Tag Archives: Elections Canada

Roundup: Proposing a debate commissioner

Posted on by

Yesterday the government unveiled their plan to establish an election debate commissioner, who would set about coordinating leaders’ debates during the next election, along with proposed around which party leaders could participate – rules that would give Elizabeth May an in, but could exclude Maxime Bernier unless he gets an awful lot of candidates in place, and his polling numbers start to rise. The proposed Commissioner is to be former Governor General, His Excellency the Rt. Hon. David Johnston, who is a choice that nobody is going to want to dispute.

Of course, that hasn’t eliminating the grumbling and complaints. The NDP are complaining that they weren’t consulted before Johnston was nominated (not that they’re complaining it’s him), and the Conservatives are calling this a giant affront to democracy and add this onto their pile of complaints that Justin Trudeau is trying to rig the election in his favour. (Not sure how this does that, and it seems pretty cheeky to make these claims when their own unilateral changes to election rules in the previous parliament were panned by pretty much everyone). And Elizabeth May is overjoyed because the proposed rules would include her. Of course, Johnston still needs to be approved by Parliament, and he will appear before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, but all of this having been said and done, there remain questions as to why this is all necessary. Gould went around saying that this was because Harper didn’t want to do debates in 2015, except that he did debates – he simply didn’t want to do the same “consortium” debates that are usually done and decided by the TV broadcasters, and he most certainly didn’t want to have anything to do with the CBC. The key point they seem to be making is that the 2015 formats saw far fewer viewers than the consortium debates typically attract, for what it’s worth. Is this a reason to implement a new system, that neither compels leaders to participate or broadcasters to air? Maybe, and people will point to the debate commission in the United States.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1057344603861397506

To that end, here’s Chris Selley asking some of those very questions, looking at some of the problematic behaviour from broadcasters in response to the changed formats from the 2015 debates, and offering some suggestions as to how this all could be avoided.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Gould talks Senate appointments

Posted on by

Following the largely repetitive QP in the Other Place, Minister of Democratic Institutions, Karina Gould, headed over to the Senate for their ministerial QP as this week’s special guest star. Senator Larry Smith led off, asking about the mention of Senate reform in her mandate letter, but the only mention on her site has been around the appointments process, and was that the extent of her involvement. Gould said that she was looking forward to being part of the Senate’s internal modernisation efforts and would be there for them if they wanted to change the Parliament of Canada Act. Smith asked her to table the names of all senate appointment candidates and committee meeting minutes, but Gould noted that she was not part of the process, and wouldn’t commit to tabling anything.

Senator Batters went into James Cudmore’s hiring by her office, and wondered if PMO directed her to hire him, and who was paying his legal fees. Gould noted that Batters was in step with her colleagues in the Other Place before she praised staffers, and noted that questions on an ongoing court case were inappropriate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Populist myths and the lies they tell themselves

Posted on by

The Nobel prize has been awarded to economists working on issues of climate change, who point to the need for carbon pricing to get markets to come to a consensus about finding solutions, and what do we get in Canada? Doug Ford going on tour to see Scott Moe and Jason Kenney to decry carbon taxation, and to lie to people about the efficacy of carbon taxes. They work, despite what Ford, Kenney, Scheer, et al. say, and we have the data to prove this.

The Ford/Kenney rally was apparently quite something, a demonstration of partisanship over politics, and a demonstration about what how this all relates to our recent discussions over populism, with the carbon tax as a wedge issue. But while this is being put against this notion that Stephen Harper is trying to put forward in his new book about how “conservative populism” is somehow trying to weed out the worst instincts of populists, but that can’t actually be true if the dog-whistling still goes on. In her piece about the Ford/Kenney rally, Jen Gerson relayed the anecdote about people attending the rally being asked to cover up their MAGA hats with oil sands stickers – but the MAGA hats are still there, even if they’re being literally papered over. Kenney and Ford still play semantic games around the same terminology that the xenophobes use (such as the use of “illegals”), and it’s still a dog-whistle. And it can’t be any surprise that because of all the dog-whistling that the Soldiers of Odin have started posing with UCP candidates in Alberta while wearing their badges and vests. You can’t simply say “Oh, it’s unacceptable these people show up to our events” when you keep inviting them with the dog-whistle language. (There’s a lesson in here for Maxime Bernier as well).

