Tag Archives: Elections Canada

Roundup: Kabuki theatre around the Elections Act changes

Posted on by

There are days when the state of our parliament achieves the level of farce, and we appear to be having another of those moments. Minister Dominic LeBlanc sent a letter to opposition party leaders – which seems to be a more common occurrence the days – urging them to pass the bill that would allow for pandemic-related changes to the Canada Elections Act per the request of the Chief Electoral Officer. This bill was tabled back in December, and we have just exhausted the sitting weeks in March, and it still has not even made it to committee, in part because the Conservatives have spent weeks using procedural tactics to delay debate on most every piece of legislation on the Order Paper.

LeBlanc apparently mentioned the upcoming budget in the letter, because that is a confidence measure and this is a hung parliament, so it is possible that the government could face a non-confidence vote and trigger an election at pretty much any point. And so during what debate there has been on this bill, the opposition MPs keep saying that there’s no imminent election unless the Liberals plan on calling one, and the NDP are going so far as to say that they simply need to work together to avoid one. Essentially, they get to accuse the government of opportunism for trying to do their due diligence at the request of the Chief Electoral Officer, which is cute for everyone involved.

But here’s the real kicker that makes this all a farce – the bill has an implementation period of 90 days after royal assent. The House isn’t sitting for the next two weeks, and even if they managed to have a Second Reading vote, speed it through committee and rush it to the Senate, I don’t image that it could be passed both chambers before the 23rd of April at the earliest, and only then would that 90-day clock start. That means that the changes couldn’t be fully implemented until the very end of July, meaning that even if the budget were the crux by which the government could fall (those votes would likely happen sometime in early May), there is no way that these changes could pass before a spring election could be called (considering the usual writ period of about six weeks). Any party pushing for an election without these changes would be suicidal. The government really has no interest in calling an election (seriously, and I’ve spoken to ministers who lament the number of items they have on the Order Paper that they need to see passed), especially because we are now into a Third Wave of this pandemic and there is no possible way we can vaccinate our way out of it without a time machine, so all of this chest-thumping by parties (and pleading by bored pundits) is for naught. This is all a bunch of Kabuki theatre for the sake of scoring points. We are not a serious country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: CBC’s baffling mandate talk

Posted on by

There are some pretty questionable narratives that circulate in Canadian media for a lot of very dubious reasons, and we had another winner yesterday, when Justin Trudeau was on Peter Mansbridge’s podcast. Bafflingly, he was asked if he needed to go through an election to get a “mandate” to implement his upcoming budget, and I cannot even.

I. Cannot. Even.

Trudeau – semi-correctly – noted that he does not because he already one.

This notion that we somehow have “mandates” in our system is completely divorced from reality. We don’t have mandates – governments operate on the basis of confidence. They are appointed by the Governor General based on their ability to maintain the confidence of the Chamber – they are not popularly elected. They do not need to solely operate on what was in the election, because a) events, dear boy, events, and b) they operate on the basis of confidence. If the legislature has a problem with the government’s agenda, they will let them know. It’s also incredibly difficult to claim a “mandate” in our electoral system given that we operate by plurality, and even more especially when we have a hung parliament. (More on this from Philippe Lagassé here).

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1374805012120014862

Even more to the point, why the gods damned CBC would write up 800 words on this interaction for a dynamic that does not exist in a Westminster parliamentary system like ours is boggling.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A level of cynicism you need to reach for

Posted on by

The Conservatives spent their allotted Supply Day yesterday debating a non-binding motion that would demand the government produce a “data-driven” plan to end all lockdowns permanently – something that should more generously be referred to as shenanigans, but is perhaps better described as an act of deep cynicism that is designed to create false expectations, and make it look like the government is guilty of inaction when the demands being placed on them are largely outside of their jurisdiction.

https://twitter.com/kateheartfield/status/1374374821463687186

https://twitter.com/kateheartfield/status/1374375879959187459

Part of this cynicism is trying to blame the federal government for the lockdowns – or perhaps more appropriately mockdowns – that have occurred over the past year, when those are provincial decisions. Every few days in QP, we get a question prefaced with “lockdowns were supposed to be a temporary measure,” which then blames the federal government for something or other when it was the provinces who a) did not lock down properly, b) opened too early, and c) tried to play Goldilocks by thinking they could have a little bit of COVID in the community and everything would be fine, forgetting that it grows exponentially, and by not taking proper measures, things spiralled out of control. And it keeps happening – we never properly exited the second wave and we are already into the third because these premiers did not learn their lessons and were too concerned about letting people eat in restaurants and failing the marshmallow test rather than actually crushing the spread and allowing a more normal pace of business operations – much as Atlantic Canada managed to do.

