Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Dubious studies on populism

Posted on by

A study out of Simon Fraser University shows that a rising number of Canadians are only “moderately convinced” that we should be governed by a representative democracy – nearly 60 percent, which is up 15 percent since 2017. As well, 70 percent of those surveyed don’t feel that government officials care about the concerns of “ordinary Canadians,” along with rising support for populism and anti-immigrant sentiments. This shouldn’t really surprise anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to what is going on in the world, but let’s first of all get out of the way that these percentages are fairly shoddy reporting once you dig into the study, which finds that Canadians are still very much in favour of democracy, and that the representative democracy still figures better than the other alternatives (direct democracy, rule by experts, strong ruler, military rule), and much of the reporting on the anti-immigrant sentiment is fairly torqued.

To be clear, I have a great many concerns about the methodology of the study, which offers some fairly torqued binaries for participants to choose from and then tries to draw conclusions from that, leaving no room for the kind of nuance that many of these positions would seem to merit. As well, their definitions of populism are too clinical and don’t seem to really reflect some of the attitudes that those who respond to the sentiments, so I’m not sure how much utility this methodology actually has in a case like this (or in this other study which looks at pockets of “forgotten workers,” which at least admits there are no obvious answers to stemming the tide of this sentiment). Nevertheless, there is some interesting regional breakdowns in where certain attitudes are more prevalent than others, and which identified populist sentiments register more strongly in some regions over others.

This having been said, the questions on people feeling frustrated with how democracy works are pretty much why I do the work that I do, particularly with the book that I wrote, which is all about identifying where things are breaking down (reminder: It’s not structural, but rather the ways in which people are not using the system properly), and showcasing how it should be operated, which is with the participation of voters at the grassroots levels. But if we’re going to get back to that system, that requires a lot of people at those grassroots demanding their power back from the leaders’ offices, and that also means needing to get out of the thrall of the messianic leader complex that we keep falling into, going from one messiah to another once the current one loses their lustre (which I do believe also feeds into the populist sentiments, who also latch onto messianic leaders). This can’t just be people complaining about the quality of the leaders out there – it’s about how we feed the system. If we input garbage, we get garbage out of it, and this hasn’t connected in the brains of enough voters yet. One day, perhaps, it might, but we don’t appear to be there yet, and the torqued binaries of a survey like this don’t help us get any better of an understanding of what it will take for people to wise up and get serious about our democratic system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Misleading his recruits

Posted on by

After some confusion in the Conservative ranks, Andrew Scheer’s Quebec lieutenant, Alain Rayes, is apologising for misleading candidates in the province when he insisted to them that the party considered abortion a settled matter and that they wouldn’t allow any attempt to change the laws. Not so – Scheer’s actual pledge is that the government – meaning Cabinet – would not bring forward any bills, but the backbenches are free to do so, which is why anti-abortion groups have been busy trying to get their supporters nominated as candidates. And now the party and Rayes are saying that he just misheard Scheer’s pledge, which could put some of those Quebec candidates that Rayes recruited in a sticky position because some of them are saying that they decided to run for the Conservatives because they were assured that they weren’t going to touch abortion. Oops.

And this dichotomy of a hypothetical Conservative Cabinet pledges versus its backbenchers is one of those cute ways that Scheer can try to mollify the Canadian public while at the same time assuring his social conservative base that yes, he’s still the party for them, and he’s going to ensure that they have space to put forward legislation. From there, depending on whether or not they have a majority government and if so, how large it is, it comes down to counting votes to see if these kinds of bills have a chance of making it – and the current move in anti-abortion circles is to use backdoor attempts at criminalization through means like trying to create jurisprudence by means of laws that give a foetus personhood status through bills that treat them as such when a pregnant woman is murdered, for example, which they then plan to slowly extend to abortion services. It’s a long-term plan, but one that begins with getting enough anti-abortion candidates nominated and elected, so even though Scheer says his Cabinet won’t introduce these bills, as private members’ bills, they are unlikely to be whipped, and that leaves him to free his caucus to “vote their conscience.”

