Tag Archives: Elections Canada

Roundup: Trudeau visits Kyiv

Posted on by

It is now on or about day seventy-five of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like all of the civilians have been evacuated from under the steel plant in Mariupol. Up next to be evacuated are the wounded and medics, presuming that the agreement continues to hold, while the remaining Ukrainian forces under that plant make a final stand. As well, Ukraine’s counter-offensive near Kharkiv continues, as it remains the target of Russian shelling. The heavy weapons arriving from the West could be the key to turning the tide of this particular front. Russians also targeted a school being used as a shelter in Zaporizhzhia, where sixty people are feared to be dead. Also this weekend, US First Lady Jill Biden was in the region to hear from mothers who had evacuated to Romania, and later went into Ukraine and met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s wife, Olena Zelenska, as a show of support.

The big news for us, however, was the arrival of Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland, and Mélanie Joly in Ukraine, first to visit the Kyiv suburb of Irpin, where they witnessed the devastation at Russian hands for themselves, before heading into Kyiv to raise the flag and reopen the Canadian embassy, and then to meet with Zelenskyy. Trudeau announced a new round of supports and sanctions, and was soon after followed by a declaration from G7 leaders to pledge solidarity with Ukraine, with the added symbolism that it was Victory in Europe Day, which marked the end of the Second World War.

https://twitter.com/PaulCTV/status/1523303970571452416

Continue reading →

Roundup: Buying the F-35s after all

Posted on by

We are now somewhere around day thirty-four of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and there are claims that Ukrainian-forces have retaken a Kyiv suburb as well as another city further east. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is preparing for another round of peace talks with the Russians and sounds like he is willing to declare the country neutral and give up any hope of future NATO membership in exchange for peace and future security guarantees (NATO membership wouldn’t come so long as there are territorial disputes, meaning so long as Russia occupies Crimea and the Donbas regions, it would be impossible). Zelenskyy also briefed Justin Trudeau on the talks yesterday, because they are keeping each other in the loop.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1508520970516058121

Closer to home, the announcement was made that the government will finally be settling on purchasing F-35 fighter jets to replace our aging CF-18 fleet, leading to questions about whether the last seven years were wasted when the previous Conservative sole-sourced contract was cancelled in favour of a new competition. And if you read the 2015 election platform promise about cancelling the purchase, it was because it was sole-sourced for a high price, given that the goal of a competition is to get a better price, so we’ll see if that pans out. It’s still not a done deal—they now get to negotiate directly with Lockheed Martin to get the best deal possible—but we have to remember something of what happened with the previous announcement, particularly that it was done poorly, and the Auditor General called out how opaque it was, and that’s kind of a big deal.

We should also remember that the planes are a much more mature platform now, with many of their flaws having been worked out (though I haven’t heard yet whether the ejection seats will still kill you if you’re below a certain height and weight, because that was a real problem). It does sound increasingly like the biggest consideration was the interoperability with NATO and NORAD fighters, meaning we had to be fairly seamless with the Americans, rather than just the promise of regional job creation programmes (though Canada being a participant in the joint strike fighter programme the whole time means we’ve already had some of those industrial benefits throughout). We’ll have to see what more the government can extract from Lockheed Martin in promises as those negotiations carry on throughout the year to see whether that seven-year delay was worth the wait.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The emergency measures votes were a test

Posted on by

I believe we are now in day thirty-three of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and there are fears in the northern city of Chernihiv that they may become the next Mariupol, as the city undergoes shelling from Russian forces. Meanwhile, those Russian forces seem to be shifting away from trying to encircle Kyiv, and are instead moving toward the eastern Donbas region to try and consolidate gains there, leading to fears that Russia may be trying to split the country. Elsewhere, the International Committee of the Red Cross is asking Canada not to lump its humanitarian promises in with sanctions and military aid, as it threatens the neutrality of their organisation. Here is a look at some more actions the West could be taking to help Ukraine that aren’t a no-fly zone. It has also been announced that Justin Trudeau and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will co-host an international pledging event for “Stand Up For Ukraine” on April 9th.

