Tag Archives: Doug Ford

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: Neither a minor nor a major shuffle

Posted on by

So there was a Cabinet shuffle, and while not major, it was a little bigger than some may have anticipated. Five new ministers have entered the fray, which expands things somewhat, but still isn’t into later Harper territory. Some of the changes are not unexpected – Joly being moved to tourism while still keeping official languages is a bit of a demotion from the Heritage file that she garnered so much criticism from, particularly in Quebec, on things like the Netflix file. Some of the changes are pretty political – moving Sohi from infrastructure to natural resources in order to have the Alberta minister on the pipeline file is pretty naked on its face. Bill Blair to border security (plus organized crime reduction) are two files that the government wants a stern face on to make it look like they’re taking action. Some of the additions, however, are a bit mystifying, like a minister for seniors? Really? Is this not just a pandering exercise to a voting demographic rather than a file with particular challenges that need addressing? And some of these questions won’t be answered right away, because the mandate letters won’t be available until later in the summer. Here is the updated Cabinet list including the existing ministers whose titles got modified, and here are profiles of the five new additions.

And then the reaction. Blair’s promotion may send the signal that they’re taking the border situation seriously, but it also can look like they’re a) caving to critics, b) admitting that this is a security and not a humanitarian situation, c) putting border security alongside fighting organized crime in the same portfolio risks conflating the two in the eyes of those who are convinced that these irregular migrants are really all criminals and terrorists. Trudeau apparently lured Blair into politics on the promise of fighting the number one enemy of public security – fear. I’m not sure that putting him in this new role fights fear or reinforces it.

In terms of analysis, Paul Wells notes both that putting Blair into Cabinet is a bit of a poke in the eye to Doug Ford, given that they were nemeses during the Fords’ years in Toronto City Hall, and that this new Cabinet is one built to survive the coming storms until the next election (along with the observation that Trudeau seems to have demoted himself by stripping away the intergovernmental affairs responsibility and giving it to Dominic LeBlanc). Kady O’Malley makes five observations about the shuffle, while Susan Delacourt looks at the shuffle from the perspective of reacting to the recent Ontario election.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A confirmation of sorts

Posted on by

Because the “groping” story continues to circulate, we got yet more developments yesterday, as Justin Trudeau faced yet more questions and essentially reiterated what he’d said previously but seemed confirm that something may have happened in her perception that he didn’t perceive to be a problem, and sure, keep asking him questions because this is all about the process of re-examination in these changing times we’re living in. And while the concern trolls melted down over that, the woman at the centre of the allegations came forward with a statement that said yes, something happened as reported (but no specifics, for which we continue to be left with vague suggestions as to what did happen) and she’s not talking about it.

When asked about why this is different from other situations, Trudeau said that he’s confident that people can assess this on a case-by-case basis, for which I have doubts precisely because the concern trolls (and even some well-meaning reporters) keep conflating previous issues with this one, entirely speciously. And some of those specious comparisons are done with malicious intent (and when you call them on it, funny that they don’t have an answer).

There are still questions about what happened (though I’m not sure that all of Anne Kingston’s questions here are legitimate), but an independent investigation won’t solve anything because it’s impossible to conduct, and seriously, reporters and pundits should know this. Meanwhile, my weekend column wonders if we can have a nuanced conversation about the “groping” allegations amidst specious comparisons and dubious calls of hypocrisy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Explaining the system to Ford

Posted on by

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had his first meeting with Ontario premier Doug Ford yesterday, and it went about as well as could be expected. While the expected topic was going to be carbon pricing, Ford’s people pre-emptively put out a release saying that they were going to wash their hands of the whole irregular border crossers issue, citing that it was the problem the federal government created and they would have to pay for it going forward. Which is a pretty interesting interpretation of areas of provincial responsibility. Trudeau took this in stride, apparently, and in the press conference after, said that he took the time to explain some of the confusion that the premier seemed to have around the issue and things like the difference between immigration and asylum, and Canada’s international obligations when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers. For what it’s worth.

Of course, Ford’s provincial immigration minister lashed out after this happened, but what I find particularly telling about all of this is how much it relies on the kinds of partisan talking points that the federal Conservatives have been putting out around how this is entirely the fault of Trudeau’s #WelcomeToCanada tweet (which would be predicated on ignoring the political situation in the United States), and that it misrepresents the number of migrants who have been since shuttled to Ontario as a result. Now, the federal government is not blameless, as they have been slow to ramp up the resources needed to process claims and were a bit slow off the mark to look at ways to communicate with the communities on the ground in the US – a tactic that ultimately has proved to be successful, but not before a wave of arrivals had already crossed the border. The other thing that is notable is that the predominantly American framing of “illegals” has been cropping up here too, which should be a warning sign about the kinds of populist rhetoric that is being repurposed for domestic effect.