Of course, it’s the Conservatives’ ideological brethren who are responsible for most of the disasters at the provincial level, meaning that they don’t want to criticize them. Rather, they are more invested in creating some kind of alternate reality where the federal government is making the calls (they’re not), and are dressing up their disregard for lives under the crocodile tears of “mental health,” when their loaded questions about re-opening the economy betray their true concerns. The realities of a pandemic, where people need to be paid to stay home in order to limit spread, have proven to be beyond their capacity to process, and they cannot deal with this reality – so they instead create an alternate one. Having the federal government produce a plan for re-opening at this point not only sets up false hope and unrealistic expectations, but it would simply allow people to feel like they have permission to start “cheating” on the rules the closer they get to any of the dates outlined in these plans, and it would set back progress even more than it’s been set back now by certain incompetent and immoral murderclowns who are running many of the provinces. With the new variants circulating in community spread, demanding a map for re-opening when we still don’t know what the landscape will look like is premature and frankly, foolhardy. But they don’t care – they’re just looking to score points by crying “The US and the UK have reopening plans but we don’t!” It makes it hard to treat them as a government-in-waiting if this is the casual disregard they have for human lives.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pointing to the civilian culture too

Posted on by

The reckoning over the culture in the Canadian Forces that permits sexual misconduct continues to get an airing, and over the weekend, we saw another dimension to this reckoning be raised, which is that the culture of the civilian branch – the Department of National Defence – has many of these same cultural problems in part because a good portion of its staff are former military and came up in the same toxic culture in the Forces. One example of ways in which the Forces were trying to show women that they weren’t welcome was forcing them into co-ed showers in 1997, and how the people involved in those decisions are still in positions of authority today.

Also over the weekend, there was an interview with retired Lt-Gen. Christine Whitecross, who discussed her experiences with misconduct that she did not always pursue complaints about, but also her sense of optimism that more people reporting sexual misconduct in the ranks. Whitecross also let it be known that she did apply for the chief of defence staff position, but obviously did not get it (to the surprise of many). As well, the accused in one of the most high-profile cases of sexual assault in the military – the story of which wound up in Maclean’s and touched off the Deschamps report and Operation Honour – is going to plead guilty to the charges after all.

Amidst all of this, the current military ombudsman is now echoing previous calls to make his office fully independent and reporting to Parliament, rather than to the department and the minister, and I just can’t. The very last thing we need is one more unaccountable Independent Officer of Parliament, and yet they are proliferating like mad, and this is yet one more demand. Surely we can figure out some sort of mechanism to help them retain greater independence within the current structure, but we need to stop the proliferation of Officers of Parliament, before they completely overrun our system, reducing our MPs to battle droids who recite canned speeches and vote according to their whip’s instructions. And it’s not like we’re not seeing other Officers of Parliament going well beyond their job descriptions and turning themselves into media darlings, right? Oh, wait…

Continue reading →

Roundup: Too-generous benefits?

Posted on by

I find myself a bit troubled by this notion that pandemic benefits have been “too generous,” even when people trot out statistics that show that some households got as much as $3000 more in supports like CERB over reported lost income in a three-month period, and some $2500 more in lower-income households. Partially why this rankles is because this is a gods damned global pandemic and we needed people to stay home rather than try to recklessly go to potentially unsafe workplaces where they could spread the virus. This notion that people needed to get back to work is one of the reasons why COVID infections and deaths were at much higher rates in other countries who had less generous supports, and I don’t think we should necessarily be apologising for this.

The other aspect of this that is unsettling is this notion that if these benefits continue that there will be a disincentive to work as the economy recovers, but again, if the economy is recovering and we are reaching a point of mass vaccination sufficient to actually have a re-opened economy, then these pandemic-specific programmes would be wound down, so it shouldn’t be a long-term consideration. More to the point, however, is that these pandemic supports were not really all that generous, and if people think it’s a disincentive to work, then maybe they should re-examine the wages that people are being paid – if they’re so low that CERB-level payments are a disincentive, then perhaps the job is the wage rate and not the benefits themselves. Businesses have continually lobbied to keep minimum wages artificially low, in spite of an increasing volume of evidence that higher minimum wage don’t actually cause businesses to close (and in fact, have the opposite effect). Perhaps governments should take that into account as we look to “build back better,” with more inclusive growth that should include higher wages for these workers, rather than returning to the failed “old normal” of grinding poverty.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Expired election-rigging accusations

Posted on by

Over the past few days, there has been a bit of uproar over a Conservative Party webpage that decries attempts by the Liberals to “rig the next election in his favour,” in light of everything that we are seeing in the US. The page has since been taken down, but most people have forgotten that this pre-dated the last election in 2019, when the Conservatives objected to the last round of Elections Act changes, because of the pre-writ limits that imposed, while claiming the government could keep spending and advertising and that only the opposition was hobbled. That’s not actually correct because governments can’t be doing partisan activities (such as wearing a Conservative Party t-shirt to a government announcement, like Pierre Poilievre would do when he was briefly a minister of the Crown), and using government or even House of Commons resources for partisan activities is prohibited.