Meanwhile, John Geddes went through that excerpt of Harper’s book and deconstructed his arguments and his analysis about populism, and his nonsense construction of “Somewheres” and “Anywheres.” Aside from the fact that it’s deeply ironic that Stephen Harper, strong friend of Israel, is using the same “rootles cosmopolitan” argument used in Soviet propaganda to vilify Jews, it’s just trading on baseless mythology and trying to build an argument around it that doesn’t actually hold any water. But it also goes back to what Ford, Kenney and others are pandering to – they’re denying that problems exist, and then undermining the institutions that can help solve them. Such as with the looming climate crisis. We need a wake-up call.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dissent without disloyalty

Posted on by

Yesterday on Power & Politics, we saw something that is far too rare in Canadian politics, but should be the norm. In response to the government signing on the US’ recent initiative at the UN to basically renew the “war on drugs,” Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith went on the show to publicly disagree with his party and the government that his party forms, and more to the point, we didn’t see anyone clutching their pearls about this, or higher-ups in the party make threats. Shocking, I know.

The civics refresher here is that all MPs are supposed to hold government to account, whether they’re in the opposition or in the government’s backbench. Holding the government to account is the very raison d’etre of Parliament, but you wouldn’t know it given how many government backbenchers think it’s their job to be cheerleaders, to give unquestioning support, and possibly to suck up in the hopes of a Cabinet posting or parliamentary secretary position. I also know that this isn’t quite as true behind the caucus room door, but we see very little dissent in public. We see even less dissent in other parties – the NDP enforce solidarity and uniformity in all positions, and have been known to punish MPs who step out of line, while we’ve seen the amount of tolerance that the Conservatives have for dissenting opinions with Maxime Bernier’s post-leadership experiences (though I will grant you, there is still some diversity of thought in there, but it’s rarely expressed publicly). And while I don’t praise Justin Trudeau for many things, I will say his openness to dissenting voices is unquestioningly a good thing in Parliament.

And this brings me back to Leona Alleslev’s defection to the Conservatives last week, and the statements she made about how she didn’t think she could openly criticize the government and not be perceived as disloyal. This is one of those statements of hers that I called bullshit on at the time, and I will call bullshit on it doubly today given this latest incident where Erskine-Smith broke ranks and nobody is calling him disloyal for it. He’s doing the job he’s supposed to do, and which not enough MPs take seriously (and this is also because the lack of proper civics education and training for MPs when they’re elected). I’d like to see him setting an example that others will hopefully follow.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A (likely) electoral false alarm

Posted on by

There were a few eyebrows raised in the Parliamentary Precinct yesterday when news came from the Procedure and House Affairs committee that the Chief Electoral Officer said that they intend to be ready for an election by the end of April, never mind that the fixed election date is October, and suddenly there was a renewed (but brief) round of election speculation fever (which was then suffocated by the Kavanagh hearings south of the border). Stéphane Perrault noted that they can basically run an election anytime under the previous contest’s rules, but they need lead time for future changes, which puts a clock on the current bill at committee if they want to have a chance for any of the changes to be implemented by next year’s election – and that assumes fairly swift passage in the Senate, which they may not get (particularly if the Conservatives are determined to slow passage of the bill down in committee as it stands).

Of course, I’m pretty sure that a spring election is not going to happen, simply because Trudeau’s agenda still has too many boxes without checkmarks – which is also why I suspect that we haven’t had a prorogation. And looking at how Trudeau has organised his agenda, so much of it has been backloaded to the final year, with plenty of spillover for him to ask for re-election in order to keep it going. (Things are also delayed, one suspects, because NAFTA talks have derailed things in the PMO, and sucked up much of the talent and brainpower. Suffice to say, I’m not taking any talk about an early election with any seriousness.

Meanwhile, more eyebrows were raised when Conservative MP Michelle Rempel claimed that she was being told to prepare for a fall election, which we’re 99 percent sure is just a new fundraising ploy, for what that’s worth.

Continue reading →

Roundup: NAFTA theatrics

Posted on by

Yesterday was big for NAFTA news, as the Americans and Mexicans resolved their bilateral differences, particularly around autos, and made progress on getting concessions on the American demands for a sunset clause. But, true to form, US President Donald Trump started spouting a bunch of nonsense about how Canada was on the sidelines, and if we didn’t accept a deal by Friday, he’d slap tariffs on our autos, and so on. The problem there – that he has no congressional authority to conclude a bilateral agreement without us (and indeed, outgoing Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto kept saying that they were waiting for Canada to rejoin negotiations), so it’s a lot of bluster. Nevertheless, Chrystia Freeland cut short her diplomatic trip to Europe and is headed for Washington today, and trilateral talks will resume, and there’s likely to be a heavy focus on dairy as Trump has become fixated on it. This all having been said, have the Conservatives been pleased by the progress made? Funny you should ask.