Closer to home, the weekend saw a couple of different versions of the “inside story” of the Liberal and NDP supply and confidence agreement, from both Susan Delacourt and Aaron Wherry. The two recounting largely align, talking about how initial talks post-election quickly ended as everyone was still too raw from the vote, how Trudeau reached out to Singh after the birth of Singh’s daughter, that most of the talks happened virtually and close to the vest to avoid leaks, and that their face-to-face meeting was at Rideau Gate, which usually hosts dignitaries (but was where Julie Payette lived when she was GG rather than in Rideau Hall, along with her Secretary, Assunta DiLorenzo). What was particularly interesting was how the vote on the Emergencies Act became the test for the NDP that they could be trusted in this agreement, and how the Liberals were willing to provide security briefings to secure that support, and that when the NDP proved themselves, the deal could go ahead.

On that note, it’s interesting (but perhaps unsurprising) that Elections Canada said that they got no prior notice about the portions of the agreement that call for the exploration of three days of elections, allowing people to vote at any polling place in the riding, or improving the process of mail-in ballots. Some of those may be unwieldy or impossible, but the agreement’s language does specify that they would “work with Elections Canada to explore ways to expand the ability for people to vote,” so these ideas are not iron-clad. On the reconciliation front, there are hopes that the promise of stability that the agreement provides will help accelerate some timelines toward progress.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Emergency orders lifted before the Senate votes were cast

Posted on by

By late afternoon, yesterday, prime minister Justin Trudeau ended the emergency orders, at a time when the Senate had not yet voted to confirm them. This, of course, led to numerous cries from opponents that they had helped to end it (declaring victory for pushing on an open door), and accusations that Trudeau knew he would lose the Senate vote so pulled the plug beforehand. And then there were the questions about what changed between Monday and yesterday that made it okay to lift the restrictions, of which the official line is “advice from law enforcement,” but one also suspects was that they might have felt it inappropriate to lift it before it had even been brought to a vote, but conversely didn’t want to keep the orders for too much longer after that. I’m not sure. Suffice to say, it’s over, and all of the cries of “tyranny!” and “Trudeau is doing this to increase his own power!” seem pretty stupid right about now.

Speaking of the Senate, they were progressing through a second full day of speeches with no end—or vote—in sight, when the order was lifted and they simply adjourned debate. This is something of an indictment on how the Senate handled this matter in terms of their schedule. They should have recalled the Chamber as soon as the Act was invoked and the emergency orders declared, so that they could receive them on the same day as the House of Commons and debate them concurrently, as it’s not a piece of legislation that has to pass one Chamber before the other, but they didn’t, and their planned Friday recall was cancelled by the police action, further delaying the debate. And then some of the same problems that the House of Commons saw presented themselves in the Senate as well—that absolutely everyone wanted to have their own speech on the record, no matter that having something new to say diminished with each passing speech, but this is what the “new” Senate is becoming—a debating society rather than a deliberative legislative body. And while sure, there were some good speeches, there were also some doozies that repeated the same falsehoods and info ops that the occupation organizers were counting on, so well done everyone.

Meanwhile, Matt Gurney calls for more information as to what constituted the continued use of powers in advance of their being lifted. Andrew Coyne puts the nine days of the emergency orders into perspective versus how it has been portrayed by bad faith actors across social media and certain political parties.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole tells challengers to bring it on

Posted on by

It’s all coming undone. Erin O’Toole’s grip on the leadership of his party is even more tenuous, as a third of the caucus has now signed a letter calling for a vote on a leadership review. While “sources” insisted that Garnett Genuis was one of the ringleaders of this group, in part over anger for the way in which the conversion therapy bill vote was handled, Genuis denies this and says this is an attempt by O’Toole to smear him. Others sources say this is because the party is angry that the Conservatives allowed too many bills to pass unopposed before the end of the year, but we’ll see what other narratives emerge as more MPs start leaking.

https://twitter.com/BobBenzen/status/1488308784703414272

O’Toole responded late in the evening, essentially saying bring on the vote, apparently confident that the other two-thirds of caucus will be with him, but that’s a pretty risky gamble to be making when he’s this weakened, and there is blood in the water. Also, the fact that O’Toole tried to bring up Derek Sloan is very curious considering that he initially protected Sloan when there was a move to expel him from the party after he made racist comments about Dr. Theresa Tam, only to turn against him once O’Toole had secured the leadership thanks to using Sloan’s voters to his advantage. It’s like he doesn’t think anyone can see his blatant opportunism staring them in the face. Oh, and the notion that Andrew Scheer wants to be interim leader is just the chef’s kiss in all of this—one presumes he misses Stornoway and the perquisites that come with it. Scheer is denying it (but it’s not like he’s a paragon of truth either)

