Tag Archives: China

Roundup: A vote devoid of real meaning

Posted on by

As expected, the Conservative caucus voted for the (garbage) Reform Act proposals that give them the option to demand a leadership review, and as expected, the media fell all over themselves to interpret some kind of significance into this, including the fact that the same thing happened after the last election when Andrew Scheer was still the leader – never mind that the Reform Act had precisely zero to do with Scheer’s demise.

And while everyone was smiling and preaching unity coming out of the meeting, there are still sore MPs, who are concerned about the losses they suffered, and that their promised gains in places like the GTA didn’t materialise. MP Scott Reid is openly decrying that the party is being run like a “petty tyranny” where policy positions like the carbon price was imposed on them without discussion or even notice (as Reid was running to be caucus chair). So clearly they still have some healing to do, but I wouldn’t read any significance into the (garbage) Reform Act vote, because all it will do is insulate Erin O’Toole.

Meanwhile, I am concerned at some of the delusion that seems to have set into the party, as O’Toole went into the meeting telling the assembled reporters that it was the Liberals and People’s Party who spent the campaign misleading people and sowing division. I mean, serial liar Erin O’Toole, who attempted to make the falsehood of a non-existent Liberal plan to tax home equity a campaign issue, says it was the other guys who thrived on misleading people. I’d say it was unbelievable, but it was simply one more lie that O’Toole effortlessly spouts. Later in the day, Michael Chong was on Power & Politics, and when O’Toole’s constantly shifting positions on issues like gun control were raised, he called it a “Liberal trap.” Erm, it’s O’Toole’s shifting position – that’s on him. Chong also declared that it was wrong to make vaccination a wedge issue because anti-vaxxers felt like “hunted prey,” which is…warped. When you have a group of people who are prolonging the pandemic and endangering the lives of others, whether it’s directly with the virus or because they have overwhelmed the healthcare capacity that vaccinated people require, they should be made to feel social stigma. That’s the point. That Chong is going to bat for them demonstrates why his party continues to be tone deaf about the course of this pandemic.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1445387619215552520

Continue reading →

Roundup: Green insiders spill the tea

Posted on by

This apparently was the weekend for the tea to start being spilled about what was really going on inside the Green Party, and we got a lot of details. The primary one is this lengthy read that details the struggles inside the party, and there is plenty of blame to go around, but what is on offer here really shows that Annamie Paul was a key author in her own misfortune. To add to that, Elizabeth May also writes in her own words an account of why she stayed silent on Paul’s orders, how she tried to support Paul in any way possible including offering to resign and let Paul run in her riding, which is the first time I’ve heard that such an offer had been made. More to the point, it is a fairly detailed accounting of how Paul misunderstood how Greens view their own leadership, and tried to impose a very top-down view of it, including demanding that her MPs didn’t speak to the media, and how even now, Paul announced her intentions to resign but hasn’t formally done so, which is why the party is in a weird state of limbo.

While once again I have no doubt that racism, misogyny and antisemitism all played a role in Paul’s departure, her own actions were certainly part of what happened, from her salary demands (she wanted the party to pay a salary equivalent as though she were a sitting MP), to her control over the party that was unlike the party’s constitution, which the national council largely did accede to. This being said, everything that has come out this weekend really makes me think that the glass cliff narrative is less likely a driving force in what happened, and a more complicated series of events took place. It is too bad, given how Paul did acquit herself on the national debate stage for the most part (until you realised her answer for everything was “we have to work together”) and it’s a shame that it all came to this.

Meanwhile, May also stated over the weekend that she won’t take the interim leader position, and says she wants Paul Manly, who lost his seat, to do the job until they can run another leadership contest. Of course, it may be too late for the party by this point, but we’ll see if they can salvage what remains, but it’s not looking promising.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Did Paul hit a glass cliff?

