Tag Archives: Rob Anders

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Putting vaccine procurement facts on the record

Posted on by

There was a very important interview released yesterday, with the co-chair of the government’s vaccine task force, which blew most of the narratives about the vaccine procurement out of the water. Particularly, it goes through the evaluation of domestic production capacity and candidate development, the decision to create a broad portfolio of vaccine candidates from international sources, and the fact that CanSino was just one of several options – it was never “all of our eggs,” as the Conservatives continue to lie about. She talks about how long it takes to build bio-manufacturing capacity, and people demanding that it be done overnight are like trying to tell a farmer to grow his crops faster. There are just so many falsehoods that the opposition has been circulating in order to give the impression that the federal government has been incompetent in their handling of this vaccine procurement, which this government has not been effective in pushing back against, even when the media does finally get Anita Anand to give proper answers – which tend not to stick in people’s minds. This notion that the government was simply incapable of signing good deals is ridiculous but corrosive (indeed, the opposition parties spent the whole day trying to use the Health Committee’s production powers to force the release of the vaccine contracts, in spite of the fact that they have rigid non-disclosure clauses, for which Liberals on the committee were filibustering), and yet here we are. So, it was good to finally get an interview with one of the people at the centre of this on the record, but man, it should not have taken this long.

Meanwhile, after Manitoba put on a dog and pony show about procuring their own domestically produced vaccines (which couldn’t happen until the end of the year at the earliest), Jason Kenney announced that he would do the same, but started talking about how the company – Provenance – would need 50 million doses ordered before they could properly scale up and produce them, and he wanted other provinces to sign up – err, at a point when everyone in the country should be vaccinated already – and insisted that they could simply sell surplus doses abroad. Well, the CEO of that company went on Power & Politics yesterday to say that oh no, Kenney must have been poorly briefed, and there was no 50 million dose minimum, and if they’re only contracted for two million doses, they’ll produce two million doses – but I’m not sure which of them to believe, because while Kenney is not exactly an honest broker, it’s quite possible he said the quiet part out loud when it comes to Provenance (though the industry minister is supposed to be meeting with the CEO today, so we’ll see).

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s conversion to the labour movement

Posted on by

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole addressed the Canadian Club of Toronto yesterday, and the more I read of his speech, the more curious I become of just what it is he’s trying to say. For example, he spent part of the speech bemoaning the collapse of private sector union membership in the country, talking about how it was part of the balance between what was good for the economy and what was good for workers. That’s surprising considering that when he was in Cabinet, O’Toole supported anti-union legislation that the party put forward (under the guise of private members’ bills, naturally), and the party was having a field day before the last election trying to accuse the government of stacking their media bailout fund by allowing Unifor – the country’s largest private sector union – to have a seat at the table (given that Unifor also represents a lot of journalists). I’m sure the labour movement in this country has whiplash from this sudden reversal – though I would note that in his mouthing about the importance of unions the past couple of months, he is careful to distinguish between private and public sector unions, the latter he still continues to be evil. (And before anyone says those two anti-union bills were “about transparency,” you all know that’s a lie and can stop insulting our intelligence).

O’Toole argued that we have somehow completely de-industrialized as a country, which is news to the rest of us, and then went on an extended tirade about China, because he’s trying to frame this as a national security argument and not just populism hollowing out his party’s political ideology. He claimed that the Liberals were using the pandemic to launch a “risky experiment with our economy” around green energy, which is…not really true, and ignores how markets have moved to green tech with better economic outcomes for doing so. He also continued his protectionist bent, and made a few deeply curious statements like “Free markets alone won’t solve all our problems” (erm, his party is the one that rails about the evils of socialism, no? Is he proposing nationalizing industries? Or does he simply mean global trade when he talks about “free markets”?), and adding that that GDP growth is not the “be-all and end-all of politics” – which is odd because nobody has actually suggested that it is (but his predecessor was fond of attacking straw men as well). I’m also a bit puzzled by what exactly he’s getting at when he says “We need policies to shore up the core units of society — family, neighbourhood, nation. We need policies that build solidarity, not just wealth.” Some of this is thinly-veiled Thatcherism, but where it’s building in terms of his populist rhetoric I am a bit troubled.

And make no mistake – this is full-throated populism, particularly when he starts railing about political and business elites selling out the country (with mention about political correctness in there) – which he’s oddly making to an audience that is thought of as Canada’s business elites. But it’s also deeply hypocritical because of just who O’Toole is. He is the son of a GM executive (which he tries to obscure when he says his father “worked for GM” as though he were blue-collar), who went on to be an MPP. In fact, earlier in the week, O’Toole was tweeting about how he built himself up to leadership, conveniently omitting the huge leg-up he was given along the way. It’s like the “self-made” tech millionaires who got their start with loans from their millionaire fathers, and getting those fathers to buy their tech at their companies. More to the point, after O’Toole left the military, he was a Bay Street corporate lawyer, which is not exactly the image of the middle-class guy he’s painting himself as. When he rails about “elites,” he needs to look in the mirror because that’s exactly what he is. Of course, we’ve seen this story so many times in populist politics, where rich white guys turn themselves into the heroes for the “oppressed underclass” (of mostly straight white guys) who somehow believe that said rich white guy is a “man of the people.” And no doubt O’Toole is hoping he’ll dine out on this as well, but make no mistake, this speech was hypocrisy of the highest order.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Two senators are not enough

