Tag Archives: Elections Canada

Roundup: Brownface bombshell

Posted on by

What felt like a few days of the campaign starting to get into more substantive issues and promises got derailed last night when Time Magazine published a piece that contained a photo showing Justin Trudeau in Brownface from 2001, when he was a teacher at a private school in Vancouver, and he dressed as Aladdin for an “Arabian Nights” gala. The campaign confirmed it was him, and a short while later, Trudeau addressed the reporters on his plane, took responsibility, admitted that he didn’t think it was racist at the time but understands that it is now, and that he was disappointed in himself – as well as the fact that he would talk to his kids in the morning about taking responsibility for actions (while he had been in the midst of contacting his racialized Cabinet ministers and one presumes caucus colleagues).

For opposition reaction, Jagmeet Singh spoke about the hurt this causes to people of colour and questioned Trudeau’s authenticity, while Andrew Scheer stated that the action was as racist in 2001 as it is in 2019, and that Trudeau isn’t fit to govern the country. (Reminder: Scheer has not apologised for his deeply homophobic comments in 2005, and just last summer his party was giving succour to racists as an attempt to score points against Trudeau who called out said racism). So we’ll see how much this dominates the news cycle for the next few days, and whether it hobbles Trudeau in any significant way.

Earlier in the day, Trudeau announced measures that would enhance CPP and OAS payments for those over 75 and widows, because they are more financially vulnerable, but also came under fire for not providing PBO costing for those measures – despite the fact that he said that would be released with the full platform. (More irritating was the fact that members of the media railed that Trudeau said that “portions” and not the full platform would be costed when the PBO doesn’t do full platform costings. All parties are just getting portions costed).

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1174379188125437952

Jagmeet Singh promised free dental care for households that make under $70,000 per year, and insisted it would be a “Day one” promise – and while he had a costing document, he didn’t have a plan for how exactly he was going to sell this to the provinces, whose jurisdiction this is, and who are unlikely to want to set up a very expensive new programme on their turf. Implementation matters.

Andrew Scheer spent the morning touting that his government would eliminate $1.5 billion in “corporate subsidies” every year – but promised to keep and beef up regional development agencies and to ensure they have regional ministers in them – a hotbed of pork-barrelling if history is any guide. More problematically, he didn’t exactly name what kinds of subsidies he would actually cut beyond a theoretical, and then produced a PBO document that basically said “You say you’ll cut this much, I guess we’ll take your word for it,” because they didn’t have details to cost out just what he planned to cut. While it’s likely these dollars exist and could be cut, it becomes politically dicey to do so in many cases, which is why previous promises to get rid of said subsidies never really pan out – constituencies need to be tended to.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1174383093152485378

https://twitter.com/twitscotty/status/1174319862803419136

Scheer also stated that he would “fast-track” any legal challenges to pipelines directly to the Supreme Court, which is a dumb idea and is only going to annoy the Court because if they’re the court of last resort, not a game of Mother, May I? Fobbing off tough political decisions to the court is not only cowardly, but it simply politicizes the courts and wastes their time when they have to tell politicians to sort it out themselves like grown-ups.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sweetening the newborn benefits

Posted on by

It was another day of promises to families with young children, of course, and Justin Trudeau was out first this morning from St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, to promise a more comprehensive package of benefits for the families of newborns – additional Canada Child Benefit payments, making maternity benefits actually tax free by removing the taxation at source as opposed to a non-refundable tax credit, and additional weeks of parental leave for adoptive parents. While most of the media stories didn’t really touch on it, the enhanced CCB payouts in the first month of a child’s life is approaching a basic minimum income for parents, as it doesn’t rely on EI benefits (which don’t apply for those who are self-employed or who weren’t working). While there are still a few questions about implementation (explained in this thread by Lindsay Tedds), most seem to agree that the Liberal plan is far more useful to parents than the one the Conservatives announced earlier.

