Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Not taking constitutional amendments seriously

Posted on by

During his press conference yesterday, prime minister Justin Trudeau said that according to his legal advice, Quebec can unilaterally modify part of the federal Constitution that applies specifically to them – which is either untrue, or appeasement to the Legault government, because every party is trying to suck up to Legault and his overwhelming popularity.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394692157001412612

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394692818644393991

A plain reading of Section 43 of the Constitution states that where language rights are involved, the federal Parliament needs to have a say in the constitutional amendment, and it’s very much invoked in these proposals from Quebec. That Trudeau – or apparently the lawyers in the Justice Department – can’t see this is a problem, and raises some real questions as to the quality of advice the government is receiving from the department. (Hell, even other Liberal MPs are questioning it).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394762687410753539

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394763319932764166

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394800378013790211

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394801217029746688

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394693812568694787

But what were people riled up over instead of an egregious violation of our constitutional norms? A photo of Trudeau at a laptop which was clearly an HP machine, with the logo covered over with an Apple sticker. The scandal!

Continue reading →

Roundup: Quitting over a municipal issue

Posted on by

News came down yesterday that Liberal MP Bob Bratina announced, in a bit of a huff, that he wasn’t going to run again in the next election because the government decided to fund an LRT project in Hamilton – where his riding is, and where he used to be mayor – because he’s personally opposed to the project. A certain Postmedia columnist picked up on this and insisted this was dire news for the Liberals, because they’re not even listening to their own MPs. There are counterpoints to this argument.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1394439822748659719

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1394441891937140741

This having been said, yes, we know that sometimes Trudeau and Cabinet can be deaf to caucus concerns, but in this case, Bratina is throwing a tantrum, insisting that they didn’t consult “the Hamilton guy” when the Labour minister’s riding is also in Hamilton, and the infrastructure minister, Catherine McKenna, grew up there. In other words, the voices at the Cabinet table are just as qualified to talk about Hamilton issues than the “Hamilton guy,” especially because he’s personally opposed to a project that is basically what his own party is standing up for right now – mass transit options as part of the oncoming rapid decarbonization we need to engage in if we’re going to get our GHG emissions below catastrophic levels. He should be well aware of this given it’s the party he ran for two elections in a row. If he wants to run for mayor again to oppose the project, he’s within his rights to do so.

As for said the aforementioned columnist’s coded language around “common sense” and “silent majorities,” it’s hard to square that with the current incarnation of the Liberals. In other words, it’s probably pretty safe to consider his dire warning about this as an example of concern trolling, for what it’s worth.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On not electing first ministers

Posted on by

There was something going around the Twitter Machine yesterday regarding past prime ministers, and Kim Campbell in particular, and it appealed to my sense of pedantry/exactness in our civic discourse – no, Kim Campbell was not “elected” as prime minister, but no prime minister is actually elected in the Westminster System.

She was not the first prime minister not to have been appointed to the position without leading their party to victory in a general election. We had two early prime ministers who were sitting senators and not MPs. John Turner didn’t have a seat in either Chamber when he was sworn in as prime minister. At least Campbell had a seat and had led several high-profile Cabinet portfolios (first female justice minister and defence minister), and she made significant reforms to the structure of Cabinet upon her appointment as PM, many of which have been lasting. She did not have to face Parliament as prime minister, but neither did Sir Charles Tupper, not John Turner. Trying to somehow insist that because her appointment did not follow a general election victory as somehow denigrating or making her lesser-than as a prime minister is ahistorical and ignorant of how Westminster parliaments work.

Part of this, however, is tied up with narratives that our pundit class keeps importing from the US, and which our media stokes out a sense of general ignorance of civics. We recently saw in places like Nova Scotia, where they just appointed a new premier, that the media are jumping up and down for him to get “his own mandate” – meaning going to a general election – which goes against how our system works. In Newfoundland and Labrador, their premier was appointed without a seat, which he promptly won in a by-election, and then called an election “to get a mandate” and lo, it turned into a gong show because they had a sudden outbreak of COVID. But this false notion about “mandates” keep cropping up, because media and pundits keep feeding it. It’s not how our system works, and it places false expectations on new first ministers, and creates unreal expectations for those, like Campbell, who did everything according to our system’s actual tenets. It would be great if we had a better sense of civics in this country to counter this ongoing nonsense.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Blanchet thinks he knows when an election will be called

Posted on by

The constant assertion that we are just around the corner from another election is tiresome, and yet it keeps rearing its head, sometimes in very novel ways. Yesterday, it was Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet telling a virtual meeting of Quebec municipalities that he believes an election is going to be called on August 16th, in order to avoid a federal election interfering with municipal elections in Quebec this fall – assuming, of course, that the pandemic is largely under control by then.

