Tag Archives: Jagmeet Singh

Roundup: O’Toole continues to sit on the vaccine fence with caucus

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole continues to try and have his cake and eat it too when it comes to ensuring his MPs and senators are fully vaccinated in order to attend Parliamentary sittings. But in his desire to sit on the fence and play both sides, he may have inadvertently shown his hand. After the party’s big caucus meeting in Ottawa yesterday, O’Toole announced that caucus “agreed to respect and abide new rules which require Parliamentarians attending in the House of Commons and Senate to be vaccinated.” But he still planned to raise the point of privilege about the Board of Internal Economy decision, because of course.

But.

It seems that he tripped himself up in French, and spelled out that the plan was for those who “participate in person,” which is a pretty big loophole for the holdouts in the caucus. And yet, O’Toole and his caucus continue to oppose hybrid sittings (as well they should), so anyone who doesn’t show up shouldn’t be allowed to participate virtually either – unless this is yet another case of having his cake and eating it too. “They can’t show up, but they have the option of hybrid, so I guess we’ll allow them to participate that way!” with a show of feigned helplessness to the situation. And we still don’t know how many MPs or senators this affects (though the Senate has not yet issued its own vaccine mandate yet), so it could be three or four, or it could be twelve or fifteen, especially as there appear to be vaccinated MPs who refuse to disclose the fact because they don’t want to appear to their anti-vax constituents like they sold out. So this is where O’Toole finds himself. It’s still a losing battle because any privilege complaint will be voted down by everyone else in the Chamber, even if they try to drag it out until the New Year. And all the while, O’Toole continues to look like he’s pandering to the party’s worst elements rather than standing up to them and demonstrating actual leadership.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performative consultations by the PM

Posted on by

It is performative consultation season, and lo, prime minister Justin Trudeau held meetings with Erin O’Toole, Jagmeet Singh and Elizabeth May yesterday, and the versions of the conversation released by readouts from both the PMO, O’Toole and Singh’s officers were…quite something. (Thread here). O’Toole demanded an end to CRB and an end to the “wedge politics” around vaccines, while Singh demanded CRB continue, and for the government to drop future appeals of litigation around First Nations children. Both were play-acting tough in their readouts, even though Singh is but a paper tiger. Trudeau’s readouts, meanwhile, were similar and bland, listing the already circulated “priority” items he wants to address right away (and yet is delaying recalling parliament), with no indication of what the other parties said, or if any kinds of agreements were reached.

Something that did come out of the readout with Singh was that Trudeau is in favour of continuing hybrid sittings, and Pablo Rodriguez’s office confirmed that, which is really, really disappointing and frankly mind-boggling. We are not in the same phase of the pandemic, and we are in a place where, with mandatory vaccination and masking, MPs can all safely attend parliamentary duties in-person, end of story. Carrying on hybrid sittings – which only the Liberals and NDP favour – are frankly unjustifiable, given the human toll that the injuries take on the interpreters, and the incredible amount of human and technical resources that they consume (and which have starved the Senate of necessary resources because the Commons gets priority). And just imagine telling the interpreters that they have to keep being subjected to injury because MPs are too gods damned selfish or lazy to do the jobs they’ve bene elected to do. Parliament is an in-person job – it depends on building relationships, which happens face-to-face. Hybrid sittings were 100 percent responsible for the last session devolving into complete toxicity, and if you don’t think that congeniality matters, remember that things don’t get accomplished without it. Those five months of procedural warfare didn’t happen in a vacuum. Saying they want hybrid sittings to carry on is both irresponsible and corrosive to parliament as a whole. There can be no justification for carrying them on.

Meanwhile, in case you thought it was just opposition parties making demands of the government before parliament is summoned, we have plenty of civil society groups calling for the paid sick leave for federally-regulated employees to happen immediately (erm, not how the legislative process works, guys), decriminalisation of illicit drugs, and for refugees and undocumented healthcare workers to be allowed access to a programme that would grant them permanent residency status.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh has a list of demands

Posted on by

In the wake of his party’s post-election first caucus meeting, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh held a press conference yesterday to do a bit of chest-thumping and pretend that he holds some kind of balance of power in the forthcoming parliament, or that he can play kingmaker. If anything, he undermined his own position with his list of demands, because he doesn’t have any real leverage. His party is substantially weakened after the election, particularly given that they spent all kinds of money and gained a single seat out of it, and they are likely in debt once again and in no shape to go to another campaign anytime soon – especially if they want to figure out what they did wrong and have time to course-correct.

