Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: All about Alleslev

Posted on by

As the fallout from Leona Alleslev’s defection to the Conservatives continues, the comments from her former colleagues have remarkably tended not to be bitter or angry, but more bewilderment as she didn’t express any concerns to them beforehand, though there was understandably some shock from her riding association. That’s a bit shocking considering the pure vitriol that we’ve heard from Conservatives when they had defections in the past (particularly when women defected, if you recall the misogyny lobbed at Belinda Stronach after her floor-crossing). Of course, that also hasn’t stopped the Liberals from leaking effusive emails of praise that Alleslev sent them, and speeches she gave that completely contradict everything that she told the Commons on Monday when she made the decision. I remain struck by this insistence that the current government isn’t offering the “foundational change” she claims to be looking for, yet is aligning herself with a party whose recent policy convention was pretty much dominated with resolutions to simply turn back the clock to the Harper era, which was apparently a golden age. If she wanted “foundational change” from that, I’m not sure that going back to reinforce it is what she’s looking for.

Meanwhile, here’s a look at some of the history of floor-crossings in Canada, and the trends for when it goes well for those MPs, and when it all goes down in flames.

Bernier blindsided

Maxime Bernier’s team is finding it hard to keep up with online groups pretending to act on his behalf but have no actual associations with him, and which are posting offensive material and items that he says are contrary to his positions. I have two things to say about this: 1) It’s hard to believe that his team are such rank amateurs that they didn’t secure these domain names in the first place, which bodes ill for the kind of logistical knowledge they would need to run a national campaign; and 2) Bernier has brought much of this on himself. By winking to white nationalists, and by not even dog-whistling, but rather playing these tunes with a tuba, he’s invited the very xenophobes that he claims aren’t welcome in his party (as he keeps playing their tunes on his tuba while staring wide-eyed as they keep flocking, like he’s the Pied Piper of racists). This credulous, naïve act he’s putting on is getting a bit tiresome. If he doesn’t understand how his message plays out, that’s another strike against him being ready for the prime time of leading a credible political party.

Please note: I’ll be hosting a live chat today at 7 PM Eastern for $10 subscribers to my Patreon, to answer your questions about the return of Parliament. Subscribers have access to exclusive content not available elsewhere.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A melodramatic floor crossing

Posted on by

So there was a bit of drama in the House of Commons yesterday as Liberal MP Leona Alleslev gave a speech that served as her rebuke to her own party and her signal that she was crossing the floor to the Conservatives. It’s unusual that this was done on the floor of the Commons as opposed to the usual manner of a surprise press conference where the leader comes out with his or her new MP, and they give a repudiation of the deserted party along the way. And while Alleslev told Power & Politics that she hadn’t made her mind up until the last minute, when she was giving the speech, she had reached out to Andrew Scheer in August and had conversations with him then. But considering that Scheer had already called a press conference for just before QP far earlier in the morning (after Candice Bergen already gave a press conference on the party’s plans of the fall), I’m calling bullshit on that explanation.

While I will defend the rights of floor crossers with my dying breath (and I have a column to that effect coming out later today), there’s something else in Alleslev’s speech that sticks in my craw:

“The government must be challenged openly and publicly. But for me to publicly criticize the government as a Liberal, would undermine the government and, according to my code of conduct, be dishonourable.”

This is ridiculous and wrong. Plenty of Liberal MPs have openly criticized the government. Some have faced minor punishments for it, others not, but I have yet to hear anyone saying that Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, for example, undermined the government. It’s the role of backbenchers to hold government to account, just as much as it is the opposition – they’re not supposed to be cheerleaders (which is especially why it’s frustrating that they treat their QP questions as suck-up opportunities, with the exception of Bill Casey). Government backbenchers get the added ability to have no-holds barred discussions behind the caucus room door with the PM and cabinet, which can be even more effective than opposition questions under the right circumstances. And her former caucus members have expressed some disbelief in her excuse that she’s said that – particularly that there were no warning signs (and I’ve heard this from numerous MPs).