Andrew Scheer was in Winnipeg, where he announced a promise to enhance the Registered Education Savings Plan benefits for those in lower income brackets, but it remains a fact that this is another promise that disproportionately benefits wealthier households, and does nothing for those who can’t afford to contribute to these RESPs. (Here’s a thread from Jennifer Robson on the efficacy of RESPs for low-income Canadians). Scheer also accused Trudeau of stealing his parental benefits idea and that he voted against it before and announced it now – but the Liberal plan is very different from the one Scheer proposed. (Here’s another thread from Robson comparing the Conservative and Liberal promises). Scheer also accused the Liberals of not being transparent about the costs of their promises, but Trudeau had already stated that a PBO-costing of them would becoming out once the whole platform is announced (which may provide a more holistic picture of their promises rather than them coming out piecemeal like the Conservatives are doing).

For Jagmeet Singh, he was in Ottawa to re-announce his party’s promise to build half a million new affordable housing units – but wouldn’t say how they would do it, which is kind of a big deal because the places where affordable housing is most acute are areas with either full employment or labour shortages, which is kind of a big deal if they want to get it built affordably.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Profiles in courage

Posted on by

After avoiding the media for over a week while questions about his personal positions on abortion and LGBT rights were being debated, Andrew Scheer called a press conference yesterday to say that Justin Trudeau was lacking in courage for not agreeing to the Maclean’s and Munk debates (well, he hasn’t agreed yet, but he also hasn’t said no). Mind you, the guy talking about courage and showing up has been avoiding the media for the past week, so that’s no small amount of irony. Oh, and he also accused the Liberals of trying to deflect from their record by dredging up Scheer’s statements on “divisive social issues.” That said, Scheer hewed strictly to talking points that continued to make cute distinctions between a hypothetical future Conservative government and backbenchers, and essentially said that they could put forward any bill they wanted and he wouldn’t stop them – only he wouldn’t say so in as many words. To that end, it’s also worth reminding people that as Speaker, Scheer went out of his way to ensure that anti-abortion MPs got speaking slots when the Conservative leadership was trying to keep them under wraps, so that might be a clue as to how he’d treat possible future private members’ bills.

This having been said, I now wonder if the strategy for the Liberals isn’t to just bring social progressives and Red Tories to their side, but to try and goad Scheer into painting himself in enough of a corner with trying to assure Canadians that no, he would squelch any anti-abortion or anti-GLBT private members’ bills – really! – in the hopes that it would discourage the social conservatives in Scheer’s base into staying home, thus driving down their voter turnout. It would be novel if that’s what it was, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives put out a fundraising video yesterday featuring Stephen Harper, which is kind of ironic considering that they keep accusing the Liberals of dredging up Harper, only for them to do the very same thing. And with this in mind, I will often note that political parties these days have pretty much all hollowed themselves out into personality cults for their leaders, but with the Conservatives, they remain a personality cult for their former leader, Harper – that Scheer has had such a lack of personality or willpower to change the party to reflect him (though he did campaign on being Harper with a smile in the leadership, so that’s not too unsurprising). Nevertheless, bringing out the old leader in advance of the election is an odd bit of strategy that can’t speak too highly of the current leader.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Predictable drama, unpredictable overreach

Posted on by

The outcome of yesterday’s “emergency” meeting of the Commons ethics committee was not unexpected – that the Liberal majority on the committee declined to pursue the matter, and it would go no further, while the Conservatives and NDP wailed and gnashed their teeth to the assembled media outside of the room, ensuring that their media luminaries like Lisa Raitt and Pierre Poilievre were there for the cameras instead of their regular committee members. Also predictable was Elizabeth May’s moral preening that she wanted this to be “non-partisan,” which was never going to happen. It was not unexpected that “maverick” Liberal Nathaniel Erskine- Smith would stand apart and vote to hear from the Commissioner – albeit for different reasons than the Conservatives wanted, which for Erskine-Smith was to get answers as to his thinking because Erskine-Smith is in the camp that the Commissioner got the law wrong (and he’s a lawyer, so he’s perhaps better equipped for this kind of statutory interpretation than some other critics).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1164239833235111936