Posted on by

After Thomas Mulcair indicated that he’d been approached by a couple of Senators who would be willing to help him pass his agenda, we now get a couple of names – Liberal Senator Larry Campbell, and Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth, though the latter isn’t talking about it (and personally I wonder why she would volunteer considering how shoddily she’s been treated by the NDP after she made that joke about camembert, and yes, it was a joke). But it’s not quite as cut-and-dried as Mulcair seemed to make it out to be. Campbell, in an interview with CBC, said he’d be willing to ensure that bills get due credit, but that’s not exactly putting oneself in the position of shepherding through an entire NDP agenda. I also have my doubts when Campbell says that the Senate doesn’t need a leader of the government and a leader of the opposition, largely because it clashes with our system of Responsible Government. The current framework allows for Senators to hold the government to account in the way that MPs can, by asking questions of a member of cabinet – nominally the leader of the government in the Senate, never mind the fact that Harper’s current leader is not in cabinet because he churlishly is trying to distance himself from the Senate. And one of the most underrated ways in which Senators perform this accountability is in the leader’s ability to take questions on notice and provide written responses. Losing this ability would be a blow to the Senate’s accountability function, which is a vital part of their role of Sober Second Thought. You need answers from government if you are to properly consider their legislative agenda, and losing that conduit is going to hamper that ability. Campbell and Senate Liberal whip Jim Munson also mused about making the Senate Speaker elected by the chamber, but I’m not sure how easily this can be accomplished considering that the Senate Speaker has duties beyond what the Commons Speaker does in terms of protocol and diplomatic duties, which is one of the reasons it’s a Governor-in-Council appointment. He or she is the “Queen’s man” (or woman as the case may be) for a reason, and there may be a lot of hoops to jump through in order to make that change. I’m not saying it’s not doable, but it may not be easily doable – particularly if you have an NDP prime minister who has no interest in doing anything for the Senate. Suffice to say, it’s not enough for Mulcair to use these couple of senators as an excuse to ignore his constitutional obligations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Adams nomination

Posted on by

Day three of the Eve Adams floor crossing fallout, and once you wade through some of the sexist columns and tiresome Biblical references, a few things start to emerge. Adams had a very interesting interview on CP24 yesterday, and the host pressed her on a lot of issues and Adams seemed to have some coherent answers about changing her mind about income splitting when Flaherty came out with his objections, and that she was a loyal foot soldier for the Conservatives so their excuses about being happy to be rid of her are ringing hollow. She also said that she would be moving to riding she plans to run in, Eglington Lawrence, and that has already begun reaching out to the community there. The riding president says she’s welcome to run, but reminds everyone that it’s an open nomination. Trudeau told the media while in Winnipeg that he gave some reflection to accepting Adams into the fold, and said that it was Adams’ willingness to do the tough slog to win a difficult riding was what convinced him – and I think that’s borne out it in the fact that it’s going to be an open, contested nomination, and that Adams is going to have to do the hard work of convincing the grassroots members that she is the leopard who has changed her spots. And it’s going to be tough – here is one of the nomination candidates that she will be running against, and it’s going to be tough for her to beat someone of his credentials. I also believe that having Adams lose in a fair fight is part of Trudeau’s actual plan, where he gets the news value of her embarrassing the PM and then saying that the open nomination system worked. The fact that she was slotted into the riding’s nomination race without consultation seems to fit with that fact. But then again, what do I know?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cheap outrage and bad design

Posted on by

An op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen caught my eye yesterday, which talked about the reason why we get so much bad architecture here in the Nation’s Capital. Much of the government’s real estate is controlled by the department of Public Works, and there is a legitimate fear that anytime there’s good design, they’ll be criticised for spending money. And this is where I get both sad and angry (or “sangry,” as one fellow journo has dubbed). We have developed a culture of cheap outrage in this country, thanks to groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and media outlets keen on cashing in on the cheap headlines that a high dollar figure out of context will generate. One of the worst offenders was Greg Weston, formerly of Sun News and later CBC (since retired from journalism). Anytime money was spent, well, he’d be all over how awful it was. New “temporary” committee rooms for Parliamentarians that have *gasp!* wood panelling! Millions of dollars! We can’t have that! (Never mind that “temporary” means something on the order of 20 years). The renovations to the West Block which includes the glassed-in courtyard that will house the temporary House of Commons? Millions of dollars! Outrageous! (Never mind that that same glassed-in courtyard will find new life as committee rooms after the Commons moves back to the Centre Block). Apparently it’s terrible if parliamentarians are not made to sit in portables during renovations, or that the context of those high dollar figures is something akin to them being halfway reasonable considering what has to go into that kind of work. How much do you expect a glass roof in keeping with the neo-Gothic architecture is supposed to cost anyway? It’s the same with the government selling off diplomatic residences and insisting that our ambassadors serve Ritz crackers and ginger ale at functions. Gods forbid that we actually put on a good face for stakeholders or visiting dignitaries, or even other Canadians to show a hint of prestige, that this is the national capital. No, anything that even hints at costing money must be treated as heresy. It’s sad that we perpetuate this mindset, and not reserve the outrage for legitimate boondoggles and wastes of money. No, instead we make it so that nobody can have nice things, and we all suffer as a result.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, it’s not media apathy