Nevertheless, it is a reminder that we are not immune to these kinds of accusations in this country, even if they are in a slightly different form or context from the Gong show that is the US post-election, and the utter mendacity of those who claim that it was “stolen.” Meanwhile, here’s CTV reporter Glen McGregor on what election law breaches have been like in Canada over the past decade, and lo, they have been from the Conservatives.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Feigned ignorance and consequences

Posted on by

The list of politicians, federal and provincial, that travelled over the Christmas break, has grown, and premiers especially have been finding it hard to keep their stories straight about their own culpability. A reminder: ministers cannot leave their province without permission, and they need to have someone appointed as an acting minister during their absence, which requires paperwork, and in no possible universe would the premier not have known. While Doug Ford has lied that he didn’t know his finance minister was leaving the country, Jason Kenney and Scott Moe took the weaselly path of “taking responsibility” for not making it clear to their caucus that there wasn’t to be any travelling – something which is a red herring in the case of ministers. They knew and were caught out, and now they are trying to minimize the damage and divert attention away from their culpability, but anyone who knows how governments work know that this is grade-A bullshit.

There is a question of consequences – particularly for the backbenchers who were caught out. Among the federal Conservatives, there seems to be little that they can do to sanction Ron Liepert, while David Sweet resigned as the chair of the ethics committee and said he’s not running again in the next election. A real question will be for Senator Don Plett, who is the leader of the opposition in the Senate. There could be some real political damage to the institution if he doesn’t do something to show remorse, whether that is stepping down from his leadership position, or some other act of contrition. If he doesn’t do it voluntarily, we’ll see if Erin O’Toole makes a move as party leader, or if the Conservative caucus in the Senate makes their own move to limit the damage to their own reputations. Regardless, we’ll see how the next few days play out as the outrage continues to swirl.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The weekend year-enders

Posted on by

The main networks had their year-enders with prime minister Justin Trudeau air over the weekend, and I’m not sure that we’ve learned too much more that’s new, but nevertheless, here we are. To CBC, Trudeau said that they need to be ready for an election regardless, given that it’s a hung parliament, even if he doesn’t want one, but wouldn’t rule out calling one himself (which is fair, given that there may be a situation where he may not have a choice to clear a logjam in Parliament. Things happen). He also says that it’s possible that he did contract COVID when his wife had it, but he was asymptomatic the whole time and was in self-isolation throughout.

To CTV, Trudeau defended his vaccine strategy given the scramble for PPE early on, slammed the NHL trying to jump the queue for vaccines, gave some more explanation as to the rationale behind the planned stimulus spending once the pandemic ends (and again promised to balance the budget after temporary benefits programmes are wound down), deflected on his ethical blind spots, and stated that he wasn’t ready to decriminalise all drugs yet, despite some sectors calling for it as a way to deal with the opioid epidemic.

Meanwhile, the PM’s private photographer, Adam Scotti, offered his year-in-review, and there are some amazing photographs in there. Take some time to wander through them and it will take a while, because there is a lot to go through from the year that was. I think what I was most taken with were the photos of the full House of Commons from early in the year, and how strange that looks now given the current circumstances. Highly recommended overall.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Telling the premiers no

Posted on by

The prime minister met with the premiers (virtually) yesterday, and while there was talk about the vaccine roll-out and that kind of good stuff, there was also a discussion about healthcare transfers – or more specifically, the premiers’ demand for some $28 billion in permanent new transfers with no strings attached. Justin Trudeau, to his credit, said no – or more specifically, he does see a role for the federal government to pay more, but now is not the time to discuss how much, and you can bet that it’s going to come with plenty of strings for new programmes that the federal government wants to launch, like pharmacare and national standards for long-term care.

There are a few things to remember about why there need to be strings attached to this money. One is that we can’t trust that provinces will actually spend this on healthcare, and lo, we have precedence for this. Prior to the Harper government capping the health transfer escalator at three percent or GDP growth (whichever was higher), healthcare spending increases by the provinces were far below what the health transfer escalator was – meaning that the provinces were not spending healthcare money on healthcare. Additionally, some of you may remember when Stephen Harper fell for Jean Charest’s bogus demands to address a “fiscal imbalance” between Ottawa and Quebec, so when Harper – desperate for Quebec votes – turned over a pile of money to Charest to address said bogus “imbalance,” Charest turned around and turned that into tax cuts, burning Harper in the process. On top of that, we have seen plenty of provinces during this pandemic alone just sitting on the money the federal government gave them to deal with it. So no, we should not trust that provinces will spend it wisely.