Of course, if he’s planning to be like Stephen Harper and assert pressure to ensure that these kinds of bills don’t make it through, then his courting of the anti-abortion community is hollow, and he’s lying to them, which will also be something that his base will have to contend with. But the clarification that only a hypothetical Cabinet wouldn’t introduce any anti-abortion measures is too cute by half, and relies on the fact that not enough people appreciate the difference between Cabinet and the backbenches, and why that distinction matters.

Continue reading →

Roundup: When the leaders are away…

Posted on by

Pride in Ottawa came and went this weekend, and surprising nobody, Andrew Scheer didn’t show up. But then again, not a single leader, federal or provincial leader, showed up either. Trudeau gets a pass because he was off at the G7 meeting in France, but he’s also only ever showed up to a single Pride in this city. And the only time any of the leaders showed up was the year Trudeau did – a one-off which is a bit of an insult to the city which is seat of government, and the second-largest city in Ontario (for those absentee provincial leaders), which essentially tells us that we’re not worth the effort. (For the record, Jagmeet Singh was in Edmonton to campaign in the NDP’s sole riding in that province).

Meanwhile, here’s a look at why Scheer shouldn’t have shown up at Ottawa Pride without an invitation – or an apology – and more than one person has remarked that straight people shouldn’t be inviting people to Pride on behalf of the LGBT community.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bashing a fictional plan

Posted on by

In the days ahead, you are likely to hear federal Conservatives start echoing Jason Kenney’s current justification for killing the province’s carbon price based on a report by the Fraser Institute. The problem? Well, the modelling that they used is based on a work of fiction, and not the plan that was actually implemented, and since the federal carbon price is closely based on the Alberta model, they will have roughly similar effects. But hey, why fight with facts when you can use fiction and straw men?

And for the record, here is the EcoFiscal commission explaining how the Fraser Institute got it all wrong.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Importing the culture war

Posted on by

We’re not even in the writ period, and the imported culture war bullshit is already at a fever pitch. In order to capitalize on it being Ottawa Pride this weekend, the Liberals started passing around a video of Andrew Scheer’s 2005 speech denouncing same-sex marriage, under the rubric of Ralph Goodale calling on Scheer to attend his hometown Pride in Ottawa this weekend. (Note: We’ll see if Trudeau makes it to Ottawa Pride this year, as he may not be back from the G7 meeting in France. Trudeau has only ever appeared at Ottawa’s Pride parade once). And off they were to the races. Scheer’s director of communications said that Scheer “supports same-sex marriage as defined in law,” and would uphold it as prime minister – and then proceeded to name Liberals who previously voted against it.

What’s particularly cute about this defence of Scheer is that it does not say that Scheer’s views have evolved, and the use of “as defined in law” is that the law was a result of a Supreme Court of Canada reference, so there is no way that any government could try to repeal it without invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to escape a Charter challenge. But beyond that, Scheer’s people have not offered any kind of defence that he voted against the trans rights bill in 2016, which is more current and pressing of a rights issue than where we are with same-sex marriage. But it’s not really about same-sex marriage at all – it’s all about our political class being high on the fumes of the American culture war that they’ve been inhaling, and are trying desperately to recreate here because they all think it’ll be a political winner for them, rather than the fact that it will simply burn the house down around them.

In amidst this, Jagmeet Singh decided that he wanted to get in on the culture war action and declared that he wouldn’t prop up a Conservative government in a hung parliament based on this (fourteen-year-old) homophobia – which essentially means that he’s conceded that he’s not running to be the prime minister in the election, but is content to stay as the third party. There’s realism, and then there’s bad strategy. Singh then went on to list all of the Liberal failures on the LGBT file – except most of the ones he listed are in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Oops. This election is already so, so very stupid.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Predictable drama, unpredictable overreach