I’m also a bit dubious with the reasons she’s given for why she’s decided to cross the floor, particularly because she recited a bunch of Conservative talking points that don’t have any basis in reality, such as the apparent weakness of the economy (seriously, the gods damned Bank of Canada says our economy is running near capacity and unemployment is at a 40-year low), and her concern about military procurement (she does remember the Conservative record, right?). Never mind the fact that she’s suddenly reversing positions she publicly held just weeks ago, as people digging up her Twitter history are demonstrating.

There is also a question of opportunism here, not only for what she thinks she may get by switching her allegiance to Scheer, but she may have read the tea leaves from the provincial election and gotten spooked. Whatever the reason, she made her choice as she has the agency to do, and her constituents will get to hold her to account for it, which is the beauty of our system.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt wonders if Alleslev’s defection means that Trudeau isn’t keeping pace with the rapid change of pace in politics (though I disagree with her on the calculations around prorogation).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Asking the wrong questions about the rules

Posted on by

There was a piece on the CBC site this weekend that irked me, and I’m not sure it was just the problematic headline – why our ethic rules aren’t keeping politicians out of trouble. It’s a ridiculous construction on the face of it – you can have all the laws you want, and it won’t stop people from contravening them out of malice or ignorance. After all, the Criminal Code hasn’t eliminated crime, so why would an ethics regime miraculously end all ethics violations by public office holders?

While the piece quotes an academic who says that part of the problem is that the rules regime tells politicians how they can’t act, but not how they should act, so much of it is based on judgment calls, and not everyone has good judgment. But more to the point, in the two prominent situations that we’ve seen in recent months – the Trudeau report about his vacation with the Aga Khan, and the LeBlanc report about whether his wife’s cousin counted sufficiently as “family” under the definition of the Act, is that both of these situations were based on the judgement of the Ethics Commissioners rather than what was in the legislation. Mary Dawson took it upon herself to judge how someone defines their relationship with the Aga Khan (who is akin to the Pope of the Ismaili Muslim faith), while Mario Dion took what has been called an overly broad interpretation so that LeBlanc is forced to treat one of his wife’s sixty first cousins as close when all evidence points to them being mere acquaintances (and this after Dion has publicly come out to state that he wants to be seen as tough and not a lapdog). I’m not sure how any of these situations points to how the rules are stopping politicians from staying out of trouble when the trouble they’re in is based on a single person’s choice of how to interpret those rules, in some cases in defiance of common sense.

I would also caution that we need to be careful about setting a regime that is too constrictive, because it becomes either a means of either becoming one of constant investigation for political score-settling, or a system where we have yet another Officer of Parliament who becomes the embodiment of “Mother, May I?” and we don’t let politicians exercise any judgment that we can hold them accountable for – and we can’t hold these commissioners to account for their judgment, even when it can be found to be dubious. (Also note that we also made the requirements for who can be Commissioner to be so restrictive that anyone qualified wouldn’t want the job, which is another problem in and of itself). The amount of energy we put into the penny ante “scandals” in Canadian politics, which are piddling in comparison to the kinds of gross violations that happen regularly in the US, or that did happen in the UK (moat cleaning, anyone?) makes you wonder about our preoccupations. Which isn’t to say that we should ignore them, but let’s treat them with the gravity that they deserve, and I’m not sure that any of the “scandals” we’ve seen in this parliament are worth the energy we’ve expended on lighting our hair on fire about them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The people’s vanity project

Posted on by

Yesterday, Maxime Bernier confirmed his party will be called the “People’s Party of Canada,” just like so many communist parties in the world. Oops. And like those other “People’s Parties,” he won’t hold a contested leadership race, and he’ll get the final say on policies, so that’s off to a great start. Even better was the fact that his logo is simply a repurposing of an old Reform Party logo, and the policy page is a word-for-word copy of the Libertarian Party’s policy (which people also insist was a copy of Bernier’s leadership race policies), so that’s a great start. And during his press conference, he already started with the policy musings that apparently originated from the Internet’s darker recesses. So there’s that.