No, seriously.

The logic of this assertion, however, does not hold. First of all, there would be no reason for the prime minister to go to the Governor General (assuming we have a new one installed by that point – otherwise, it would be to the Chief Justice in his role as Administrator, for which the optics are very bad), and request dissolution in the middle of August. Remember that we still have fixed election date legislation, and while it’s largely useless, it does create a situation of poor optics for prime ministers or premiers who pull the trigger early. Yes, we are in a hung parliament, so a confidence vote could be lost at any point, but the Commons won’t be sitting in August. In fact, it is not scheduled to be back until September 20th, and I doubt we’re going to be having the same kinds of summer sittings like we did last year, where there was a sense of urgency, particularly around rapidly passing new pandemic spending measures. That is unlikely to be the case this summer given the place that we’re in with the pandemic. This means the government couldn’t even engineer its own defeat over the summer without a hell of a lot of effort, which seems tremendously unlikely given the circumstances. Given the poor optics of just requesting dissolution, this seems highly unlikely.

To add to this, Bill C-19 – which would allow Elections Canada to hold a safer election in the pandemic setting – only just got sent to committee this week in the Commons. Next week is a constituency week, so even if it did pass both committee and third reading the following week (unlikely), and passed the Senate the week after that (a better possibility given the speed at which they seem to be operating these days – not that it’s necessarily a good thing) then it still has a 90-day implementation period for those changes to take effect, so it wouldn’t reach that threshold until mid-September at the earliest. Again, this makes a call for an August 16th dissolution unlikely, because Elections Canada couldn’t be prepared, and even if most of the country gets their second dose by the end of September, that both cuts it uncomfortably close for when an election would be held following an August 16thdissolution, if at all given the need for more advanced voting days and so on.

Simply put, C-19 should have passed months ago in order to ensure there were proper safeguards in case something happens in this hung parliament, and a confidence vote didn’t go quite the right way. But nobody is suicidal enough to want an election right now, and that will continue to be case for much of the fall, until we can be sure that we’re out of the grip of the pandemic. Blanchet is spouting nonsense and should be called out as such.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau cleared, Morneau not

Posted on by

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner released his reports on Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau’s involvement in the WE Imbroglio yesterday, and came to two different results – the prime minister was cleared, but Morneau was found to have breached three sections of the Act, because he was not only personal friends with the Kielburgers (which Trudeau was not), but Morneau gave them a lot of access to his department as a result of that friendship, and offered them very preferential treatment.

On the one hand, this defused a few of the prepared talking points, but it didn’t disarm all of them. The Conservatives insist that even if he wasn’t found to have broken the rules, the system is still “broken” and needs to be made even tougher, which they are going to regret when every interaction becomes a minefield and their own members start getting caught up in impossible situations should they form government, and it misses the mark of what the current problems are. The NDP, predictably, say that this proves the Liberals only care about their “rich friends,” which I’m not sure the Kielburgers really qualify as for obvious reasons.

Of course, as I have written before, the problem is not that the rules are too lax, but rather that the Liberals in their current incarnation have a culture that believes that so long as they mean well, that the ends will justify the means. No amount of tinkering or toughening up the rules can change that because it’s a cultural problem. It also doesn’t help that the definition of “corruption” has become so broad in the Canadian discourse that penny ante bullshit is treated as a capital crime, though very curiously, grift that is out in the open in places like Queen’s Park or the Alberta Legislature are not treated with the same kinds of howling denunciations that the WE Imbroglio has been. I also have to wonder what these same howlers would do if they saw the actual corruption that takes place in other countries, because it’s on a whole other level than anything that has happened here. And on a final note, this report does not mean that WE Charity was “destroyed” for nothing. The charity hasn’t been “destroyed,” and its dubious activities were brought to light by good reporting, not Charlie Angus’ antics at committee, and that’s a good thing. This incident helped to shine that spotlight. Let’s not confuse Trudeau’s exoneration with anything else that has happened to WE in the interim.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Refusing to enforce quarantine orders

Posted on by

There were a couple of notes around the border and quarantines yesterday that I thought bear some additional note, particularly in light of the rhetoric we’re hearing. The first is that it looks like as many of a third of air travellers are able to avoid hotel quarantine and the Public Health Agency of Canada won’t provide a breakdown of figures as to why. There is a fairly obvious answer to this, which is that as part of the hotel quarantine programme, the government also allowed for a metre-long list of exemptions that are applicable to these travellers, because remember that there is ostensibly very little non-essential travel happening right now – I heard a figure that travel volumes are about five percent of what they were pre-COVID. Given how many of these hotel quarantine exemptions have to do with certain essential travel reasons, it should not be a surprise that as many as a third of these travellers are able to bypass that system. The fact that there are as many exemptions as there are should be up for debate, however, because it does undermine the whole point of quarantine, but it’s hard to have that discussion when every time you turn around, someone else is demanding another exemption – and it really doesn’t help when the party in the Commons howling that the border is too lax is at the very same time trying to get an exemption for returning snowbirds.