Posted on by

Not unexpectedly, Green Party leader Annamie Paul announced her resignation yesterday morning, citing that she didn’t have the heart to go through the restarted leadership review process, and saying that she didn’t expect when she smashed the glass ceiling, that the shards would rain down on her and that she’d have to walk over them. Without denying that some of her problems related to racism, misogyny and antisemitism, I find myself somewhat conflicted about the notion that she is a case of a glass cliff.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1442538999579561984

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1442541082126913547

Why I’m unsure this is necessarily applicable is because the party wasn’t in a great deal of a mess when Elizabeth May decided she no longer wanted to be leader, and it was certainly doing well electorally (they had just won two additional seats for the first time ever federally), and they had some provincial successes that they were counting on. Unlike most “glass cliff” scenarios, it wasn’t like a woman or minority was brought in to clean up a mess or was outright set up to fail. But part of what happened is a problem that is getting more common in Canadian politics, which is that we have so utterly bastardised our party leadership selection processes and fetishised “outsiders” coming into parties to lead them that we have set up the expectation for someone like Paul, who had no political experience, to come in and lead a party as though it were an entry-level job. When Mike Moffatt talks about the pipeline of talent to replace a leader, that’s not unique to the Greens either – the federal Conservatives also suffer from that problem, in part because Stephen Harper actively killed the ambitions of anyone else in the party and surrounded himself with yes-men, so it’s no wonder that his successors have largely proven themselves to be duds (and Rona Ambrose was never intended to be a permanent leader, so any course-corrections she made to the party were largely undone by Scheer and O’Toole). Did Paul get mentorship and training to succeed? Erm, was there anyone in the party that could give it to her? Aside from Elizabeth May – which may be the problem. This is also a problem when you choose leaders who don’t have seats, and who lack the political judgment about how to go about seeking one as soon as possible (and when your sitting MPs refuse to give up their seat to the leader). There are a lot of points of failure here, including structural ones in how leadership contests are conducted – but I fear that simply calling this a glass cliff may be absolving Paul a little too much of her own culpability in her political demise.

Where the party goes from here we’ll have to see. May said she had no interest in being interim leader, though I suppose she will be back to being “parliamentary leader” for the party, though I suspect she may also want to make a run for Speaker as she has previously expressed a desire to do (which she will lose). But the party is going to find itself dealing with fairly existential questions pretty shortly.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Return of the two Michaels

Posted on by

Friday was very much an exercise in life coming at one fast, as Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with American authorities, and hours later, the extradition order she was under was dropped and she was free to return to China. A few hours after that, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were on their way back to Canada, the fig leaf that their arrests were not hostage diplomacy in retaliation for Meng’s arrest completely gone, and they arrived on Canadian soil in the early hours of Saturday morning, with prime minister Justin Trudeau and foreign affairs minister Marc Garneau greeting them on the tarmac in Calgary. Spavor debarked there, Kovrig then continued onto Toronto, where he was met by his estranged wife and his sister.

With all of this in mind, there are questions as to where our relationship with China goes next. Garneau says that they are “eyes wide open,” and that they are now following a four-fold approach to China: “coexist,” “compete,” “co-operate,” and “challenge” – which seems to be a more articulate policy direction than the “tough but smart” that Garneau’s predecessor, François-Philippe Champagne stated several months ago. This certainly came up during the election, but the Liberals didn’t articulate much of a foreign policy in their platform, and we got very little in the way of debate on the subject. It is not insignificant, however, that Canada did lead a group of Western allies in a pact against the use of hostage diplomacy, whether practice by China or others (and there are others), so it’s not like the government sat on their hands the whole time either. It will also be exceedingly difficult to disentangle our trade from China – particularly in our agricultural sector – so it will be very interesting to see what this process looks like going forward over the next couple of years.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The stakes on Monday may be bigger than we think

Posted on by

There were a couple of columns on The Line yesterday that are food for thought as we head into the final days of the election. The first was from Matt Gurney, who states in no uncertain terms that if the Conservatives can’t pull out a strong enough showing, that they will start a death spiral as a party to the forces of right-wing populism that have consumed the Republican Party south of the border. Gurney’s thesis is essentially that if O’Toole can manage to get enough results to hold onto power, he might have enough time to get the party’s shit together to save it, but it’s going to mean hard choices and dumping the shitposters in his office and the loonies in his caucus like Cheryl Gallant, and have a firm enough hand to be the necessary bulwark. But I have my doubts that O’Toole is strong enough to do this – he’s spent his leadership winking and nodding to this crowd, given a free pass to Gallant and to Pierre Poilievre, and has basically lied his way through his entire leadership, while utterly debasing himself and his party in order to secure the favour of François Legault. I’m not confident that O’Toole is the person capable of doing the hard work of steering the ship away from Charybdis that lies ahead of it. I think Gurney is right that we need a coherent right-of-centre party for the sake of the country (and hell, we need a capable opposition party regardless of stripe to do the work of accountability), but I have less faith in O’Toole than Gurney does, and I think the party needs a complete generation change if it’s going to be truly successful in pushing back against the very populists that they’ve nurtured and coddled this whole time.