And aside from the trite attempt to use gay rights as a cover for bashing Muslims, Bernier has a glimmer of awareness that he’s going to be branded with the xenophobes he’s riling up, and he insists that anti-Semites and xenophobes will be kicked out of the party, while at the same time as he’s still using not-even-thinly-veiled xenophobia to try and create a wedge between his nascent party and the Liberals. But while he hopes to make immigration and refugees (and yes, there is a difference) between them as a wedge, he’s already getting warnings that he’s going to have to be very careful to keep the racists out (not to mention the alt-right, the MRAs, and whichever other dog-whistles he happens to be blasting at the time).

Meanwhile, John Geddes deciphers Bernier’s messaging and what he’s offering based on it, while Andrew Coyne reminds all of those who insist this will simply split the Conservative vote that yes, there is actually room in the Canadian political spectrum for such a “worthy experiment,” assuming that Bernier were capable enough to pull it off (and Coyne, like the rest of us, has his doubts). And Paul Wells delivers an epic takedown of Bernier’s potential voters.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stop saying disallowance

Posted on by

As the drama over Doug Ford using the Notwithstanding Clause to ram through his petty vengeance on Toronto City Hall drags on, we saw new levels of stupid demands yesterday, as Toronto City Council voted on a motion yesterday to request the federal government use its constitutional disallowance powers on the bill and kill it. But that’s never going to happen. Likewise with people writing the Lieutenant Governor to demand that she not sign the bill. That’s never going to happen. As this piece explains, disallowance is a dead letter because it would create a constitutional crisis over federalism, just like a Lieutenant Governor disallowing a bill from a government that has the confidence of the legislature would also be a constitutional crisis. And Trudeau has stated repeatedly that he’s not going to get involved – sure, his Toronto MPs can write a letter to Queen’s Park to express their concern, but this isn’t his fight, and he knows full well that getting involved would create a shitstorm the likes we haven’t seen in this country in decades. So no, Ontario – you get to lay in the bed you made.

More concerning, however, is the fact that Power & Politics brought on a bunch of former premiers who all gave Ford a pass on using the Notwithstanding Clause, and each of them going after the courts in one way or another – Christy Clark in particular making it sound like she would rather a government run roughshod over the rights of minorities rather than let courts protect them at the expense of project approvals (thinking specifically of Trans Mountain). And most alarming was the fact that there was no pushback against any of this, which you’d think would be important to have. Apparently not.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1040427270945464321

Meanwhile, Supriya Dwivedi writes a stunning takedown of Ford’s many hypocrisies on this issue, and the fact that there is far too much silence over his attack on the fundamental democratic notion of judicial review. As well, the former Executive Legal Officer of the Supreme Court of Canada has some interesting analysis about how Ford’s move could violate international law.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Offering justifications for the indefensible

Posted on by

The attempts by conservatives, both provincial and federal, to justify the use of the Notwithstanding Clause is in full swing, and it’s a bit fascinating to watch the intellectual contortions that they will go through in order to justify a) the abuse of process for Bill 5 in the first place, b) the need to ram it through during the middle of the election itself in order to interfere, and c) why they need to go to the mat and use the nuclear option in order to help Ford enact petty revenge. One of Ford’s MPPs wrote up her legal analysis, which is more than Ford or his attorney general have bothered to do, but it still didn’t explain the need for haste when an appeal of the lower court decision would have been the proper way to go about disputing its reasoning. Ford’s MPPs would go on TV and throw around the word “elites” as though that justifies the nuclear option, which, again, doesn’t actually constitute a proper reason for employing said nuclear option. Andrew Scheer, meanwhile, is falling back on the technicality that Ford’s using the Clause is “within the law” because municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction, which is beside the point – the point being that Ford is violating the norms of our democratic system for his own personal ends, and not calling out that violation of norms is troubling.