And then there is the question of enforcing the Quarantine Act, and we find that Alberta hasn’t signed onto the Contraventions Act, which makes it easy for their police to do the enforcement, and to issue fines for those who break it. (Saskatchewan also hasn’t signed onto the Act, but there are no airports currently open to international travel in that province). And this is completely baffling, because you would think that the provincial government would want to empower their peace officers to do the enforcement work if they are so concerned about variants coming in over the borders that they would want to ensure that they are actually enforcing quarantine orders in the province, but apparently not. This makes it all the more difficult to swallow Jason Kenney’s insistence that the federal government hasn’t done enough about the border – they have clamped down as much as they are really able to under the constitution, and they have empowered the provinces to enforce quarantines, but oh, Alberta refuses to take responsibility for doing so, while they complain.

I will also note that the fact that Ontario has signed onto the Contraventions Act means that their own complaints about quarantines and lax borders are all the more hollow. They have all the tools they need to enforce the orders, and they are also largely refusing and blaming the federal government. And worse, nobody is holding them to account for their failures to exercise their own powers in their own areas of jurisdiction to do so – especially not the media. This is a problem, but hey, keep writing stories about “finger-pointing.” That’ll help.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inflating the Line 5 drama

Posted on by

There was a lot of performative nonsense around Enbridge Line 5 yesterday, considering that today is the deadline by which Michigan’s governor gave to Enbridge to shut it down. And plenty of media outlets were playing up the drama around this, despite having been told repeatedly that it’s pretty certain that nothing is going to happen because that pipeline is under federal jurisdiction in the US, and the governor has no authority or power to shut it down. She has since shifted her rhetoric, saying she’ll go after Enbridge’s profits if they don’t follow her requests, but all of this is now in the courts.

Which brings me to my particular complaint, which is how things were characterised. The federal government filed an amicus brief in the case yesterday, which is basically just presenting its reasons for why they support the continued operation in the ongoing court case, and yet, both Erin O’Toole and most major media outlets treated this as though the federal government had applied for an injunction. An amicus brief is not an injunction – far from it. But this was the how the narrative was applied, as though that’s the only thing that happens in courts. It’s not particularly helpful for media outlets to treat it as such, but hey, it’s not like I have any say in this.

Regardless, it’s almost certain that Line 5 won’t be shut down because it’s frankly too important to both sides of the border, and this is largely a stunt on the governor’s part. It’s a stunt that the Biden Administration is handling with kid gloves, mind you, but I’m sure she’d love nothing more than the prime minister of Canada throwing a public tantrum over this, as the Conservatives are demanding, as it would be a propaganda victory for her, which we probably don’t want to give her. Let’s all keep a level head over this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Accusing your opponents of encouraging mass deaths

Posted on by

My patience for the current round of blame-shifting in the handling of this pandemic has pretty much reached its breaking point, and Alberta’s justice minister has crossed a line. Recall that a week ago, NDP MP Heather McPherson accused the prime minister of rather watching Alberta burn than help Jason Kenney – a statement that borders on psychotic and ignores the billions of dollars in federal aid that has been extended that Kenney has either sat on or declined. Of course, McPherson, like her leader Jagmeet Singh, seems to think that the federal government should be invoking the Emergencies Act and swooping in to take over the province, which is nothing more than a recipe for a constitutional crisis the likes we have never seen in this country. (Can you imagine the reaction in the province if Trudeau did this?)

Well, yesterday Alberta’s justice minister declared that the provincial NDP opposition, the federal government, and the media, were all cheering on a COVID disaster in the province, which is absolutely boggling. To think that your opponents literally wish death upon Albertans is some brain worm-level thinking, and yet here we are – and no, the minister would not apologise, citing that his opponents were trying to exploit the pandemic for political purposes. This is nothing short of insane, and yet this kind of thinking is clearly rearing its head as the provincial government flails, under attack by all sides, and frankly, reaping the unhinged anger that it has been sowing for years and thinking they were too clever to get caught by.