Posted on by

The prime minister’s former director of communications writes that it’s perfectly natural that the government wants to create their own communications channels that bypass the media because We The Media are apparently “apathetic” to what the want to tell us. You will forgive me for saying, but I’m not sure there are words enough to express how big of a load of utter horseshit that this justification actually is. His definition of “apathy” is that the media won’t act as transcriptionists for their feel-good stories, which forces them to go around us. Fair enough – it’s not our jobs to retype your press releases and make you look good. But what is utterly galling is for him to turn around and declare that the media has a challenge function that’s important for democracy and that’s why they’re needed, when the very same government that he served is doing their level best to kneecap journalists from fulfilling that role. Whether it’s frustrating Access to Information laws, closing off all avenues of communication with ministers, not returning phone calls and delivering bland statements in lieu of answers to questions being asked, or simply dragging out responding to media requests until it’s well past deadline, it all amounts to choking off necessary information from the media because it fulfils its challenge function, and that challenge function makes the government look bad. When the media does write about the government’s use of their own distribution channels, it’s not because we’re sulking that we’re not the privileged distributors of information – it’s that we’re being denied the ability to do our jobs as we’re shut out of events, not allowed to ask questions at announcements, and that our independent photographers are not allowed to even capture those events and are instead being handed a staged photo to run instead that shows what the government wants us to see instead. That’s not giving us the space to perform our necessary challenge function – it’s trying to turn us into organs of propaganda. That he ignores those legitimate complaints and frames them as “sweating over” trivialities is part of what makes his whole construction utterly farcical.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Politicizing the suspensions

Posted on by

Talk of the two Liberal suspensions continues to swirl and take on a darker and more political tone as Thomas Mulcair accused Justin Trudeau of “re-victimising” the two accusers as they asked him not to go public and he didn’t inform them ahead of time that he would suspend his MPs. Trudeau noted that he didn’t reveal the gender or party of the alleged victims, and that he had a duty to act when confronted with the allegations, and one can certainly imagine the accusations that would be levelled against Trudeau if it became public knowledge that he knew of the incidents and didn’t take action. It is also not really a helpful suggestion from those like Megan Leslie to say that he could have disciplined his MPs quietly, which is part of the problem that his public suspensions are trying to address – that there shouldn’t be any tolerance for this kind of behaviour, and that it comes with consequences. I also don’t think there’s any small amount of irony in Leslie saying that it should have been done quietly, when that just feeds the “old boy’s club” mentality that she seems eager to undermine. We also have learnt that one of the incidents took place more than a year ago and another Liberal MP, Scott Simms, know of it but didn’t say anything at the request of the alleged victim, whom he described as a “dear friend.” CBC has six questions in the wake of what has gone on, which help frame what we know and don’t know. In the wake of Wednesday’s suspensions, Leslie talks about some of the more subtle forms of harassment that goes on – not so much aggressive as unwanted touching of hair or lower backs, while former staffers have also opened up about their experiences, including Jordan Owens. She made a very good point about the value of staffers being their discretion, which is true and necessary for the kind of work that is being done, and it makes the situation that much more complicated.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Buh-bye once more, Rob Anders

Posted on by

And it’s buh-bye once again to Rob Anders, as he failed his second attempt at a nomination race, this time in the Southern Alberta riding of Bow Valley. There, the mayor of Brooks won the race, in spite of his questionable choices in haircut, beard and waxed moustache (seriously?), after he labelled Anders a “drop-in candidate.” Anders must have secured the party’s consent to contest a second nomination, but now it remains to be seen what he’ll do next. Oh, and he didn’t even bother to show up at the nomination meeting that he ended up losing in. Apparently Alberta has tired of him and his antics. I just can’t wait for him to denounce that riding as having been infiltrated with liberals and communists, as he tries to find the last vestige of a people who wear their prejudices as proudly as they drive their pick-up trucks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: “Stolen” land for a memorial

Posted on by

An Ottawa architect is raising the alarm about the plans for the site of the “Victims of communism” memorial, saying it’s been “stolen” by the current government. The site, between the Supreme Court and Library and Archives, was supposed to be the future site of a building to house the Federal Court, but the current government has quietly scuppered those plans. That Federal Court building would have completed a triad of national buildings – the Justice Building, the Supreme Court, and the Federal Court building (which had approved designs and was ready to go before the Liberal government delayed the plans). The fact that the plans for that building to have been disappeared without explanation deserves explanation, but none are forthcoming. That such a prominent site is going to host a memorial (and one that is politically driven and is fairly controversial) rather than a significant national building should be concerning, however I fear this is going to be shrugged off like so many of the ways in which the national capital is being constantly denigrated and undermined by the current government.

Continue reading →