Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: Heading down the same road to destruction

Posted on by

As the American election results continue to grind along, there are a couple of things that have emerged that we should take to heart – one is that “Trumpism” wasn’t a fluke in 2016, and that it’s a real force that America needs to contend with honestly. The other is that the polarisation in the country has become so acute that adherents to each tribe party are now living in alternate realities, where facts don’t penetrate. This was punctuated by something that Gerald Butts has been saying over the past couple of days, that there are also two “information ecosystems” in the US, that perpetuate these alternate realities, in that each side’s news media is fairly disassociated from one another (and in some cases, facts and reality).

Why do I think this matters in particular? Because I see elements of this culture war bubbling up in this country, in somewhat inchoate and fledgling forms, but it’s there. We may not have the alternate forms of media in this country, but parties – Conservatives in particular – are building it over social media instead of traditional broadcasting (though they did make an honest effort with SunTV). The complete disregard for facts has well and truly wormed its way into the party’s discourse, and we’re now on their second party leader for whom bald-faced lying is now a daily occurrence, and this gets built into shitposts for those social media channels that they are promulgating, in some cases presenting their own alternate reality versions of situations. The NDP aren’t much better, importing wholesale the rhetoric of a segment of the American democratic party, and their own adherents refuse to believe the facts of situations (such as the existence of federalism in this country), as their leader deliberately misleads or omits facts to present the image of a government that simply doesn’t care to do things rather than the truth of their not having the jurisdiction to do them.

This is a problem that we have been complacent about addressing in this country, because we insist that it’s not as bad as in the US – and sure, we don’t have the same level of tribalism and political duality as they do, but just because we’re not as far down the road as they are doesn’t mean we’re not on the road here. There was an attempt to create that duality here – it wasn’t that long ago that the Liberals were considered to be a spent force, politically, and the Conservatives and NDP spent early Question Periods of the 41st Parliament patting themselves on the back that there was finally a real contrast in parties in the House of Commons (while the whole of the pundit class demanded that the remains of the Liberals merge with the NDP, as though the parties didn’t have fundamental ideological differences). We keep adopting Americanisms in our political systems and structures, and way too many political staffers (and more than a few reporters) spend their days LARPing episodes of the West Wing. Too many Canadians are keen to import all of the same problems that are turning America into a failed state because we think they’re more “exciting,” or somehow enviable in other ways. We should be repudiating this and shedding these American affectations from our politics, but nobody wants to do that, and this is going to cause an increasing number of problems the longer we go down this road. America is a giant flashing warning sign to turn back – can we do so in time?

Continue reading →

QP: Imagining a diplomatic snub

Posted on by

It being Wednesday, the prime minister was present and ready to respond to all of the questions being posed. Erin O’Toole led off, and lied about what David Lametti said about judicial appointments, and Trudeau said he would answer in a moment, but wanted to first assure Canadians that they were monitoring what is happening in the United States. O’Toole accused him of a cover-up and of politicising appointments, to which Trudeau read a script about major reforms to the process to make it independent after Conservative mismanagement. O’Toole tried in French, and got the same answer. O’Toole then worried that federal guidance on masks was stricter than in Quebec, and wondered who Quebeckers should listen to, and Trudeau said that they respect the advice of local public health authorities but they are trying to provide guidance. O’Toole tried again in English, and got much the same response. Yves-François Legault got up for the Bloc and accused the prime minister of preferring Biden and weakening the relationship with Americans, then wondered if he had spoke to the president of France. Trudeau reminded him that regardless of the outcome of the election, they would stand up for Canadian interests and those of allies including France. Blanchet tried to pivot this to freedom of expression, and Trudeau listed things that Canada stands with France on, and that he would be speaking with Macron in the near future. Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, and in French, demanded to know when the federal standards on long-term care was coming — because you can wrangle the provinces overnight. Trudeau reminded him that they are working with the provinces. Singh then lied about federal ownership over certain long-term care homes and demanded an end to for-profit care, to which Trudeau reminded him that they respect provincial jurisdiction on long-term care but are there to support provinces.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some key differences

Posted on by

There wasn’t a winner in the US election declared before this blog post was put to bed, but I will make a couple of points about why elections in this country are not such a gong show. Number one is that we have an arm’s length federal elections agency that administers elections, whereas the Americans let each state run their federal elections, resulting in an inconsistency in rules and even methods – some states using only electronic voting machines, others using paper ballots, and there being a confusion around mail-in ballots, not to mention that the fact that we have more than enough polling stations so that lines are rarely more than ten minutes, if that. In Canada, we have arm’s length quasi-judicial processes to draw riding boundaries that have virtually eliminated gerrymandering, whereas political considerations have created such skewed, gerrymandered districts in the US, and their Supreme Court refuses to do anything about them. Attempts to disqualify voters in Canada have been struck down or punished electorally, whereas it’s a voter suppression tactic in the US with hugely racial overtones. And more than anything, we have a monarch and a governor general who act as a constitutional fire extinguisher if everything goes awry in the results. We’re pretty damn lucky to live here, in a functional democracy.