Even more troubling was that during yesterday’s raucous Question Period in Queen’s Park, Ford stated that we don’t need the Charter because people elected him – all of which just continues his particular inability to discern between popular rule and democracy. Popular rule is justifying breaking rules and norms because you got elected – democracy is those rules and norms that keeps power in check. That he can’t grasp the difference should be alarming.

The LeBlanc Report

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner issued his report yesterday on whether Dominic LeBlanc violated ethics rules regarding the awarding of the Arctic surf clam fishery to a company that was headed (on an interim basis) by his wife’s cousin – the context is that he’s one of sixty first cousins, and his relationship with LeBlanc is at best described as an acquaintance. Reading through the report, it hinges upon the Commissioner reading the definition of family much more expansively than it is interpreted elsewhere in the very same regime, which is how LeBlanc interpreted it. LeBlanc took responsibility, vowed to do better in the future, but that hasn’t stopped the opposition from taking the usual route of wailing and gnashing of teeth to decry just how unethical this government is.

In the demonstrable instances, however, the ethics violations have been pretty small ball (i.e. Bill Morneau not properly reporting the ownership structure of the French villa he disclosed), or legitimate differences of opinion on relationships (whether the Aga Khan was a family friend in Trudeau’s case, or the closeness of the relationship between LeBlanc and his wife’s cousin in this case). These are not instances of influence being peddled, people being unjustly enriched (and I know people will quibble about the Bell Island vacation, but the Aga Khan is not some tycoon looking to increase his corporate holdings by way of government connections), so perhaps a bit of perspective is warranted. Should Trudeau and LeBlanc have cleared things with the Commissioner beforehand? Absolutely. But this performative outrage we’re seeing will only get you so far, and railing that there have been no consequences beyond naming-and-shaming means little considering that it was the Conservatives and NDP who designed this ethics regime back in 2006, and they could have designed a more robust system them – or at any point that it’s come up for statutory review – and they haven’t.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Self-inflicted leadership wounds

Posted on by

There was a fairly damning piece out about the state of the NDP yesterday, as they began their caucus retreat in Surrey, BC, and how the party basically put itself on hold for two years after they turfed Thomas Mulcair but left him in place for two years while they engaged in an overly long leadership process, only to let their fundraising collapse and their outreach stagnate. I do have vague recollections about how they were totally going to use the two-year!leadership contest to totally re-energise the party, and it would totally bring in all kinds of new fundraising and members, and so on. Turns out, none of that happened, Mulcair being left in place slowly poisoned the well, and at the end, they wound up with a leader without a seat, and who has been largely absent both from Ottawa and the national stage (leaving another defeated leadership candidate in his place in Ottawa). I’m hoping that the entire Canadian political scene takes this as an object lesson that the way we’re running leadership contests is very bad, and that we need to get back to the sensible and accountable caucus selection (and removal) of leaders. The pessimist in me, however, sees this very likely reality that they won’t take the lesson, and we’ll continue stumbling along.

Also in NDP news is the damage control about the Erin Weir debacle, and they’re getting out activists and pet columnists to come to their defence and to insist that Weir is the worst person imaginable, ignoring that he took to the media to defend himself after a campaign of leaks started against him as part of the Mean Girling around him, and they’ve offered nothing to substantiate that he is a harasser in any meaningful sense of the word. Jagmeet Singh even proclaimed that he wouldn’t be intimidated by “elites” from the party’s own grassroots – their own current and former MPs and MPPs in Saskatchewan – into changing his mind. It’s actuall a bit stunning.

