Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

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 →

Roundup: A few notes on the state of the Brexit drama

Posted on by

Given the state of the drama in Westminster right now, I thought I’d make a couple of points about why we’re here now. It’s pretty unprecedented for a government to lose a vote – badly – on a major foreign policy plank without automatically losing confidence, and yet, thanks to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, that’s exactly the case. And because Theresa May squeaked out a confidence vote, that leaves her in something of a precarious situation about not really having a mandate to continue on the path she was on, while not being able to take anything to the people in a general election, as might ordinarily be the case under our share Westminster system. The FTPA has made Parliament untenable, and enables bad actors to game the system, which would ordinarily have been avoided by the sheer fact that they would have been keen to avoid shenanigans that the Queen would need to be involved in.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1085530081768857600

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1085531738971897858

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1085270260498886656

It seems to me that if the Westminster parliament were functioning normally, then May could have taken the question of proceeding with Brexit to the people in an election, given that she lost the vote of confidence. Of course that would necessitate Labour to come up with a coherent position (and perhaps a more coherent leader, which their current bastardised leadership selection process also gave them). That would have given the winning government a popular mandate to overtake the referendum if need be, but again, that’s now off the table because of the way the FTPA has distorted the Westminster system. With the practice of Responsible Government being blunted by this statute, it’s clear that it must go.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert looks at the Brexit omnishambles and compares it to the plans for Quebec sovereignty back in the day, and how this seems to be dampening any sovereigntist sentiment in the province even further (while getting in a few jabs about Andrew Scheer’s Brexit boosterism along the way). Andrew Coyne likewise looks to the Brexit drama as an object lesson in how seccession from any union is far from painless.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another solution in search of a problem, by-election edition

Posted on by

The good folks at Samara Canada have penned an op-ed in the Globe and Mail to call for legislation that demand swifter by-elections than currently exists, and would seek to remove the discretion of the prime minister in calling them. To this I say nay, because much like fixed election dates, this is a solution in search of a problem. Indeed, the piece entirely ignored that fixed election dates are not only antithetical to our system, which is based on confidence, but that it created a whole host of new problems and solved none. It used to be the big concern that prime ministers would call “snap” elections when it was deemed politically suitable, and that it wholly disadvantaged opposition parties. Of course, that’s entirely a myth that doesn’t survive actual scrutiny (recall that governments in this country were punished when they called elections too soon because they had good poll numbers), and fixed election dates instead created interminable election campaigns that required even more legislation to crack down on spending and advertising in defined pre-writ periods – something that wouldn’t need to exist under the proper system of ministerial discretion.

Throughout the recent round of braying to call by-elections, none of the arguments has convinced me that this is anything more than a moral panic. While the op-ed does correctly point out that MP offices remain staffed and operational, reporting to the party whip instead of the departed MP, the op-ed laments that there is no MP to push files through the bureaucracy – something that is not only not an MP’s job, but is something we should actually be discouraging because it sets up a system that starts to look corrupt, when it becomes who you know that will get action on your files. If anything, parties should actually take advantage of the fact that when a by-election hasn’t been called yet, it gives the riding associations ample time to locate a good candidate, run an effective nomination process, and then start door-knocking. If parties got their act together, they’d have more time to do this, rather than waiting months, and trying to get a hint as to when the by-election might be called before they even start their nominations – something that is absolutely boggling. Jagmeet Singh should have used the time to do the door-knocking at every available opportunity, and yet that didn’t seem to be the case for the months he was complaining that the by-election hadn’t been called.