Meanwhile, Paul Wells relays more of what he’s hearing from his Conservatives about O’Toole’s likely chances (not good), and fits it into the broader pattern of the party and its predecessor’s leaders going back three-quarters of a century.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The many leaks from the Cumming Report

Posted on by

The Cumming report on the Conservatives’ election failure was released to caucus behind closed doors yesterday, and lo, leaks appeared in every news outlet in the country, so let’s go through some of them:

  • From Global: O’Toole’s performance got mixed reviews, with a strong finish but was “over-managed” by the end of the campaign. It was determined he needed to spend more time on the road and not in his studio, and they need to completely rebuild their voter-identification database.
  • From The Toronto Star: Party memberships should be free (which is a terrible gods damned idea), and that the party’s reputation is still suffering from the “barbaric cultural practices tip line” promise in 2015.
  • From the National Post: They were hobbled by party infighting, a lack of ethnic outreach, and the soft response to Quebec’s Law 21. As well, it concluded that O’Toole is still the “right person to lead the party.”
  • From CTV: The party needs more diverse candidates.
  • From CBC: The party failed to craft policy on some important issues, and apparently O’Toole didn’t respond well to criticism in the question-and-answer session following Cumming’s presentation. And they went nuts when Global’s leaks hit the wires while Cumming was still speaking.

I did note that while O’Toole told a press conference afterward that he takes responsibility and promises changes, it was remarked upon that O’Toole seemed to change his tune on the use of the studio, which they crowed about through the campaign and insisted it was better than in-person events because they could reach more people through their teleconferences, but changing his tune about something is nothing new (as we all saw during the election, over and over again).

Meanwhile, O’Toole told said press conference that he was going to meet with truckers, but also denounced extremists among them, which is an extremely hard circle to square considering that it’s the extremists who organised the whole bloody grifter convoy, and any legitimate truckers frustrated by vaccine mandates are going to be hapless nitwits in the bunch. The fact that O’Toole remained silent about the fact that the organisers of said grifter convoy are demanding that democracy be overturned in favour of some delusional Jacobin committee comprised of said convoy organisers and senators is also a problem, as is the fact that he wouldn’t address the fact that these same organizers are doxing MPs, and the Sergeant-at-Arms is warning that their Ottawa residences are being targeted. It does show that O’Toole has basically left objective reality behind, as his latest shitpost video essentially demonstrates.

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1486849795515953156

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1486850305757167622

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1486755945292124167

Continue reading →

Roundup: The extremists weigh in

Posted on by

As the grifter convoy 2022 gets closer to Ottawa, it is attracting more online attention from some unsavoury circles. Some of them have been calling for this to be Canada’s January 6th insurrection, which one might think would give some Conservative MPs pause, but nope. No denunciations have yet been forthcoming. Another group associated with the convoy, calling itself “Canadian Unity,” seems to think they can force the government to sign some kind of quasi-legalistic “Memorandum of Understanding” that would essentially force the all governments, federal, provincial and municipal, to rescind all public health measures and dissolve the government so that said group can rule by fiat. Erm, yeah, that’s not going to happen.

One of the organizers (who has the GoFundMe in her name) says she won’t tolerate extremist rhetoric associated with said grifter convoy, but yeah, good luck with that. And if things do turn violent, well, that could trigger anti-terrorism financing laws to everyone who donated to those GoFundMe accounts.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1486064285361086469

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1485976603918315525

Oh, and the federal government isn’t budging on the vaccine mandate, and if they think a convoy like this will change the Americans’ minds for their own mandate, well, good luck with that delusion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Casting doubt as a smoke bomb

Posted on by

As I was just saying about Canadian political leaders focusing on American issues and culture wars, we are seeing yet another instance in this country – this time over the upcoming riding redistribution hearings. The Conservatives have decided that they want to go all-in on American culture wars and are fundraising to fight these redistributions, citing that they don’t trust the Liberals to run the process fairly – never mind that the process is arm’s length, and the fact that the Speaker of the House is involved in the process is supposed to ensure neutrality. The fact that he was elected as a Liberals should not be a factor – and it’s especially rich from the Conservatives, seeing as it was their votes that ensured that Rota got into the post during Tuesday’s election (and I know enough about where votes were going for certain candidates that the maths work out that the Conservatives were voting for Rota).

