Tag Archives: Yves-François Blanchet

Roundup: That 21-second pause

Posted on by

Sometimes the news out of prime minister Justin Trudeau’s daily pressers is unexpected, and yesterday was no exception. After first acknowledging that he would be speaking more on the situation with anti-Black racism in the House of Commons later, Trudeau turned to the subject of the government’s efforts to procure more personal protective equipment and the industry retooling to supply it domestically in Canada. But none of this was the actual news. It was during the Q&A that, after a question on Hong Kong (Trudeau: We are very concerned because there are 300,000 Canadian citizens there), he was put on the spot about what Donald Trump is doing in the US, and what Trudeau’s silence in not denouncing it says. And then Trudeau paused. Gathering his thoughts, for twenty-one seconds, there was uncertainty as to what was going on in his mind, when he finally spoke about the “horror and consternation” of what was going on in the US – but he was very diplomatic and not calling out Trump on anything specifically. There is a relationship to manage there, especially during this global pandemic. When asked about Israel, Trudeau reiterated the support for a two-state solution and that he is “concerned” about annexation plans into Palestinian territory and that he told both prime ministers of that country (because there are now two) about it personally. He was also was asked about the MMIW Inquiry report and its finding of “genocide,” and Trudeau prevaricated somewhat, using the term “cultural genocide” before talking about the need to do better and work on the road to reconciliation, but wasn’t going to allow himself to be drawn into using other language.

A short while later in the Commons, Trudeau stood to give his speech on racism, and made sure that he had MP Greg Fergus and minister Ahmed Hussen in the frame behind him – because it’s always about optics. Nevertheless, he stated that he didn’t want to be another white politician lecturing about racism, and said that not being perfect is not an excuse for not doing anything, before he listed actions his government had taken in engaging the Black community, for what it’s worth.

Andrew Scheer gave a far more predictably milquetoast denunciation of racism, name-checking convenient names for his narrative along the way, like Lincoln Alexander and John Ware. But in his denunciation of racism – including anti-Asian racism and anti-Semitism along the way in light of a recently vandalized synagogue, he kept going on about peaceful protests over riots, and the importance of freedom, singling out economic and religious freedom. There was zero awareness from Scheer about structural racism, or self-awareness in how his party’s “tough-on-crime” fetishism contributes to over-policing at the heart of these protests.

Yves-François Blanchet was less equivocal than Scheer, going on about the anthropology of there being no such thing as race and that racism was about othering – but then stated that the Canadian and Quebec governments “weren’t racist” (erm, you do know what Bill 21 in Quebec was all about, right?) before saying that there may be “traces” that create systemic barriers. And then this shifted to a demand to process the claims of certain asylum seekers (because there’s nothing like the reliance on low-wage and untrained labour that is a direct beacon to the systemic barriers that these very minorities face) before citing that peaceful protests were legitimate and violent ones were not.

Jagmeet Singh kept saying that the government needs to make concrete action instead of making “pretty speeches,” and that the prime minister has the power to do things beyond words, demanding things like ending racial profiling, ending the over-policing of Black and Indigenous bodies, subsequent over-incarceration of Black and Indigenous people, and the need for race-based data. But as Singh can’t even grandstand properly, when he was up to question Trudeau several minutes later in the special committee, he seemed to indicate that things like ending racial profiling could be done with the snap of a finger, and when he demanded that boil water advisories be lifted in First Nations communities, Trudeau reminded him that they are on schedule for doing just that.

Elizabeth May closed out the speeches by naming as many Black and Indigenous deaths at the hands of police that she could recall, before talking about the cyclical nature of these kinds of denunciations every few months, acknowledging her white privilege, denounced Trump, and called on the government to root out white supremacist groups as a terrorist threat, particularly within police forces in Canada.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Cabinet dominoes

Posted on by

With the days counting down until the Cabinet shuffle, the speculation is starting to get intense, and much of it is centred around the fate of Chrystia Freeland and whether Justin Trudeau will keep her in foreign affairs or move her to a more problem-solving domestic portfolio – particularly intergovernmental affairs, and capitalizing on her Alberta upbringing as the regional representative around the table (along with Jonathan Wilkinson as the Saskatchewan representative). One of the considerations is that nobody is quite sure who might take Freeland’s place in the foreign affairs portfolio, and the dominos go from there.