As well, the premiers have been misrepresenting the history of health transfers, citing the “it used to be 50-50” line, without acknowledging why it changed, which was to give the provinces tax points that they could use for healthcare or other programmes. There is a great thread here that you should all read that spells it out, and why we should take these provincial (and Bloc, NDP and now Conservative) talking points with a shaker of salt, because they’re misrepresenting history.

Last sitting day

Given that this is the last sitting day of 2020, I suspect that we may see a unanimous consent motion to pass a number of bills in one fell swoop before the Commons rises, being the UK trade deal bill, the Elections Act bill, and quite possibly the fiscal update implementation bill. Why those three? There are worries about trade disruptions if the UK trade implementation bill doesn’t get passed by December 31st, and this essentially just rolls over the existing CETA with the EU, so there would be very little that is contentious in this bill. With the elections bill, it is also relatively uncontentious, based on Elections Canada’s input that would allow for a pandemic election to have three voting days and extra advanced polling, plus some other changes for things like long-term care facilities and increased mail-in ballots – and since it needs 90 days from royal assent to come into effect, parties will want it to pass as quickly as possible. And as for the implementation bill, it contains both a fix for a flaw in the commercial rent assistance programme that they didn’t amend, plus has other pandemic supports, and again, they will want it passed as soon as possible. Of course, this means once again that there is plenty of spending that didn’t get scrutiny, and it jams the Senate by pushing a bunch of bills on them without time to give it proper study or the ability to move amendments, but this is becoming a hallmark of this parliament.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not getting a normal Xmas

Posted on by

Things are getting serious, but as much as our political leaders beg people to stay home, the numbers continue to climb. Prime minister Justin Trudeau held his presser outside of Rideau Cottage once again today, a signal that he wants people to work from home where they can, and that he plans to do the same as much as possible (so we’ll see if he’s back in the Chamber during the last three sitting weeks of the year). And he said flat-out that we’re not going to have a normal Christmas this year, because we’re too far beyond that point. And while Quebec is trying to come up with a “moral contract” plan to allow people to celebrate – a plan which is just as likely to accelerate the spread of the virus in that province – the Toronto and Peel regions in Ontario are headed back into lockdown as of Monday, because Doug Ford finally decided to pull the trigger (far too late to do much good). The new federal supports which included additional lockdown supports received royal assent this week and people can begin applying for them on Monday, with the rent supports retroactive for a couple of months.

This having been said, the Conservatives have already been trying out new lines of attack, which Erin O’Toole debuted right after his meeting with the prime minister on Thursday, in which he lays the blame for the second wave at the feet of the federal government. These lines were repeated in Question Period yesterday, and when Conservatives appeared on the political shows, and include lines like “the lockdowns were supposed to be temporary to let the government find a solution.” Right – that was the point. And it was the premiers, whose jurisdiction testing, tracing, and isolation is in, who pissed way the summer and didn’t invest in increasing the capacity necessary to do that, and lo and behold, we are too late now. O’Toole and his MPs demand “better data” about outbreaks, which again, is supposed to be coming from the provinces, but most of them are falling down on that job as well. Much of the Conservatives’ rhetoric is aimed at the notion that rapid testing – including at-home testing (which has much lower sensitivity) will allow people to go to work and the economy to re-open, and they point to all of these other countries that approved rapid testing, either omitting that many of the approved rapid tests in places like the US had their approvals pulled because they turned out to be useless, or the fact that they are virtually all facing massive spikes of their own in the second wave, meaning that lo, those tests were not the panacea at all. Additionally, we had the Chief Medical Officer of Health in Alberta talking about how people were lying about symptoms or tests in order to visit people in hospitals, and continuing the spread, so how can we actually think that giving people at-home tests is going to be at all feasible if they are going to lie about their results?

https://twitter.com/journo_dale/status/1329865033069842432

But this is about creating a narrative – one that absolves their provincial allies from responsibility, which relies on historical revisionism about the early days of the pandemic, and on wishful thinking around rapid tests. It’s also about disinformation, which is self-contradictory because of jurisdictional issues. And this gets added to other lies and disinformation they’re promulgating, like Pierre Poilievre walking right up to the line of conspiracy theories with the “Great Reset” sustainability initiative, where he is trying to play into NOW truthers under the “I’m just quoting Trudeau,” knowing full well how this stuff fuels the crazies. But they don’t care. They will be as irresponsible with this kind of messaging as possible because it’s only about scoring points, and they don’t care what they burn to the ground along the way. It’s a hell of a way to demonstrate how they would run the country if given the opportunity.

Continue reading →