Continue reading →

QP: An unequivocal clarification

Posted on by

While everyone’s attention was on the election south of the border, things got underway in the House of Commons for our own (superior) system of democracy. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern and quoted Pierre Elliott Trudeau about the importance of free speech, to which Justin Trudeau rebutted that Canada always stands up for freedom of expression. O’Toole demanded to know if the PM stands up for freedom of speech, and Trudeau responded that nothing justifies violence or terrorism. O’Toole tried again, and Trudeau was even more forceful in his defence of free speech than the previous two times, without any of the equivocation that was being called out after this comments last week. O’Toole switched to French and recounted how the French president called the Quebec premier, and chided Trudeau on not getting a similar call, to which Trudeau repeated that they always stand up for free speech and will stand against terrorism and violence. O’Toole again brought up Trudeau’s father, and Trudeau reiterated for the fifth time that they unequivocally defend free expression and denounce terrorism. Yves-François Blanchet led off for the Bloc and he carried on with the same question, accusing Trudeau of twisting himself into knots over it, to which Trudeau again reiterated that they will always defend freedom of expression.  Blanchet was not mollified, and they went for another round of the same. Jagmeet Singh was up next and in French, asked about flu vaccine supplies — orders for which is once again a provincial responsibility. Trudeau responded that they ordered more than usual, and it was good that more people were getting it. Singh tried again in English, to which Trudeau reiterated that they preordered more than usual, and that they would work with the provinces to get more.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Preparations at the border?

Posted on by

Everyone is going to spend the day obsessing about the US election, and while I just can’t, I figured that I should at least make the point that I’m hoping that in this government’s preparations, there includes some for the border because if there is a Trump victory (or violence that breaks out if the result is unclear or a narrow enough Trump defeat), I would expect a rush of would-be asylum seekers heading for our borders, particularly vulnerable minorities who are already in precarious situations in the US and are likely to become targets of violence if things degenerate. That means that this government is going to need to have proper quarantine protocols in place, as well as hopefully a plan that involves more than simply turning them back as they have been since the border closure in March, because a deteriorating situation in the US would mean that sending them back would almost certainly be unconstitutional – this as the government is already fighting with a Federal Court decision that says that the US is not a safe third country and that the agreement to turn these claimants back violates the constitution. This may all be for naught, but the US is on the verge of becoming a failed state, and we need to be ready for how that will affect us, in the short and long term.

Continue reading →

QP: Assertions of no PMO interference

Posted on by

All of the leaders were absent for the day, and not even the deputy PM was present, making it feel a little more like a Friday than a Monday. Gérard Deltell led off in English, lamenting that the prime minister wouldn’t protect the unconditional freedom of speech, and feeling there should be limits on it. François-Philippe Champagne responded with condolences for the people of France, and saying that Canada would defend freedom of expression around the world. Deltell repeated the question in French, to which Champagne warned him against politicising such a horrific incident. Deltell tried to put forward the notion that it took Trudeau twelve days to condemn the murder of that teacher in France, to which Champagne rebutted that he made a statement the following day. Deltell reminded Champagne that he is not yet prime minister, and insisted that the government was not standing by its ally in France, and Champagne rebutted that the government speaks as a whole. Deltell again returned to Trudeau citing that there are limits to freedom of expression, for which Champagne again chided him about politicising the issue. Stéphane Bergeron led for the Bloc, and he too hammered on Trudeau saying there were limits to freedom of expression, for which Champagne reiterated his that Canada stood by France and to defend freedom of expression. Bergeron accused the government of downplaying Islamic terrorism and hurting Quebec’s special relationship with France, to which Champagne repeated that Canada was standing by France. Jagmeet Singh was up next by video, and in French, after mentioning the attack in Quebec City, he demanded increased funding for mental health services, for which Patty Hajdu reminded him that they have been increasing funds for provinces for mental health services. Singh switched to English to worry about small businesses paying commercial rent, accusing Trudeau of helping “Liberal insiders” instead. Sean Fraser responded with a list of programmes available for small businesses. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mischief with a reasonable goal

Posted on by

It may be a bit of mischief, but it’s certainly well-deserved, as the Alberta NDP are moving a motion in the legislature to have the government condemn separatism. The ostensible goal for the denunciation is because talk of separatism is bad for the economy – it drives away investment, no matter how low corporate taxes are (and you only have to look to Canadian history to see how the two referendums in Quebec saw the country’s financial capital move from Montreal to Toronto, even though Montreal was a more tax-advantageous environment). If Alberta hopes to diversify their economy, they need to ensure that they aren’t driving away investment in a similar way.