As for his list of demands, we are back to a lot of the usual nonsense where Singh doesn’t seem to grasp implementation – or jurisdiction. To wit:

  • Paid sick leave – that is being expanded to ten days for federally-regulated workers, but that’s only six percent of the workforce. The rest is provincial.
  • Halting clawbacks from GIS for seniors who accessed CERB – the GIS is means-tested and meant for the poorest of seniors, so it’s not surprising that CERB or other benefits could impact the means test.
  • Clean drinking water in Indigenous communities – this is in progress. Willpower won’t make it go faster.
  • A federal vaccine document for internal travel – this cannot happen unless provinces sign on, and until a couple of weeks ago, there were provinces still hostile to the very notion. The federal government cannot unilaterally create such a document because the provinces control vaccination data.
  • Dropping the appeal of the Human Rights Tribunal decision in the First Nations Child and Family Services case – this may yet happen given how completely the Federal Court decision against them last week was, but there were legitimate issues being litigated regardless that compensation is already being negotiated, irrespective of a further appeal.
  • Demanding higher health transfers – the federal government fully plans to negotiate those, but it won’t be without strings, especially as certain provinces sat on the pandemic-related transfers and put them towards their bottom lines rather than spending them on the pandemic.

As for Singh’s threat to “withhold votes” if he doesn’t get his way, it’s a bit curious what he means. Does he mean he would vote against bills including the budget implementation bill for the fall economic update, which would have plenty of additional pandemic supports or items he supports? Or does he mean he’d simply not vote, which would mean the Liberals wouldn’t need to get Bloc support to pass their measures (which they would likely get as the Bloc also are in no position to go to another election). Because if it’s the latter, then he’s basically made himself irrelevant for the foreseeable future.

Programming note: I am taking the full long weekend off from blogging. See you next week!

Continue reading →

Roundup: Counting down to Kenney’s referendum

Posted on by

Alberta is a little over two weeks away from Jason Kenney’s bullshit “referendum” on equalisation, which won’t actually accomplish anything, but will send his rhetoric into overdrive. (This is also when he will be holding his equally bullshit “Senate nomination election,” which is also blatantly unconstitutional, but that is a rant for another day, and I’ve filed numerous columns on the topic already). This referendum will do nothing about equalisation – it won’t do anything about amending the constitution, and if he thinks he’ll bring the federal government to the table to renegotiate the terms of equalisation, Justin Trudeau will once again remind Kenney that he was sitting at the Cabinet table when Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty imposed the current formula. It’s a waste of time and money, all in the service of Kenney trying to continue to drum up anger at Ottawa as a way to distract the province from his own record of failure.

Meanwhile, here is Andrew Leach with a few thoughts:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stripping the riding associations

Posted on by

In the wake of the election, we are starting to see a few post-mortem thoughts bubbling up, and this one caught my eye over the Twitter Machine on what went on in the NDP campaign:

https://twitter.com/JessaMcLeanNDP/status/1440360899949182976

https://twitter.com/JessaMcLeanNDP/status/1440366348341694465

This is troubling in several respects – it gives some context as to why the NDP couldn’t get the ground game in ridings where they thought they had a chance to pick up seats, and it explains why their campaign spent as much as it did. This shouldn’t be a surprise for the party however – they are a very centralised organisation, and 2011 was ample demonstration that they have very few grassroots organisations in whole swaths of the county. That’s why when the “Orange Wave” happened, you had a tonne of candidates who had never even visited their ridings – the riding organisations were pretty much just on paper, much like the candidates. A proper riding organisation would have held a nomination race for someone from the area, not a McGill student who signed up on a form and spent the race working Mulcair’s riding in Montreal. They didn’t nurture those grassroots, as shallow as they were, and lo, they lost most of their Quebec seats in 2015, and all but one of them in 2019, nor did they regain any in this election.