But there was one completely bonkers event that happened that should be alarming for everyone involved, which was when Lisa Raitt moved a motion to have the committee summon journalist Aaron Wherry in order to get his notes and interviews with Trudeau for his newly released book, because Raitt claims that Trudeau breached Cabinet confidence in how he detailed his meetings with Jody Wilson-Raybould. First of all, the notion that he can breach Cabinet confidence is absurd because he’s the prime minister – he can pretty much determine what he wants to keep confidential; and secondly, summoning a journalist to testify at committee is a very, very bad and stupid thing, and it’s utterly mind-boggling that Raitt didn’t see this. It’s even more egregious that Peter Kent, former journalist (and now profligate conspiracy theory monger) voted in favour of Raitt’s motion. Fortunately, the NDP had enough sense to distance themselves from this huge overreach, but it’s galling that she would even propose it in the first place. (Also ridiculous is this notion that there is some kind of criminal obstruction of justice at play, but that’s also the narrative that they’re putting forward as they performatively demand that the RCMP investigate – because calling on the RCMP to investigate your political rivals isn’t totally a banana republic move). Politics and playing to the cameras can make MPs do dumb things, but this was alarming in how far they were willing to take this to score points.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1164261091591053313

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert reads the polls to see that the Commissioner’s report hasn’t really hurt the Liberals, meaning that pursuing this has diminishing returns for the Conservatives, and she parses what that could mean in the weeks ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unserious knee-jerk suggestions

Posted on by

As expected, some of the sillier suggestions for avoiding future SNC-Lavalin-type Affairs have started cropping up, and yesterday, Policy Options hosted one from the head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. His suggestions? Splitting the role of Attorney General and Justice Minister, and to ban omnibus bills.

On the former, it’s clear that he didn’t actually read the McLellan report beyond the headlines, because he would have seen – as Paul Wells pointed out so ably in his own piece – that the guidelines that McLellan puts forward in the report would have prevented this whole sordid affair before it got off the ground. (Side note: It may not have prevented Jody Wilson-Raybould from being shuffled, given the lack of competence she had demonstrated in the role overall, and Scott Brison was going to retire regardless, so that likely would have happened, but the fallout may not have gone quite the same way). There is no reason given in the Policy Options piece for rejecting McLellan’s advice – just that the whole Affair has damaged the public confidence. So that gets a failing grade.

As for the suggestion to ban omnibus bills, he doesn’t quite grasp the magnitude of the suggestion. He claims, not incorrectly, that they exist for the sake of efficiency, but that efficiency is largely because there are many pieces of legislation every year, where if you introduced individual bills for each component – such as around technical changes in a budget implementation bill – Parliament would grind to a halt. There is a time and a place for omnibus bills – the difference is when they are being used abusively. The Conservatives stuffing changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act into a budget implementation bill? That’s abusive. The Deferred Prosecution Agreement provisions being put into the budget bill? It’s borderline, but it wasn’t hidden or snuck through – it was in plain sight, the committees in both Houses each saw it and dealt with them (albeit less effectively on the Commons side), and the Commons has new rules to deal with splitting up votes on omnibus bills. Ironically, if the DPA legislation had been put forward as a separate bill, it likely would have languished until swallowed up by an omnibus justice bill, as happened to several other criminal justice reform bills over the course of the last parliament (speaking of Wilson-Raybould’s ability to manage her own bills). But the suggestion to simply ban all omnibus bills is unserious and jejune, and a perfect example of the kind of knee-jerk suggestions we’re going to see plenty of in the days ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clarity on “partisan” ads

Posted on by

That report that climate change advocacy could be considered “partisan” during the writ period had a lot of people talking yesterday – but the problem is that it seems to have been a bit overblown, which I’m chalking up to Environmental Defence overplaying the advice from Elections Canada, and The Canadian Press reporter not getting enough context around that advice. In any case, Elections Canada was playing some damage control, specifying that it had to do with paid advertising and not advocacy writ-large, while various party leaders took shots at the absurdity of it all. And to walk through some of it, here’s Jennifer Robson to allay some of your fears.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Narratives about radicalization ahead

Posted on by

One of the sub-plots from the 2015 election is about to get a rerun as the UK decided to revoke citizenship from “Jihadi Jack” Letts, who has joint-UK and Canadian citizenship. That essentially leaves him with only Canadian citizenship – dumping their problem on our laps (likely in contravention of international law, incidentally). And that means a return to Trudeau’s decision to revoke a Conservative law that would have had a similar effect in Canadian law, because as you may recall, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

Where this will be compounded with the Conservative talking points that Trudeau thinks that returning fighters are “powerful voices” that can be reformed with podcasts and poetry lessons – which is a gross distortion of both Trudeau saying that people who were de-radicalised (not returning fighters) could be those powerful voices in their communities, and de-radicalisation programmes themselves, which again, are not for returning fighters but preventing people from taking that step once they’ve been radicalised. And lo, they will talk about how “naïve and dangerous” the notion that returning fighters can be de-radicalised is, when all of the things they point to are about de-radicalising people before they leave the country or do something violent here. But why should they let truth get in the way of a narrative?