We really, really do not want to go down this path of making a partisan issue of riding redistribution, because only madness lies this way. Aside from outright partisan lunacy in thinking that this is an effective way of fundraising never mind the corrosive effect that this has on our political system, it’s also a simple admission of sore loserism. If they think they’ve been losing because of riding redistribution (with “rurban” seats largely being split up into actual rural and urban seats), the most recent redistribution happened under their watch, and frankly, “rurban” seats were pure gerrymandering because they didn’t make sense and were trying to use rural votes to outweigh urban ones and never made sense in terms of “communities” like they are so concerned that ridings encompass. If they think that they won’t get a fair shake this time around, it’s pure projection.

Of course, this isn’t actually about riding redistribution – it’s about throwing another smoke bomb into the mix in order to distract from the party’s internal problems and the challenges to Erin O’Toole’s leadership. The fact that they are trying to discredit a process that is meant to be removed from political considerations and partisan gamesmanship is pretty gross, especially because that is meant to be a pure distraction (and fundraising grab). This process is important to our democracy, and for them to cast doubt for selfish reasons is a sign of the party’s continued moral decline.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A headache over added and subtracted seats

Posted on by

The question of seat redistribution and the allocation – and subtraction – of seats has been simmering, and the premier of Quebec is demanding that the prime minister step in and guarantee that Quebec not only retain the seat it is slated to lose, but also to guarantee that because of the notion that Quebec constitutes a nation within Canada, that they must be guaranteed that their share of seats never drops even if their population grows at a much slower pace than other provinces. The problem with that? It would require a constitutional amendment to do, using the 7/50 formula (seven provinces representing 50 percent of the population). And that could be the tricky part.

Of course, the obvious solution is to tinker with the seat distribution formula, which the Conservatives introduced (fully intending to screw over Ontario for new seats along the way). But as I stated in my column a couple of weeks ago, we would probably be better served adding far more than just four seats – something more like 40 would be better for everyone, especially because it would mean better populating committees and keeping parliamentary secretaries from voting positions on them. Mike Moffatt and I discussed this over Twitter:

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1456558821942431744

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1456560023383969796

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1456590475985571840

Furthermore, if we stay at the current redistribution formula, that sole new seat in Ontario is going to cause a lot of problems with redrawing boundaries (which will then have provincial reverberations, because Ontario provincial ridings mirror their federal counterparts, with the exception of an additional seat in Northern Ontario for better representation. Once this reality starts to sink in, perhaps the government would start considering boosting that formula to avoid these kinds of headaches.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1456593608648298498

Continue reading →

Roundup: Breakaway caucuses are more headaches for O’Toole

Posted on by

Things in the Conservative caucus seem to be getting increasingly precarious, as a “small number” of MPs continue to remain unvaccinated, and others refuse to disclose even if they are vaccinated, which is going to be a problem for Erin O’Toole in two weeks when they need to show proof of vaccination to enter the parliamentary precinct, their offices, or reach the House of Commons.

As if this weren’t enough, you have more unofficial “breakaway” caucus groups forming – one of them calling themselves the “civil liberties caucus,” apparently headed by Marilyn Gladu, who are concerned with the loss of “medical privacy” over vaccine status; the other is allegedly rallying around fiscal and deficit issues (and I would be tremendously surprised if this isn’t a faction led by Pierre Poilievre). And for context, particular “caucus” groups are fairly normal, but they tend to be around things like friendship groups with other countries, or other soft parliamentary diplomacy. This is not it, and while Gladu insists that this isn’t about O’Toole’s leadership, but it’s hard not to see it that way – especially as he should have been clamping down on the anti-vax contingent in his caucus and party more broadly because there is still a pandemic going on, and pandering to a group that is heavily influenced by conspiracy theories is frankly insane.

Nevertheless, this is where we find ourselves. O’Toole continues to try and play both sides of the fence, saying he’s encouraging vaccination but won’t enforce it when people refuse for no good reason at all. The fact that the party has made itself beholden to its social conservative and more fringe base because they’re the ones who both fundraise and volunteer is a problem for the party over the long term, as the need to keep appeasing this base isn’t going away. That makes it harder for the rational, moderate Conservatives from having influence (witness the savaging they gave to Michael Chong in 2017, and Peter MacKay last year, even though MacKay wasn’t even a real Red Tory). So long as O’Toole refuses to put his foot down in the face of a global pandemic, he’s enabling more of the decline and that bodes very poorly for the future of the party, and Canadian political discourse.

Continue reading →