Ground game matters, especially in an election where getting out the vote is crucial. Grassroots organisations matter. They may have them in a few of their stronghold ridings, but it really doesn’t look like they have it very well developed in large parts of the country, especially in places where they think they have a chance at winning. But if they’re simply stripping their riding associations of resources – and from the sounds of it, carrying on with the centralised nominations – then that’s a sign of an unhealthy political culture, and not a surprise that they aren’t getting the traction that they’re hoping for.

Good reads:

  • Several of the tight races may not have definitive conclusions until the end of the week. In one of them, ousted Liberal candidate Kevin Vuong remains in the lead.
  • The defeat of fisheries minister Bernadette Jordan has both sides of the Indigenous fishing dispute saying that this points to the need for a resolution to the situation.
  • The Star profiles ten of the new MPs that won races on Monday.
  • Here are a few thoughts from Liberals and academics as to where Trudeau goes now that he’s returned another hung parliament.
  • George Chahal has won a riding in Calgary, which essentially makes him a shoo-in for a Cabinet position.
  • It sounds like Erin O’Toole will encourage caucus to vote for the (garbage) Reform Act provisions that allow a leadership review to be triggered.
  • O’Toole has also triggered a campaign review to see where they went wrong.
  • Jagmeet Singh thinks his leadership is secure, and wants to press Trudeau on wealth taxes in exchange for his support.
  • François Legault doesn’t regret his endorsements in the federal election, even though they amounted to little change.
  • Kevin Carmichaels gets some economic reaction to the election results, and posits that there is now more political certainty for the markets to react to.
  • Chantal Hébert makes her observations about the election results, including that Trudeau will start entering the “legacy phase” of his time in office.
  • Robert Hiltz remains unimpressed by what was on offer in the election, and in the results.
  • My column looks at why the election was not an unnecessary effort, and what some of the underlying narratives that didn’t get explored were.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

Roundup: Shifts on the ground

Posted on by

So, that was the election – the overall seat count doesn’t look like it’s change much, but on the ground it shifted quite a lot in plenty of places, with Conservatives making more breakthroughs in Atlantic Canada, and the Liberals making a comeback in Alberta. Two sitting ministers lost their seats – Bernadette Jordan and Maryam Monsef, and Deb Schulte was trailing around the time I posted this and went to bed. Those shifts to count for something, and they will mean a different make-up in the House once it returns, probably in late October.

While you’ll hear a lot of talk about how this election was “useless” given the result, I’ve got a column coming out later today that addresses those concerns, but I also wanted to make note about the question of timing – Trudeau pretty much had to go when he did because any later would have run into the municipal elections in Quebec and Alberta, which would spread their volunteer pool too thin, and going after that would mean an election close to Christmas, which everyone would bitch about (and Trudeau would want to avoid something like what happened in 2006). Meanwhile, going later would have meant more weeks of deadlocked bills in the Commons, for little added benefit.

As for the speeches:

  • Annamie Paul was up first, after placing a distant fourth in her riding (which was in no way a surprise). She gave some thanks to her volunteers, staff and family, but gave no indication of what her future plans are as leader, given the fact that the loss of another Green seat (while gaining one new one) won’t help her case as staying on as leader.
  • Erin O’Toole did not really give a concession speech, did not congratulate Trudeau on his win, but essentially made a promise to keep campaigning while falsely claiming that Trudeau had previously threatened another election in the next 18 months (whereas Trudeau simply warned that another hung parliament would likely wind up with another election in that time). O’Toole also made a few more false statements before calling it a night, essentially daring his party to keep him on as leader.
  • Yves-François Blanchet was also fairly bullish, but did concede that they needed to be more cooperative and said that the Bloc would participate in said cooperation, because they are still in a pandemic. That could mean Blanchet is the willing partner for the first few months of Trudeau’s agenda.
  • Jagmeet Singh was more gracious than the others in congratulating the PM on his victory, but then proceeded to take credit for the pandemic supports, and insisting that he will continue to push for things like dental care and his wealth tax which will be extraordinarily difficult to implement.
  • Trudeau was last, declaring that Canadians were sending his party back to work with a “clear mandate” – and *sigh* no, we don’t have mandates in our system of government. He also noted that voters have “Given this parliament and this government a clear direction.” Trudeau was the most gracious of all of the leaders in his victory, thanking the other leaders and their families, the Elections Canada staff and volunteers, and started quoting Laurier in talking about looking to the future that they hope to build together.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Conditions and fact-check reflections