You don’t have to convince me that it’s important to run these by-elections in a timely manner, and that having an MP in place as soon as possible is the right thing to do. It absolutely is. But more legislative constraints on executive discretion won’t solve any problems, and only creates more of them. We keep seeing this time and again, and yet we keep coming back to yet more proposals for even more of them, creating a spiralling cycle of more rules to fix a problem that was never actually a problem in the first place. Time to step off this merry-go-round.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unexpected shuffle

Posted on by

Yesterday’s Cabinet shuffle came with a few surprises, but the biggest was probably the decision to move Jody Wilson-Raybould from justice to veterans’ affairs – a move which can only be interpreted as a demotion, despite both prime minister Justin Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould making the argument that it was insulting to veterans to think of them as a lesser consideration. Added to that, Wilson-Raybould got defensive and put out a lengthy press release that said she wouldn’t discuss why she was moved, as that’s the prerogative of the prime minister (true), but then went on to laud all of her accomplishments as justice minister (which she bizarrely abbreviated as MOJAG – Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the first time I can recall such an abbreviation being used). The problem, of course, is that there was a lot of talk about how things were not going well in her office. I personally heard from a number of people in the legal community about their concerns about the managerial competence within Wilson-Raybould’s office, particularly around staffing key positions such as the Judicial Affairs Advisor – necessary for the appointment of judges, and a post that was left vacant for months at a time, as the number of vacancies began increasing, and still have a significant backlog in place. There was also a lot of staffing churn within her office, which should be a warning sign that not all is well. And more reports came out yesterday that there had been some tensions around the Cabinet table when it came to Wilson-Raybould, so the fact that she penned a defensive release probably speaks volumes.

As for the other ministerial changes, David Lametti (my Canadian Lawyer profile here) replaced Wilson-Raybould, who replaces Seamus O’Regan at veterans’ affairs, O’Regan moving to Indigenous services to replace Jane Philpott, who in turn replaced the departing Scott Brison. Trudeau added a new portfolio to the mix – rural economic development, under new minister Bernadette Jordan, who is now the Nova Scotian in Cabinet. That portfolio is another one without a ministry, and it looks like it’ll be housed within Innovation, Science and Economic Development, where all of the other regional development ministries are housed, but as with a growing number of portfolios under this government, it’s another minister without a line department of her own, which I find a bit concerning.

Meanwhile, there are so many hot takes on the shuffle, starting with Chantal Hébert, who says the few changes mean it’s steady-as-she-goes for Trudeau before the election. Likewise, Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column says these changes highlight that there is little room for experimentation, this late in the current parliament. Mercedes Stephenson echoes the sentiment, with some added details on O’Regan’s time on the veterans file. Paul Wells brings the shade when it comes to the performance of this government, and the inability for any particular minister to make any meaningful changes in the face of bottlenecks of authority in the PMO, and a government too afraid to make any changes so close to an election. Mike Moffatt delivers a thread on the challenges of rural economic development, and why the portfolio might be a good idea after all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Feelings over civics

Posted on by

Over the course of the weekend, I’ve been giving a great deal of thought to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Frank v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1 – the decision about expat voting rights – and I still can’t bring myself to conclude that they the majority got it right. I’ve read over the decision and found myself greatly annoyed by the fact that majority simply shrugged off the very real issue of constituencies and local elections, and that in his concurring reasons, Justice Rowe mentioned them but shrugged them off. And while people will criticise the reasoning and analysis employed by the dissent from Justices Coté and Brown, they at least did pay particular and necessary attention to the issue of constituencies as it relates to our system – and the rationale for the five-year limit (in that it is the constitutional maximum length of a single parliament). And I can’t let this go, because five of seven justices of the Supreme Court failed to properly understand the importance of constituency-based democracy (and I think the Attorney General’s office also bears a particular amount of responsibility for not making the case adequately either).

To reiterate – we vote for local representatives. We don’t vote for parties, or party leaders, no matter what we may have in mind when we go into the ballot box – we mark the X for the local candidate, end of story. For an expat, it’s not the connection to Canada that should be at issue – it’s the connection to the riding, because that’s how we allocate our votes. The dissenting judges got that, but the majority and virtually all of the commentary I’ve seen on the matter ignored it, despite it being the first principle of our electoral system. The Attorney General focused on the “social contract,” which the majority decision hewed to, and there was a lot of talk about feelings and “progressive enfranchisement,” but feelings are not how we allocate votes in this country. Ridings are, and as warm and fuzzy as you feel about Canada, it’s the riding that ultimately matters. I feel like we’re rewarding civic illiteracy on a grand scale with this decision.