But in the midst of this, there was a column in Maclean’s yesterday which declared that it was “partisans” that were the cause of this blame-shifting, and then proceeded to pathologically both-sides the issues until my head very nearly exploded. It’s not “partisans” – it’s political actors who are to blame, and trying to pin this solely on people who vote for them is ridiculous. I will say that a chunk of the blame does rest on media, for whom they downplay actual questions of jurisdiction as “squabbling” and “finger-pointing,” thus allowing premiers in particular to get away with the blame-shifting and hand-waving away their responsibilities, and it’s allowed this obsessive fantasy about invoking the Emergencies Act to keep playing itself out – especially because most of these media outlets have been cheerleading such a declaration (so that they can fulfil the goal of comparing this to Trudeau’s father invoking the War Measures Act during the October Crisis). If media did a better job of actually holding the premiers to account rather than encouraging their narratives that everything can be pinned on the federal government (for whom they have some of their own issues they should be better held to account for), there may have been actual pressure on some of them to shape up long before now, and yet that doesn’t happen. Absolutely nobody has covered themselves in glory here, and it’s just making this intolerable situation all that much worse.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1391949740896657410

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to make an election happen

Posted on by

I find myself growing increasingly tired of the media’s singular focus on a snap election, wedging every possible story they can into this narrative. And every time I see it, I keep thinking “Gretchen, stop trying to make an election happen. It’s not going to happen.” Honestly, no party is suicidal enough to pull the plug with the third wave raging across the country, and the legislation to make safer elections happen still stuck at second reading and has been for months because the Conservatives have been playing procedural games in the Commons (though the government is hoping to finally get it to committee this week). And given next week is a constituency week, the soonest it might pass at this point is maybe – maybe – the first week of June. Maybe. And then it has a 90-day implementation period, so Elections Canada could not safely hold an election until maybe mid-September. Maybe. Yeah, it’s not going to happen.

Undaunted, The Canadian Press’ big story this weekend is about how parties are gearing up for a potential election, and how to do everything virtually if they can’t go door-knocking and so on. And I get that they are probably in the midst of doing some rudimentary preparations because this is a hung parliament and anything can happen, but honestly? It’s not going to happen until later in the fall at the very earliest. But this constant obsession with pumping out election stories is starting to look both desperate and tacky, especially because it’s not going to happen.

With that in mind, I found Chantal Hébert weekend column to be lacking, where she questions the need for the Liberals to have a majority if legislation is finding “dance partners” in the Commons. The problem there is that it’s a fairly facile measure of things, given that there are bigger problems than the few bills getting passed with a sufficient “dance partner” available – there have been so few bills passed this session because the Conservatives in particular are slow-walking every bill they can, and only recently did the Bloc and NDP wake up to that fact when they have bills they want to see advanced as well. Add to that, most of the committees are now in a state of dysfunction because of partisan dickishness, and most of them are in endless cycles of witch hunts on would-be “scandals” that have long-since played themselves out. I’m not sure how she sees this as being remotely productive, but that’s me.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Telling them nothing of consequence

Posted on by

Yesterday was the big day that the Commons defence committee had been waiting for – prime minister Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, had volunteered to testify about what she knew about the General Vance allegations, and the moment that she volunteered, opposition parties should have known that she wasn’t going to actually say anything of use to them. (And the fact that she volunteered after the government has been pushing the point for weeks that staffers shouldn’t be testifying because minsters are responsible under our constitutional framework is another problem, not the least of which is that they appear to have given up on being consistent).

And for nearly two hours, full of interruptions, points of order, and a whole lot of preening for the cameras by opposition MPs, Telford basically told them nothing of any consequence. She didn’t of the nature of the allegations, but she reached out to ensure that they weren’t a “safety issue” (i.e. assault as opposed to harassment). But in spite of her concerns, they didn’t learn any details, and on a broader picture, she often looks back in hindsight to wonder if she should have been pushing harder for transformational change in the military, or to look past Vance’s assurances that he was committed to doing that work. We should have expected that there wouldn’t be any sweeping new revelations going into this, and there weren’t. Of course, to the Conservatives, this “proves” that there is some kind of cover-up, but trying to go after Telford seems like a poor use of time when Harjit Sajjan is right there, waiting to be held to account for his numerous failings on this file. There needs to be some accountability on this, but the opposition just keeps flailing around performatively rather than being focused in holding the one person to account who needs it, and it’s not Telford.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt equates Telford to someone from the bomb squad in a movie, carefully dealing with possible explosives to ensure the PM doesn’t come to harm. Matt Gurney makes the salient point that it’s hard to fathom why Sajjan or Telford didn’t do more once they learned the PCO investigation was stalled (though I’m not really keen on Gurney trying to police Telford’s feminism).

Continue reading →