First of all, the language in both is that it includes Trudeau’s name and the word “failure,” which is their narrative-building exercise (and Hamish Marshall can give them a cookie for sticking to it). But more importantly, as Kevin Carmichael notes, the Conservatives have been backing the government’s strategy to date on this. Of course, Andrew Scheer made a big deal during his big speech on Friday to insist that the Conservatives were going to be the adults in the room on foreign policy (which is risible considering the bulk of their record), but it also defies the reality of the situation. Even John Baird called bullshit on this line of reasoning – there was no reason for Canada to be part of those particular discussions, and this hasn’t really put us in a weakened position, and for all of the Conservatives’ sniggering about the labour chapter that Freeland has been advocating, wages were a big part of this deal that was struck with Mexico. (It’s also adorable that Erin O’Toole tries to make out that the Liberal strategy is all about domestic political posturing, which is exactly what he’s engaging in with his press release).

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1034187012415340544

In the meantime, industry players in Canada are looking for more details, while Philippe Couillard is vowing not to accept any compromises that will affect Supply Management, so that could be fun while the Quebec election rolls along.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1034216416512172033

Continue reading →

Roundup: Maxime Bernier, drama queen

Posted on by

Like a high school drama queen, Maxime Bernier made his move yesterday, removing himself from the Conservative caucus just as the party was about to begin their convention in Halifax. And not a moment too soon, apparently, as apparently the caucus was prepared to “belittle” him regarding his recent shitposting over Twitter, in an apparent attempt to Mean Girl him into falling in line. Well, that didn’t apparently work, and Bernier went out with a bang, calling the Conservatives a party that was “too intellectually and morally corrupt to be reformed,” and which only speaks in platitudes, and that he plans to launch his own party within the coming weeks. Good luck with that.

Minutes later, Andrew Scheer held his own press conference in Halifax and said good riddance, that Bernier was only in it for himself, but, curiously, stuck to platitudes. And notably, he didn’t refute anything that Bernier has been saying over the past couple of weeks, and in particular his winking to white nationalists. (Note to Conservatives: simply listing how many ethnocultural firsts your party has had is not refuting the aforementioned winking to white nationalists). And then Scheer said that Bernier evidently decided to help Trudeau, and then immediately started backpedalling to insist that no, this wasn’t going to split the party, and they’re united, and Bernier is a nobody, and you get the drift. So score one for Scheer there.

And then started up the tweets, many of them angry or belittling from fellow MPs, and a bunch of bizarre rumours started being floated to journalists like that Bernier used to sleep through Cabinet meetings under Harper (seriously? You actually expect us to believe that?) while other party stalwarts rallied around Scheer (and Bernier currently seems to have zero supporters, for what it’s worth). The Liberals, justifiably, are remaining cautious and are not openly popping any champagne bottles because who knows where this will go.

Meanwhile, Paul Wells has grave doubts that Bernier has what it takes to lead a new political movement, while Jen Gerson angrily writes about Bernier’s supposed defence of “Canadian values” and that he doesn’t seem to have a clue what he’s tweeting about. Scott Gilmore seems to think that Bernier’s fundraising record shows he may have the momentum to pull this off – but Stephen Maher has his doubts. John Ivison casts aspersions on all sides of the split, Martin Patriquin wonders about the effect that it will have with the ground ripe for messages of populist xenophobia like Bernier has been employing. Don Martin suspects this departure will rally the party around Scheer, while Robyn Urback takes Bernier to task in the most scathing, sarcastic way possible. (My own column on Bernier’s future will be up later today).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scheer plans another ego trip

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer has declared that in October, he and a group of MPs will head to India. While it’s not uncommon for opposition MPs to do a bit of foreign travel, particularly if they’re on some kind of committee or parliamentary friendship group, it’s a little more uncommon for them to go as the Official Opposition in any capacity (Washington DC excepted). But Scheer? He’s decided that his trip to India will be to “repair” the relationship with that country after the “disastrous” trip that Justin Trudeau made earlier this year.

Let’s unpack this a bit more. Scheer has zero diplomatic standing to do absolutely anything on behalf of the government of Canada. Add to that, I’m trying to figure out just what “damage” Scheer hopes to repair, because the only real “disaster” from Trudeau’s visit was related to Jaspal Atwal showing up at that event, which wound up being hugely overblown considering that India had allowed him back into the country and considered him rehabilitated from his former extremist views. The fact that Trudeau wore some expensive Indian clothes? The thing that people continue to underestimate/forget/ignore is that he was doing it to speak to a certain demographic in India which responds to these kinds of gestures – even if the upper-class voices that dominate their international press don’t. Trudeau didn’t lose points with that middle-class voter base in India (or the Indo-Canadian diaspora) – but that message was lost on the white press covering the trip, and given how the Conservatives reacted back in Canada (going so far as to use the insulting term of “costume,” which earned them a stinging rebuke from Liberal backbencher Ruby Sahota), they were tone-deaf to the whole thing. Was Trudeau snubbed my Modi? Not at all, and just because Modi didn’t greet him at the airport is not a snub considering that a) Canada doesn’t rank that high on his list of priorities, and b) we were greeted by an agriculture minister, who does have dealings with Canada. And on that subject, the fact that Trudeau wasn’t able to make progress on the tariffs that India imposed on pulse imports was not a “failure,” given that those tariffs were imposed for domestic political reasons (low prices due to a global supply glut, pandering to rural voters, and the fact that there has been a suicide crisis among Indian farmers for years now), and those tariffs hurt Australia more than they do Canada. But please, tell us again how those were done in retaliation for the trip. Meanwhile, Trudeau made several investment announcements and did have successful meetings with civil society groups in India. So again, I ask – what “damage” is there for Scheer to supposedly repair (for which he has zero authority to do anything about)?