Notwithstanding

Because this is still Very Big News, there is talk coming out of PC circles in Ontario that Doug Ford is willing to use the nuclear option to show that he’s tough against the courts where Trudeau isn’t, and then uses the false notion that the Notwithstanding Clause could have been used on the Trans Mountain ruling – which it couldn’t, because the Clause only applies to certain sections of the Charter, for which Section 35 is not a part of. But since when to facts matter when you’re pursuing a private grievance in a big, public way? Worse was the fact that people were trying to get Ford to bring up the fact that Justice Belobaba refused to freeze Omar Khadr’s $10 million settlement and turn it over to the widow of his putative victim. Justin Trudeau, meanwhile, continues to say that this is a political issue for Ontarians to deal with, not for him to swoop in and do something about, and he’s right.

Meanwhile, here’s Paul Wells snarkily congratulating Ford’s government for embracing the extremism it too Stephen Harper a decade to find and for making the Notwithstanding Clause easier for any other government to use in a fit of their own pique. Law professor Vanessa MacDonnell thinks that Ford should clearly articulate why he is invoking the Notwithstanding Clause, while Susan Delacourt wonders why Trudeau left it up to Brian Mulroney to forcefully denounce the invocation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Notwithstanding Ford

Posted on by

It was a crazy day in the state of constitutional law yesterday, as an Ontario judge struck down Doug Ford’s bill to reduce the size of Toronto city council on some rather dubious grounds, and Doug Ford responded by insisting that he would invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to ensure it passed anyway, no matter that the issue by which he’s going to use the seldom-used provision on is of dubious merit, and has all of the appearances of enacting a political grudge (while all of the “reasonable” members of his Cabinet who were supposed to keep his worst impulses in check cheer him on). It’s a full-blown tire fire.

For starters, here’s a bit of context about just what the Notwithstanding Clause actually is, and some history of its use. But what is perhaps more alarming are the number of voices who are calling on the federal government to invoke the defunct constitutional provisions around disallowance as a way of thwarting Ford – and some of that has been fuelled by Toronto mayor John Tory meeting with prime minister Justin Trudeau last night. I can pretty much guarantee you that Trudeau, however, won’t touch the disallowance powers with a bargepole, because a) the powers are defunct for a reason (in that the issues that disallowance was used on are better dealt with through the courts), and b) it would stir up such a shitstorm of epic proportions that it would be difficult to contain the political damage, and I’m not sure that Trudeau is willing to expend that much political capital for something that is really not his political ambit, and he’s likely to win most of Toronto’s seats again regardless. But if you also look at the message that Trudeau’s minister of intergovernmental affairs, Dominic LeBlanc sent out, the not unsubtle language in there is that this is a fight for the political arena, and Ontario voters will have to deal with the mess that they created, which is pretty much how it should be. It’s not going to be easy if we’re having these kinds of issues three months in, but people shouldn’t expect another order of government to swoop in and save them. That’s not how democracy works.

Meanwhile, Emmett Macfarlane walks through what’s constitutionally dubious about the court ruling, while Andrew Coyne invokes some high dudgeon about use of the Notwithstanding Clause and Ford’s thuggish populist tactics. Chris Selley reminds us that so much of this episode is because Ford is all about chaos, and he brings more of it with these tactics. Susan Delacourt, rather chillingly, wonders which will be the next premier to decide that the Charter is inconvenient for their populist proposals. And University of Ottawa vice-dean of law Carissima Mathen both writes about why Ford’s comments are so offensive to our system of laws and governance, plus offers some more context about the Notwithstanding Clause in this video segment that you should watch.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Keeping up with vacancies

Posted on by

Of all the places where the current government seems to have lapsed in their basic competencies, the most obvious tends to be their appointments process, and most especially when it comes to making judicial appointments. I’ll grant you that it’s more difficult than it can seem, especially when you are not only balancing the need for new judges with specific skillsets and linguistic capabilities (because you do need a certain number of minority-language speaking judges in every province), before you get to the issues of diversity, and the laudable goals of getting more women and visible minorities on the bench. What has made it more difficult is a process that relies on application rather than nomination, and this continues to be an ongoing saga. And while the courts have been adapting in the post-Jordandecision landscape by ensuring that criminal trials are getting precedence, it means that civil trials are falling to the wayside, and that has its own set of problems.