With all of this in mind, Jen Gerson lambastes the entire election as a collection of shiny talking points, with the Liberals basically a shell of a personality cult versus O’Toole amorphousness that is certainly not ready for power – and that there may be a problem with conservatism as an ideology when it comes to dealing with issues like a pandemic, as Alberta is demonstrating. Most of her points are legitimate, but I also think that if anyone thinks this election is about nothing then they’re not paying attention. I don’t disagree that the Liberals are largely a personality cult around Trudeau, but at the same time, they are the only party that has put in the homework, whether it’s on their plans for early learning and child care, inclusive growth, the environment, housing, LGBT issues – they have actual feasible plans behind them and aren’t just handwavey platitudes, or fig leaves that are designed to look like they have a plan but they really don’t. That counts for something, and Trudeau won’t be there for much longer. The cult of personality will reform as it always does, but there will be still be the actual work they’ve put in, and it has been a lot of work, even if it doesn’t look like it from the outside (and that’s partially the Liberals’ fault for not properly communicating their own successes).

And with that in mind, I am baffled by the fact that O’Toole is making his final pitch to voters that Trudeau called an “unnecessary” election – omitting the months of procedural warfare that O’Toole’s side was orchestrating, and that Trudeau needed to break that logjam one way or another. There is a lot at stake in this election, and it would be great if we could keep our eyes on some of what that actually is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another day, another position on gun control

Posted on by

Another day, and Erin O’Toole has yet another position on gun control. In the face of more questions on just where he stands, O’Toole now says that he’ll keep the existing prohibitions in place – but remains cagey on just what those are, never mind that his platform says he’ll repeal them. Also, never mind that his own candidates are saying they’ll repeal the measures the current government put into place.

What is fascinating as well is to watch certain small-c conservative columnists report on this about-face, saying things like this might save O’Toole’s campaign, rather than, oh, this is yet another example of him swallowing himself whole, reversing his positions when it suits him, saying one thing to one group and another thing to another group if he thinks he can get away with it, and generally being a naked opportunist. And these tend to be the same talking heads who spend days if the Liberals “flip-flop” on a position. I expect we’ll see a few more days of questions to O’Toole on his changing positions, and whether they change again in another day or two.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A display of arrogance and entitlement from McDonald

Posted on by

In what is quite possibly an admission of arrogance and entitlement, the ostensible current Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Art McDonald, says that he’s going to return to the job now that he’s been “cleared” by the investigation into previous sexual misconduct – but that’s not his decision to make. The fact that he seemed to publicly indicate that this was a fait-accompli may have in fact been a faux pas, as the Minister of Defence actually showed a modicum of spine and said that no, McDonald is remaining on paid leave until they can decide what they’re going to do.

Remember, CDS is a Governor-in-Council appointment, meaning that the prime minister and Cabinet can appoint who they want to the position, and remove the current occupant at any point for any reason, and the fact that McDonald has both lost the moral authority to hold the job, coupled with this stunning bit of entitlement, may in fact prove that is should no longer be considered to be qualified to hold the position.

Meanwhile, here is former national security lawyer (and former armored officer) Leah West to put this into perspective:

https://twitter.com/leahwest_nsl/status/1425547465051279361

https://twitter.com/leahwest_nsl/status/1425547467471429634

https://twitter.com/leahwest_nsl/status/1425549147118125069

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questioning the housing numbers

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report yesterday on the federal government’s programme spending on housing affordability, and I have questions, both on the report, and on the responses to it. On the report itself, I’m having a hard time seeing how this is necessarily within his remit, and not that of the Auditor General. This is not exactly fiscal or macro-economic analysis – it’s evaluating programme spending, which is the Auditor General’s job. (Once again, the PBO is not a “budget watchdog” or a “watchdog” of any kind, per his enabling legislation). This doesn’t appear to have been at the request of any MPs in particular, though this updates his 2019 report which was requested by an unnamed MP at the time, but again, not really his wheelhouse. “Providing economic and financial analysis for the purposes of raising the quality of parliamentary debate and promoting greater budget transparency and accountability” is being taken a little too broadly.