We’ve seen this kind of self-aggrandisement from Scheer before with his trip to the UK to supposedly have talks about post-Brexit trade agreements, never mind that a) he’s not the government and can’t commit to anything, b) Trudeau and Theresa May already agreed to those talks once Brexit happens – because the UK legally can’t hold any talks until then, and c) he totally sold the trip with that photo of him at a red phone booth. So you’ll forgive my scepticism about this planned India trip, because it sounds dubious at best.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A dearth of innovative policy ideas

Posted on by

While Maxime Bernier’s social media committee continues to demand attention (yesterday’s missive was to declare “political correctness” dead in Canada – in both official languages), all eyes will turn to Andrew Scheer as the party’s policy convention gets underway this week in Halifax. There is all kinds of talk that they’ll come away from this more united than ever – one of those kinds of meaningless phrases that parties seem to trot out whenever they face the slightest bit of internal criticism or difficulty, and usually before and after there’s some kind of rift or someone gets tossed. But depending on what Bernier tries to do with his acolytes at the convention, we’ll see if his tone or messaging changes after the convention is over, or if this becomes some new problem for Scheer to contend with – eventually.

As for the policy resolutions, most of the ones we’re seeing discussed are…not very innovative. In fact, most of them seem to be either the usual pushing back against restrictions on their well-worn bugaboos and hobbyhorses (looking to make anti-abortion policies more accepted in the party officially, for example), but so few of them seem to be actually coming from a free market conservative point of view. In fact, a lot of what’s on the list is pretty reactionary, and definitely signals a shift from a party that used to be all about the rule of law, and now seems to think they’re above it (witness resolutions against any payments or court settlements with convicted terrorists – a dig at Omar Khadr).

One could go on – a policy about building Energy East, despite the fact that there is no economic case to do so. Repealing gender identity legislation because they are under the illusion that it compels people to use unconventional pronouns (because apparently the Jordan Peterson crowd is well represented here), Andrew Scheer’s problematic policy of withholding funds to universities who don’t defend speech (but no context there, because you know they’ll rail about Israel Apartheid Week), closing the “loopholes” in the Safe Third Country agreement (no mention of how exactly, or the unintended consequences of doing so), maybe developing a climate policy that won’t involve a carbon tax or cap-and-trade (so you’re in favour of heavy-handed and expensive regulation? Really?), prioritizing CANZUK trade agreements (a rose-coloured view of our colonial past that didn’t really exist economically), treating pornography like a public health issue (Seriously, guys – didn’t you embarrass yourselves with this already at the Commons health committee when you couldn’t articulate a policy out of this fraud) – nothing innovating in here in the slightest. So one has to wonder just what vision there is within the party if this is the best that they can come up with for policy resolutions.

Continue reading →

QP: Cheap shots on a trade war

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau had intended to show up for Question Period today, the new imposition of tariffs by the United States had him off at the National Press Theatre instead. Andrew Scheer was also away, off to Nova Scotia instead. Erin O’Toole led off, decrying the steel tariffs and called the prime minister a failure on the issue, which ushered in cries of “shame!” from the Liberal benches. Marc Garneau admonished him for being partisan on this issue, and stated that the tariffs were unacceptable and that Canada would be imposing retaliatory tariffs against American imports. O’Toole insisted that the PM didn’t get anything for months while the Conservatives were engaged on the file, and demanded action. Garneau reiterated his response, and when O’Toole invited the government to work with the Conservatives on the issue, Garneau relate his response for a third time. Luc Berthold took over to make the charge of incompetence in French, to which Garneau repeated his response in French, and when Berthold accused the PM of naïvely believing the president when he said there would be no tariffs, Garneau said that Berthold should be ashamed of his partisanship. Ruth Ellen Brosseau then picked up the same line of questioning for the NDP, demanding to know what the government would do to protect workers, and Garneau repeated that they are consulting on retaliatory measures and would protect workers. Tracey Ramsey took over in English, and over two questions asked the same thing and made more accusations that the government was unable to secure a deal, to which Garneau repeated his response yet again. Karine Trudel took over for a final attempt at the very same question, and got the same answer. Again.

Continue reading →