The Star delves into this problem, with a particular focus on Toronto-area vacancies, where they are chronically behind the number of judges they should have, and where the number that just got appointed will be offset by retirements within weeks. (As an aside, there is a push to get the complement of judges in the GTA increased further, because the total number has been deemed to be insufficient by the local bar). And what is perhaps most disconcerting here is that the minister keeps insisting that there needs to be broader culture change in the court system, not just more judges (when seriously, they’re looking for a full complement to start). I’m not sure that anyone disputes that culture change needs to happen, but the appointments are a pretty low bar that a government should be able to meet. And yet.

This having been said, there is some talk now that we may see more frequent appointments being made as cabinet starts meeting more regularly as Parliament resumes, given that Cabinet needs to approve these names for appointment. So maybe that will happen. But given the pace at which these things have happened, you’ll forgive my skepticism.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No magic wands or Senate public bills

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau went to Edmonton yesterday, and amidst his many media appearances, made a few key points – that getting approval for Trans Mountain was a priority, that while considerations like an appeal or legislation were part of the “all options on the table,” he also made the point that he won’t use “legislative tricks” to get it through, and made some pointed comments about the Conservatives demanding that he wave a magic wand that doesn’t really exist to get it built. If you listened to what he was saying through the layer of pabulum that wraps all of his statements, the core point was that they will comply with the Federal Court of Appeal decision and find the best way to fulfil the roadmap to approval laid out therein.

And oh, what legislative tricks are being proposed. In a particularly boneheaded move, Independent senator Doug Black insists that passing his Senate Public Bill on the Trans Mountain pipeline will declare it in the national interest, and poof, problem solved. (He also suggested giving the NEB four months to redo the portions of the assessment related to marine tanker traffic, when credible people who know these processes say that’s a six-month process, so score another win for Black’s credibility). The problem of course is that there is no actual legislative solution to the issue – the certification is a Cabinet decision, and while some people suggest retroactively changing the legislation to keep the NEB scoping as it was in the report Cabinet based its decision on that the courts found to be flawed, that’s a prospect that will only engender more litigation and will cause further delays – which is why Trudeau has been making the point that they need to ensure long-term solutions so that there will be investor confidence (as Suncor’s CEO announced that they would halt any expansion of their operations until there is a firm pipeline in the ground). Oh, and no piece of legislation can get around Section 35 obligations for the duty to consult, and while I can see some political merit in getting the Supreme Court to weigh in on what exactly constitutes meaningful consultation, it sounds an awful lot like passing the buck to them in order to take the heat off of a political issue, which they really don’t appreciate, and frankly they’ve ruled enough times that governments should have a good idea about what constitutes meaningful consultation.

To add fuel to this fire, Jason Kenney has started making pronouncements about how this recent Court decision is “fuelling separatism” in the province, which really irks me because this wasn’t some bureaucratic decision out of Ottawa – it’s about the rule of law (and if you really want to be technical, the bureaucratic decisions of the NEB came out of Calgary, which is where their headquarters are located). Kenney is being a bad actor and is holding out lighters for arsonists to grab, only to turn around and say “Who, me? I wasn’t inflaming anything! I’m just relaying what I hear,” which is a very dubious denial, and he’s playing with fire in order to score some cheap political points. Add to that, his agitating against the rule of law has darker authoritarian tones, as Colby Cosh pointed out last week, given that this notion about Canada not being “open for business” because the courts protect peoples’ rights. He should be called out on this, rather than being encouraged to keep making these points by credulous journalists (just like those same voices who let Senator Black go unchallenged in that piece).

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne makes that very point – that this ruling is about the rule of law, and that’s a good thing. Too many actors in this are trying to muddy the waters or accuse the judiciary of some kind of activism that they’re not actually doing (while encouraging their own type of activism that would ignore the rule of law in favour of perceived economic benefit), which is a very worrying sign.

Continue reading →