Posted on by

The outcome of yesterday’s “emergency” meeting of the Commons ethics committee was not unexpected – that the Liberal majority on the committee declined to pursue the matter, and it would go no further, while the Conservatives and NDP wailed and gnashed their teeth to the assembled media outside of the room, ensuring that their media luminaries like Lisa Raitt and Pierre Poilievre were there for the cameras instead of their regular committee members. Also predictable was Elizabeth May’s moral preening that she wanted this to be “non-partisan,” which was never going to happen. It was not unexpected that “maverick” Liberal Nathaniel Erskine- Smith would stand apart and vote to hear from the Commissioner – albeit for different reasons than the Conservatives wanted, which for Erskine-Smith was to get answers as to his thinking because Erskine-Smith is in the camp that the Commissioner got the law wrong (and he’s a lawyer, so he’s perhaps better equipped for this kind of statutory interpretation than some other critics).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1164239833235111936

But there was one completely bonkers event that happened that should be alarming for everyone involved, which was when Lisa Raitt moved a motion to have the committee summon journalist Aaron Wherry in order to get his notes and interviews with Trudeau for his newly released book, because Raitt claims that Trudeau breached Cabinet confidence in how he detailed his meetings with Jody Wilson-Raybould. First of all, the notion that he can breach Cabinet confidence is absurd because he’s the prime minister – he can pretty much determine what he wants to keep confidential; and secondly, summoning a journalist to testify at committee is a very, very bad and stupid thing, and it’s utterly mind-boggling that Raitt didn’t see this. It’s even more egregious that Peter Kent, former journalist (and now profligate conspiracy theory monger) voted in favour of Raitt’s motion. Fortunately, the NDP had enough sense to distance themselves from this huge overreach, but it’s galling that she would even propose it in the first place. (Also ridiculous is this notion that there is some kind of criminal obstruction of justice at play, but that’s also the narrative that they’re putting forward as they performatively demand that the RCMP investigate – because calling on the RCMP to investigate your political rivals isn’t totally a banana republic move). Politics and playing to the cameras can make MPs do dumb things, but this was alarming in how far they were willing to take this to score points.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1164261091591053313

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert reads the polls to see that the Commissioner’s report hasn’t really hurt the Liberals, meaning that pursuing this has diminishing returns for the Conservatives, and she parses what that could mean in the weeks ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unserious knee-jerk suggestions

Posted on by

As expected, some of the sillier suggestions for avoiding future SNC-Lavalin-type Affairs have started cropping up, and yesterday, Policy Options hosted one from the head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. His suggestions? Splitting the role of Attorney General and Justice Minister, and to ban omnibus bills.

On the former, it’s clear that he didn’t actually read the McLellan report beyond the headlines, because he would have seen – as Paul Wells pointed out so ably in his own piece – that the guidelines that McLellan puts forward in the report would have prevented this whole sordid affair before it got off the ground. (Side note: It may not have prevented Jody Wilson-Raybould from being shuffled, given the lack of competence she had demonstrated in the role overall, and Scott Brison was going to retire regardless, so that likely would have happened, but the fallout may not have gone quite the same way). There is no reason given in the Policy Options piece for rejecting McLellan’s advice – just that the whole Affair has damaged the public confidence. So that gets a failing grade.

As for the suggestion to ban omnibus bills, he doesn’t quite grasp the magnitude of the suggestion. He claims, not incorrectly, that they exist for the sake of efficiency, but that efficiency is largely because there are many pieces of legislation every year, where if you introduced individual bills for each component – such as around technical changes in a budget implementation bill – Parliament would grind to a halt. There is a time and a place for omnibus bills – the difference is when they are being used abusively. The Conservatives stuffing changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act into a budget implementation bill? That’s abusive. The Deferred Prosecution Agreement provisions being put into the budget bill? It’s borderline, but it wasn’t hidden or snuck through – it was in plain sight, the committees in both Houses each saw it and dealt with them (albeit less effectively on the Commons side), and the Commons has new rules to deal with splitting up votes on omnibus bills. Ironically, if the DPA legislation had been put forward as a separate bill, it likely would have languished until swallowed up by an omnibus justice bill, as happened to several other criminal justice reform bills over the course of the last parliament (speaking of Wilson-Raybould’s ability to manage her own bills). But the suggestion to simply ban all omnibus bills is unserious and jejune, and a perfect example of the kind of knee-jerk suggestions we’re going to see plenty of in the days ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clarity on “partisan” ads