Another consideration is the fact that there will need to be some additional bench strength remaining for the committee chairs, as they will be a bigger battleground in a hung parliament than under a majority, given that the opposition will now hold the majority on them. That will essentially mean that amendments for bills will become a bigger consideration at the committee stage than they were in the previous parliament (to say nothing of what happens with amendments coming from the Senate, now that the Commons can insist on adopting them if the opposition all gangs up). There will be plenty of new dynamics that need to be managed – which is why the positions of House Leader and Whip will be all the more important in this new parliament.

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield has been imagining mandate letters for incoming ministers, and those released over the weekend include the international trade minister, as well as the social development minister.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Upcoming Speaker election

Posted on by

As you may be aware, the very first order of business in any new Parliament is the election of a Speaker, and today we have confirmation that the incumbent, Geoff Regan, is planning to run again for the role, as are the deputy and assistant deputy Speakers from the last parliament, Bruce Stanton, Carole Hughes and Anthony Rota, and one new face, Conservative MP Joël Godin. What is new in this Parliament is the plan to run the election by way of preferential ballot rather than successive rounds of voting, which is no doubt intended to speed up the process and reduce the use of hospitality suites between voting rounds as has happened in previous Parliaments. (ETA: Apparently I am mistaken and this is the second time they will have used a preferential ballot. My apologies). The speedier process will also allow them to have the Speech from the Throne on the same day, which is unusual in and of itself.

One of Regan’s main advantages in this race is experience, which is going to be a very important consideration in a hung parliament situation. And while many of us would love an assertive Speaker like the UK’s John Bercow (perhaps without the alleged bullying of House of Commons staff), who did a lot to protect the rights of MPs against the party leaders and the Cabinet, we have to remember that Canadian Speakers are hampered by the Standing Orders that limit their powers. Some of those rules may be changing – the Liberals pledged as part of their platform that they would like to see the Speaker do away with the speaking lists provided by the party whips and House leaders, which frees up the Speaker to pick MPs to speak and perhaps enforce some more discipline that way – but it’s only a half-measure so long as we still allow scripts and prepared speeches in the Commons. Nevertheless, if they go ahead with even the half-measure, that could be a bigger challenge for any Speaker to take on, so having one with some experience under his (or her) belt would be a beneficial thing.

Meanwhile, Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column offers the guidebook on how the Speaker election will be run, as well as just what the job entails should any other MPs be considering the job.

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: The data for the debunking

Posted on by

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to un-resign

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day that the Liberal drama in Burnaby South went completely sideways, as resigned candidate Karen Wang decided that she wanted to un-resign. And the Liberals said nope, and Wang’s attempt at a press conference turned into a gong show as she chose a location that she didn’t ask for permission from and they said nope. So, gong show. Wang later spent the day a) insisting she wasn’t racist, and this was all a mistranslation, and by the way a volunteer wrote the WeChat post anyway; and b) fending off the notion that she also tried to run for the Conservatives, by saying that the Conservatives had approached her after she ran for the provincial Liberals (remember the BC Liberals are more of a centre-right coalition than the federal Liberals are), and that she didn’t say yes to them. Oh, and she still supports the Liberals. And amidst this all, certain other anonymous voices in the local Liberal riding association are now saying that they warned the party that she was “difficult to handle.”

Meanwhile, this hasn’t stopped the utter lunatic notions floating around the national media that somehow the PMO engineered this whole incident in order to essentially hand the victory to Jagmeet Singh and the NDP, because the Liberals will ultimately benefit from his weak leadership carrying on, or something.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1085960409654255616

And then there are the NDP surrogates trying to insist that the Liberals are trying to spin this version of events, and trying to build the case that it’s really just racism that the Liberals and the mainstream media are to blame for Singh not having a seat or a national profile. And lest we not forget that Maxime Bernier’s candidate in the riding is polling higher than expected, which has people wondering if it’s Scheer who should watch out.

Continue reading →