It’s also about jamming Jason Kenney to an extent, because while he has stated in the past that he’s not a separatist, he’s also winked and nodded to them in a fairly constant fashion, and used his own rhetoric to fuel their arguments, up to and including his ridiculous “Fair Deal Panel.” But with the rise of separatist parties, both federally and provincially in the prairie provinces, there are concerns about them gaining political traction – particularly as the so-called “Buffalo Party” gained a fair number of votes in last week’s Saskatchewan election, and it may have some people in Alberta worried. Granted, the Conservatives in the province should likely be more worried because they’re likely to peel voters away from the Conservatives, which may allow the NDP to come up the middle provincially, but there should also be no doubt that letting these separatists get any kind of political traction – even a handful of seats – would be sending the wrong signals to markets. Having Kenney denounce them in a way that they can’t spin as winking or nodded to them may be a way to take some of the wind out of their sails – but it could also expose divisions in Kenney’s own caucus (which is partly where the mischief comes in). Nevertheless, even if the movement is headed by a bunch of swivel-eyed loons who have no chance of success, they can cause a lot of damage along the way, and should be taken down at every chance.

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: A gesture toward pettiness

Posted on by

There are a lot of symbolic gestures that politicians do that I cannot abide, but one of the most obnoxious and corrosive ones is the insistence on cutting their own pay when times get tough – and lo and behold, we have an Ontario senator who is moving a motion to do just that, asking both MPs and Senators to forgo statutory pay increases (to meet inflation) as a gesture. This is not really a symbolic or empty gesture – it is a signal to populist impulses that serve to devalue public life, and treats what they do as somehow being less valuable than people in the private sector – which is ironic considering how much less MPs and senators make than professionals and executives in the private sector.

Without entirely relitigating what I wrote on this before, I wanted to point out some of the fairly offensive characterizations of such gestures that were in the National Post piece, which describes the gesture as “important” for private sector and low-income workers, and the usual suspects at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation trying to insist that politicians aren’t making sacrifices when people are losing their businesses.

The problem with this line of logic is that these gestures don’t do anything. If anything, they come with a dose of schadenfreude, that if I’m suffering then watching politicians or civil servants being forced to suffer as well is satisfying, even if it ultimately makes things worse overall. What good does it serve to make everyone miserable or worse off? How does that make the situation better for everyone? It doesn’t. There are enough trade-offs that go with public life or public service that often make it a fairly unappealing to many people, so why pile on? Pettiness won’t solve the economic crisis or make people’s businesses reopen, and it certainly won’t make COVID go away, so why indulge it?

Continue reading →

QP: A minister for divination?

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau was in town and on another “virtual” tour while his deputy was in the Commons in his stead. Erin O’Toole led off with his script on a mini-lectern, and he tried to tease out a contradiction in the status of the pandemic early warning system, to which Chrystia Freeland slowly and calmly stated that it was the time to focus on the second wave, but post-mortems should come later as one should not change the plane’s engine after taking off. O’Toole was not mollified, and tried again, but Freeland was not dissuaded in her calm dismissal. O’Toole tried to delve into news reporting about Freeland disagreeing on closing borders earlier in the pandemic, and Freeland calmly walked through the history of the Canada-US border closure. O’Toole switched to French to decry the terrorist attack in France earlier this morning and accused the prime minister of not taking it seriously, to which Freeland corrected him and said that all Canadians are horrified by the attack and they show solidarity with France. O’Toole wondered what happened to the promised de-radicalisation centres, to which Freeland calmly stated that they never failed to step up and show leadership, and that Canada stands with France. Stéphane Bergeron led for the Bloc, even though Yves-François Blanchet was present, and he demanded an official apology for the October Crisis, to which Freeland reminded him of the period in question and of the family of the Quebec politician who was killed by extremists. Andréanne Larouche tried again, and Freeland gave a paean to democracy and the space for disagreements. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in French, he decried the situation in long-term care facilities but wondered where the national standards were, and Freeland slowly explained that they need to work with provinces and territories as the second wave has hit. Singh switched to English to decry that the worst problems were in for-profit homes, and made an allusion to the falsehood that the federal government owns some of these facilities. Freeland agreed that they can’t turn a blind eye to the conditions in long-term care facilities, and that the country needs to do better.

Continue reading →