shield Philpott from the inevitable calls to have the pair of them booted from caucus, which will only intensify after the revelation of the recording). But a lot of things will now circle back to that recording, something that BC’s former Attorney General says speaks to a “deep fracture” at the heart of the Liberal Party. And he may be right, and it may also be a consequence of doing politics differently, given that one former national director of the party says has a lot to do with Trudeau’s refusal to put any heads on (metaphorical) spikes, which may now cost him in the long run.

Continue reading →