The findings of the report are that the funds allocated to housing are being underspent, but doesn’t really delve into why, other than noting that some of the spending was related to having to renew bilateral agreements with provinces that were allowed to lapse in 2015, and that CMHC’s programmes have both faced “implementation delays” and that their shift toward funding capital contributions instead of affordability supports spread that funding out over the life of projects. Those “implementation delays” probably deserve a lot more exploration – the fact that municipalities in particular aren’t spending the dollars available fast enough because the projects are bottlenecked in their own jurisdictions (and Vancouver is most especially guilty of this) – and that’s a lot of what this report seems to be light on details about. Housing is largely a provincial responsibility, and aside from providing money, the federal government has very few levers at its disposal, and when municipalities can’t get their acts together, that’s not really a problem the federal government can solve.

As for opposition reaction, it was predictable in that it read the PBO’s topline and not much else. The Conservatives complained that the housing plans haven’t met their targets and that they need a plan that “gets homes built,” which again, is pretty hard to do with the very few levers available at the federal level. The NDP, meanwhile, accuse the government of dubious accounting and broken promises, as per usual, again based largely on topline figures and not the fact that many of the problems exist at the provincial and municipal levels. Federal dollars only go so far and can only wield so much influence, and these are details that matter when it comes to implementing promises.

Continue reading →

Roundup: What open nominations?

Posted on by

Do you remember when the Liberals considered themselves the party of open nominations? And how they were always going to uphold the democratic right of riding associations to run fair, open and transparent processes to select the candidates that would appear on the ballot for them? Because apparently the party has put this particular bit of democracy, openness and transparency down the memory hole as they continue to acclaim candidates from across the country. In two of these cases, the acclamations came a mere day after the incumbents announced that they weren’t running again, and in one of those ridings – Kanata-Carleton – there was the making of a contested nomination as rumours swirled that Karen McCrimmon wasn’t going to run again, and the riding association was frustrated that they couldn’t get any kind of answer from the party on how and when to run said contested nomination.

Now, the party is going to defend its honour by pointing out that their rules state that they can declare a state of “electoral urgency” to bypass the nomination process, but this is more of the Liberals’ penchant of letting the ends justify the means. They created the rules that were easily gamed, and frankly, the “electoral urgency” clause is a load of bullshit because they were using it in 2019 in the months before the election when they knew they had four years to have this process ongoing because there was a fixed election date under a majority parliament, so there were no surprises. Yes, the pandemic has made nomination races tougher because of public health restrictions, and the party has come under fire for using a verification system that includes facial recognition technology (which BC’s privacy commissioner is investigating, per that province’s laws), but again, these were things that the party should have been cognisant of and dealing with rather than simply wringing their hands and pulling the “electoral urgency” alarm to fast-track their hand-picked candidates, thwarting local democracy, and accountability.

Open nominations are one of the most important and fundamental building blocks of our democratic system. When parties flout those rules, it hurts the entire system – especially as it cements even more power in the leaders’ offices. That the Liberals are so blatantly ignoring their own supposed values in this crucial stage of the democratic process is a sign that the way the party rewrote their constitution to fit the Trudeau era is a very real problem that they are going to have to do a lot of soul-searching to address, especially when that age comes to its inevitable end.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Languages Commissioner goes rogue

Posted on by

We appear to have another Independent Officer of Parliament who has decided to go rogue, as the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, has announced that he plans to investigate the nomination process that selected Mary Simon as Governor General, given her lack of French. There are, of course, a whole host of problems with this, starting with the fact that the GG is not a federal bureaucrat and is not included in the Official Languages Act. Her office in Rideau Hall is certainly subject to the Act, and there is no question it will operate bilingually, but Simon herself is not. Furthermore, she is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the prime minister, and the advice that he gets from his appointments committee (as problematic as the current structure may be) is non-binding.

Théberge, in that case, has decided that he’ll investigate the Privy Council Office for their role in supporting said committee and providing advice, which…is a stretch. A very, very big stretch. The whole sham investigation is already outside of his mandate, and more to the point, it is hugely colonial at that, and certainly not exactly befitting the stated goals of decolonization and reconciliation. (There is, of course, the matter of this government’s apparent hypocrisy in how it treated the appointment of Simon and how it treats the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada justices, but that is also not exactly something that Théberge could investigate).

Meanwhile, Philippe Lagassé enumerates these points, explains the role of convention versus legislation in these kinds of appointments, and most especially points to the fact that Théberge might want to better familiarize himself with the Constitution, given that the appointment didn’t violate any Act of Parliament. What a gong show.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1417267990790279174

Continue reading →