To that end, here’s Leonid Sirota offering his analysis of the decision, and University of Ottawa law professor Mike Pal’s thoughts in this thread. And here’s Emmett Macfarlane to pick apart the decision further (though we will disagree on the outcome).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083740974008815617

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083743192225177601

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083744829278871552

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083745335044755456

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083747918736023552

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poking at polarization

Posted on by

The new issue of Maclean’s is focused on political polarisation in Canada, with whole suite of stories and op-eds about the issue, starting with what is perceived to be the problems with the “left” (although this piece is more about the Liberals than the “left”) and the “right” in Canada, though I’m not sure how much relevance those particular classifications have any longer, as they’ve been so bastardised with a focus on populism that is either left or right flavoured (and lo, Anne Kingston makes that point here). And with polling showing that one in four hate their political opponents, and Trudeau especially, they made a point of trying to explore the divide.

Delving in further on the right, Andrew MacDougall looks at the Conservatives’ use of snark and shitposts to try and throw red meat to a base that stayed home in the last election, while Jen Gerson tries to equate the attempts made by Conservatives to tap into the current populist uptick as trying to tap a relief well to prevent a worse explosion – but they are playing a risky game that could infect their politics for a generation. On the other side, Andray Domise points to the “woke Olympics” and shifting social rules that alienate newcomers on the left, while Terry Glavin looks to the yellow vest protests in France (as opposed to Canada) as a sign that populism on the left is becoming indistinguishable from populism on the right.

But amidst this talk of polarisation, Paul Wells offers the piece that is probably most necessary – a reality-check as to the history of polarisation in this county, and how it’s always been there, in very blatant ways, and how we seem to be a country that is constantly battling amnesia as we clutch our pearls about losing our innocence. Not to say that some things haven’t changed, but it’s not like we’re wilting flowers being exposed to some new terrible new vitriol. (It’s like in Question Period, it’s the most behaved MPs have been in decades, possibly ever, and we’re still wringing our hands over it). That said, I think this was a good and timely package from Maclean’s, seeing as we’re entering into an election year and the nonsense on all sides is going to ratchet up to eleven really fast. Being clear-headed about where our politics are going is always a good thing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brison’s long farewell

Posted on by

It was a bit of a surprise yesterday morning, as Treasury Board president Scott Brison announced that he was resigning his cabinet position because he decided that after 22 years in elected politics, he had decided he wasn’t going to run again this fall. His reasons were mostly that it was time for something new, and the fact that he now has a young family – something that was largely inconceivable when he first got into politics, then as a Progressive Conservative – though that hasn’t stopped everyone from speculating that this has something to do with the upcoming trial of VADM Mark Norman, given that Norman’s lawyers are trying to insinuate that Brison had tried to politically interfere with the procurement process for the interim naval supply ship. (Brison denies this, and he’s not the one on trial, but here’s a thread on what this decision means on his ability to testify). One can’t also help but noting that this will be a bit of a blow for Trudeau as well, as one of his most experienced and competent ministers will be leaving the Cabinet table, and that will matter given the fact that there are still too many ministers that haven’t quite grown into their responsibilities yet.

This, of course, means that we’re now fully into Cabinet shuffle speculation, given that there is one coming on Monday to replace Brison. Every other member of Cabinet, save Jody Wilson-Raybould, has confirmed that they plan to run again in the next election (and Wilson-Raybould likely will as well – she was out of the country and didn’t respond to questions), so it’s unlikely that anyone else will be dropped at this point, particularly given the last shuffle wasn’t too long ago, so it’s an open question as to who will be tapped to replace Brison, and who will take the Treasury Board file.