Posted on by

That report that climate change advocacy could be considered “partisan” during the writ period had a lot of people talking yesterday – but the problem is that it seems to have been a bit overblown, which I’m chalking up to Environmental Defence overplaying the advice from Elections Canada, and The Canadian Press reporter not getting enough context around that advice. In any case, Elections Canada was playing some damage control, specifying that it had to do with paid advertising and not advocacy writ-large, while various party leaders took shots at the absurdity of it all. And to walk through some of it, here’s Jennifer Robson to allay some of your fears.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Narratives about radicalization ahead

Posted on by

One of the sub-plots from the 2015 election is about to get a rerun as the UK decided to revoke citizenship from “Jihadi Jack” Letts, who has joint-UK and Canadian citizenship. That essentially leaves him with only Canadian citizenship – dumping their problem on our laps (likely in contravention of international law, incidentally). And that means a return to Trudeau’s decision to revoke a Conservative law that would have had a similar effect in Canadian law, because as you may recall, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

Where this will be compounded with the Conservative talking points that Trudeau thinks that returning fighters are “powerful voices” that can be reformed with podcasts and poetry lessons – which is a gross distortion of both Trudeau saying that people who were de-radicalised (not returning fighters) could be those powerful voices in their communities, and de-radicalisation programmes themselves, which again, are not for returning fighters but preventing people from taking that step once they’ve been radicalised. And lo, they will talk about how “naïve and dangerous” the notion that returning fighters can be de-radicalised is, when all of the things they point to are about de-radicalising people before they leave the country or do something violent here. But why should they let truth get in the way of a narrative?

Meanwhile, Letts’ parents are imploring the Canadian government to do something, and they are prepared to move here if that helps, but it also leaves questions as to what Letts may be charged with – though there is no evidence he was actually involved in any fighting. Nevertheless, it’s a problem the UK dumped on us that will become a partisan election issue, with all of the nonsense that entails.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to play the tough guy

Posted on by

Now that the Ethics Commissioner’s report is out in the open, the Conservatives are doing their best to try and capitalise on it – both with the coming Ethics Committee meeting (that is going to be shut down), and in Scheer trying to look tough on the issue. After calling on Liberals to essentially turn on Trudeau – something that would be far more effective if this were the era of caucus selection of leadership so that they could hold him to account – he also decided to take matters into his own hands at the National Acadian Day festivities in Dieppe, New Brunswick, earlier this week. When Trudeau spotted Scheer in the crowd, he came over to shake his hand, and, camera rolling, Scheer told him “You have to stop lying to Canadians. You need to come clean.” Trudeau, true to form, responded with a nonchalant “Oh, this is a good day today,” and went back to glad-handing with the crowd. Scheer has been trying to make the video go viral, but…he looks kind of awkward in it, like his attempt at being tough and in Trudeau’s face were essentially laughed off. I’m not sure how this bolsters Scheer’s case, but, well, he’s trying to convince his online audience of it.

There were also tongues waving and actual salivation over the revelation that the RCMP had been in touch with Jody Wilson-Raybould after the allegations first surfaced in the Globe and Mail back in February, but nothing has come of it since, and PMO assured the CBC that they had not been contacted by the RCMP. (I find it hard to believe anything will come of that either, given that there’s nothing they could charge them with – and no, this can’t possibly be obstruction of justice because a DPA is not getting off scot-free).

Meanwhile, a bunch of people are trying to be clever about Trudeau’s refusal to apologise for this situation by contrasting it with all of the various official apologies he’s made for historical injustices, as though there can be a actual equation of the two. Worth reading, however, is this thread from a legal analysis of the Ethics Commissioner’s report, and it pokes a number of holes in it, rendering it all the more problematic (which isn’t to say to say that there wasn’t any wrongdoing).

Continue reading →