Meanwhile, Letts’ parents are imploring the Canadian government to do something, and they are prepared to move here if that helps, but it also leaves questions as to what Letts may be charged with – though there is no evidence he was actually involved in any fighting. Nevertheless, it’s a problem the UK dumped on us that will become a partisan election issue, with all of the nonsense that entails.

Continue reading →

Roundup: These aren’t the bots you’re looking for

Posted on by

The discussion of misinformation, “junk news,” and bots have been going around a lot, as have the notions of what journalists can and should be doing to fact-check these things. To that end, here’s a thread for thought from Justin Ling about how this can be working against us in the longer term:

And national security expert Stephanie Carvin adds a few thoughts of her own, to contextualize the problem:

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1161424183185854464

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1161424186214158336

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1161424188500058112

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1161424197408702465

Chris Selley. meanwhile, respectfully suggests that if the government is so worried about online misinformation, that they stop pushing it themselves with their own particular bits of spin and torque that plant the same kind of false notions and expectations in people’s minds – and he’s absolutely correct.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not what parties are for

Posted on by

As part of a longer piece (linked in the section below), the campaign director of the Liberal Party offered a loathsome sentence yesterday, and it’s just so completely disheartening.

No. The role of the party is not just to win elections and to fundraise. In fact, this kind of attitude is why the political system in Canada is in the state that it’s in. Parties are just seen as election vehicles rather than the grassroots organizations that deal with ground-up policy development, selection and nomination of candidates, or holding either their local representatives or the party itself to account. There is a whole structure that parties are supposed to play in the political ecosystem of being the interlocutors between ordinary people and the caucuses in the capital – it’s not just about mobilizing volunteers to make phone calls and knock on doors during a campaign. It’s not just about election machinery. It’s about the lifeblood of politics.

But this is where we are – our bastardized leadership selection process, twisted into a parody version of American presidential primaries, has centralized power, and hollowed out parties so that they are no longer performing the functions they were designed to do, and instead are merely vassals to the personality cults that have added brand recognition. It’s utterly debased how the system is supposed to work, and campaign guys like these help to fuel the demise.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sticking with the date

Posted on by

You may recall that last week, the Federal Court granted judicial review to the Conservative candidate looking to change the election date because it clashes with a particular orthodox Jewish holiday, and lo, the Chief Electoral Officer set about to review his decision. Yesterday he announced that he’d reviewed it, and he was still confident that there wasn’t sufficient reason to change it – moving it back a week would put it in conflict with a bunch of PD days in schools that they needed to use for polling stations, and it would collide with municipal elections in Nunavut, and there were still plenty of options, be they advance polls or special ballots, for those affected by the orthodox Jewish holidays. That decision goes to Cabinet, who will make the final call later this week.

But then something curious happened – a couple of Liberal MPs tweet their dismay at the CEO’s decision, which is a little odd because, well, it’s not really his call. He’s making a recommendation, and Cabinet makes the final decision because the dissolution of Parliament for an election is a Crown prerogative, meaning that it depends on the Governor-in-Counsel (i.e. Cabinet advising the governor general) that makes the decision, regardless of our garbage fixed election date legislation. So if they’re tweeting dismay, they should direct their pleas to their own government rather than to harass the CEO.

This having been said, I am forced to wonder if this isn’t part of the fallout from the aforementioned garbage fixed election date. One of the justifications for said garbage legislation is that it’s supposed to help Elections Canada plan, rather than scramble in the event of a snap election call – but it’s starting to feel like perhaps those plans are also getting a bit precious, which is a bad sign for an institution that is supposed to be adaptable in order to accommodate the election call, whenever it may be.

Continue reading →