The other thing that this highlights is the fact that we have a provincial government that got to where it is on the basis of simple slogans and unrealistic promises (no, you’re not going to get cheaper gasoline or buck-a-beer), so it should be no surprise when they start making noises that don’t reflect their obligations, both nationally and internationally. Yes, they can try to get more money out of the federal government – which they are providing – but trying to wash their hands of the issue (while subtly playing into the kinds of xenophobic populism that they have largely eschewed to date) is not going to fly.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Silence from Trudeau on child removals

Posted on by

While all attention is glued to the horror show south of the border when it comes to child removals from migrant families, there is a lot of commentary around the conspicuous silence by this government, and from Trudeau in particular. While he said that he’s not going to “play politics” around this, some of his ministers have made comments to the effect that this policy is “simply unacceptable,” but Trudeau is largely mum. If anything, the government has taken a particularly defensive tone by talking about how much work they’ve done to reform immigration detention in this country, and to not separate children from their parents and only detain when necessary (and the record has improved, but it had some particularly dark spots in recent years, from suicides in detention to people being housed in provincial jails when there were no other immigration detention facilities available). There is an assumption that this is because he’s trying to “play nice” with Trump, but I’m not convinced about that.

If anything about the particular problem we’ve had with irregular border crossers over the past two years has shown, it’s that there is a narrative about how Trudeau’s #WelcomeToCanada tweet created the crisis. I’m not convinced that it did, but that’s the narrative. Given this crisis at the American borders, with migrants coming in from conflict zones in Central America, and with global refugee numbers at an all-time high, you can bet that Trudeau is doing his level best to be circumspect in all of his statements, not because of Trump, but rather to avoid another surge of migrants headed for our borders, and into a system that is already swamped (in no small part because they’ve been unable to make timely appointments to the IRB, and because it’s still under-resourced). Now, if Trudeau made sweeping condemnations about what’s happening in the US, that could be seen as another open invitation, which would stress our system even further. Add to that the calls from the NDP and others to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement – a move that would immediately cause a massive rush for our ports of entry to claim asylum, again, swamping our already stressed system, beyond the diplomatic escalation that removing the “safe” designation from the US would cause. And the Trump administration may be fine with it, and do all it can to push more of their migrants to our borders and say “good riddance.” Regardless, I see Trudeau’s silence as an abundance of caution and trying not to create a larger border crisis than the one he’s currently dealing with, no matter the fact that what’s happening in the States is unconscionable.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1009287591957581824

Meanwhile, as if to highlight Canada’s own record, there was testimony before the Senate Aboriginal People’s Committee about how child removals within Indigenous communities continues to erode them, given that currently child welfare workers are more likely to separate children from their families than get proper assistance for those families in crisis, and that the numbers today are akin to another residential schools system. So, yeah. We don’t have a clean record, and I’m sure this would quickly be thrown in the government’s face if they said anything.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sore loserism and entrails

Posted on by

If you had any money riding on who would be the first to whine that Thursday’s election result was a signal that we need electoral reform, and if you chose Elizabeth May, well, collect your winnings. I spent much of Friday responding to this nonsense, but I will reiterate a couple of points – that if you blame the system because your party did not do better, you’re already missing the point. We’ve seen it happen time and again that when a party has a message that resonates, it’s the non-voters who come out, not the committed party base, and we had increased turnout on Thursday night which meant that people were motivated to throw the bums out. Similarly with Trudeau in 2015 – a significant uptick in voter turnout because they had something that they wanted to vote for/throw the bums out. This matters, and whinging that the system isn’t fair is missing the point entirely. The system works. It needs to be allowed to function the way it was intended. What doesn’t help is using a false number like the popular vote in order to make it look like the system is unfair in order to justify your disappointment is the epitome or sore loserism.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1005214910966452224

In terms of reading Thursday night’s entrails, here’s Paul Wells taking a detailed look at the three campaigns and how each succeeded and failed in their own ways. CBC has a look at how Ford’s use of simple and vague messaging made him look sensible to an angry population. Robert Hiltz looks at the ways in which the Liberals defeated themselves by their craven attempts to hold onto power. Nevertheless, Wynne’s surprise concession days before the election may actually have saved the seats the Liberals did win, according to exit polling done, so that particular strategic calculation may have actually paid off.

Jen Gerson wonders if Doug Ford’s win isn’t akin to a Monkey’s Paw curse – getting what you wish for at a terrible price. Andrew MacDougall wonders what Ford’s win means for modern conservatism given that Ford isn’t really a small-c conservative, nor were his outlandish promises. Similarly, Chris Selley looks at the phenomenon of Ford Nation, the Harper Conservatives that surround him, and the way that Andrew Scheer has suddenly attached himself to the cause. Andrew Coyne (once you get past the griping about the electoral system) warns politicians and pundits not to overread Thursday’s results (hey federal Conservatives and your crowing in QP on Friday – this especially means you), and further wonders if Ford will pull a “cupboard is bare” routine to keep carbon pricing to use the revenues. Jason Kirby mocks up what Ford’s first speech might look like, by referencing earlier speeches about bare cupboards.

Continue reading →