On a personal note, Brison played a big part in my early days on the Hill, when I was writing primarily for LGBT outlets. When I was the Ottawa correspondent – and later political editor – for the now defunct Outlooks magazine, I had a monthly segment where I would ask Brison, Senator Nancy Ruth, and NDP MP Bill Siksay (later Randall Garrison after Siksay retired) a question every month to get queer perspectives from the three main parties, and that helped me to grow into the journalist that I am today. He was always generous with his time, and incredibly patient with my rookie status, and I will forever be grateful for that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A subdued oil price shock

Posted on by

The Bank of Canada decided to hold on raising interest rates yesterday, but there were some very interesting things in the accompanying Monetary Policy Report that haven’t been widely reported on, and much of that was the whole section in the report on the state of the oil industry in Canada. (It’s pages 9 and 10 of the report – PDF here). Essentially, for all of the talk about economic doom for the current state of oil prices and the price differential, this current price shock is affecting the Canadian economy at a quarter of what it did in the 2014-2016 price shock, and there are a couple of reasons for that. One of them is that the oil sector is no longer as big of a part of the Canadian economy as it was then – it’s currently worth 3.5 percent of our GDP, while it was six percent just a few years ago. That’s fairly significant. As well, after the previous price shock, most energy firms are better equipped to handle the low-price environment thanks to innovation, improved efficiency and the fact that they already cut overhead costs. Add to that, our low dollar is providing a buffer effect because it supports non-energy exports and employment. In other words, while it’s softened the economy a little over the past quarter and the current one, this is projected to be shrugged off as the rest of the economy continues to pick up steam, and we’re likely to continue growing at a greater pace, because the rest of the economy continues to be running close to capacity. Even some of the areas of potential slack that have been identified, such as lower-than-expected wage growth, are mostly because the situation in Alberta is dragging down the national average. So perhaps it’s not all doom after all.

One other particular note from the morning was that Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz made a couple of remarks around his hometown of Oshawa, and how it’s managed to weather previous plant closures and how its resilience means it will likely weather the pending closure of the GM plant as well as it did previously.

Meanwhile, Kevin Carmichael walks us through the morning’s decision, and some of the reaction to it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier goes full tinfoil hat

Posted on by

Maxime Bernier appears to be going full tinfoil hat, with a Twitter thread about a supposed move to create some kind of UN parliament that will erase borders, and that Canada will be absorbed into, and I can’t even. I literally cannot.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1082829073922093057

As Carvin points out, this is a campaign that is orchestrated by Neo-Nazi sympathizers in Europe, and it’s the very same thing that Andrew Scheer was also have been touting this very same conspiracy theory as part of their attempt to push back against the UN global compact on migration. But then again, Scheer and company also gave succour to racists in order to try and paint Trudeau as some kind of bully, so it shouldn’t be a surprise, and they’re being wilfully blind and deaf to the white nationalists and xenophobes that are infiltrating the “yellow vest” protests that they like to promote, so there’s that.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1082252207234473985

Meanwhile, Bernier has tapped an anti-abortion, anti-trans “Christian pundit” as his party’s candidate in Burnaby South. And he’s being accused of running a campaign in that riding that is trying to depict Jagmeet Singh’s efforts as being one that is running only for the Indo-Canadian community, so, you know, the xenophobia tuba instead of the dogwhistle.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On those marginal tax rates

Posted on by

Given the debate that his happening south of the border when it comes to agitation for a 70 percent marginal tax rate on high earners, it’s only a matter of time before the left-leaning contingent of Twitter starts agitating for the same here. The problem, of course, is that you can’t simply import the same concepts between the US and Canada and expect it to be analogous, or at the very least analogous at one tenth the figures in the US. To demonstrate, economist Kevin Milligan took the Canadian data and mapped out what that would mean here. And lo, it’s not an analogous situation (though I suspect it won’t stop left-leaning Twitter from repeating these American talking points one bit).

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1082383660857225217

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1082385072718635008

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1082386430175862784

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1082387490319683584

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1082411856315084805

Continue reading →