Posted on by

After 36 days, we are at the finish line of this interminable election, and I am so very tired. On the final day, with the potential for another hung parliament in the works, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh says that he plans to make his cooperation in said parliament contingent on the implementation of his wealth tax – you know, the one that is going to be extraordinarily difficult to implement because it is foreign to how our tax system operates currently, and would require an inordinate amount of work to even start defining the basic concepts at the heart of it. Or as Jennifer Robson puts it, the one item that is so difficult to achieve that any party could agree to it and spend the next two years saying that they’re “working on it,” while Singh has surrendered his leverage. Such smart politics! (Reminder, you can watch Robson explain why this will be extraordinarily difficult to implement here).

Meanwhile, the Star’s election fact-checker has written up her reflections on the work she did, and I can honestly say that I’m underwhelmed. I don’t doubt that she worked hard, and that she dealt with an enormous amount of information…but her format sucked, and she’s a newsletter producer in Toronto and doesn’t have any federal politics experience. The format – checking one leader’s statements per week – isn’t really providing a useful fact-checking exercise, because it’s letting them get away with saying blatantly untrue things, and it might show up in her report a week later, if it was that leader’s week. As for her inexperience on the federal scene, there is a boatload of context to some of these statements that she was unable to qualify as true or false, and that comes with experience and exposure. There are things that she was fact-checking that I’ve had to do entire stories about because of the way it was being both-sidesed by media and came to different conclusions because of the complexity of the file (the court challenge around First Nations children in care) and because the both-sidesing didn’t address the actual issue at hand – just competing talking points, with a lot of time being given to one side in the case with none to the other. But her read on it was facile, and so she marked it as such, which doesn’t help anyone.

Most of all, this was largely an exercise in comparing our leaders to Trump, which is the most dismaying part of all because it serves no useful purpose to Canadian politics (“Hey, our leaders don’t lie as much!” is quite the takeaway), and is just more of the kind of comparative political bullshit that lets our leaders get away with so much (“Hey, I’m not as bad as Trump!”) because it’s divorced from our reality. It’s failing the Canadian public by trying to put us in an American frame of reference when we’re not America. We need our outlets to do a better job.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Incendiary headlines and endorsements

Posted on by

There were a couple of items on the campaign trail that I wanted to mention. One is that a reporter asked Justin Trudeau about electoral reform today, for the first time since the election began, apparently, and he said that if there was consensus he’d consider re-opening it, but he remained in favour of ranked ballots. This was put under a headline of “Trudeau says he remains ‘open’ to electoral reform if Liberals re-elected,” and Twitter had a gods damned field day over it, and lo, the issue was re-litigated yet again, even though that headline didn’t really reflect his comments. (The CBC headline for the same Canadian Press wire story was more reflective of his comments). But writing up what he said isn’t incendiary and won’t make it look like he made a promise that he really didn’t make wouldn’t drive clicks now, would it?

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1439267428786221066

The other item of note was that two former military figures endorsed Erin O’Toole yesterday – retired Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, and retired General Rick Hillier. In both cases, it’s a bit icky because we generally don’t like to have the practice of military endorsements in Canada because our Forces are a far less partisan organisation, as well they should be. There are a couple of additional wrinkles here. With Norman, it has the ability of looking petty and score-settling because of the blame to go around the investigation that led to the charges of breach-of-trust with Norman (that were ultimately stayed). Hillier is also fairly dubious – not only because he is now tainted goods after the gong show of a vaccine rollout that he was in charge of in Ontario, but as a former Chief of Defence Staff, he should remain far more scrupulous in wading into partisan politics. This is not a trend that we want to encourage.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The stakes on Monday may be bigger than we think

Posted on by

There were a couple of columns on The Line yesterday that are food for thought as we head into the final days of the election. The first was from Matt Gurney, who states in no uncertain terms that if the Conservatives can’t pull out a strong enough showing, that they will start a death spiral as a party to the forces of right-wing populism that have consumed the Republican Party south of the border. Gurney’s thesis is essentially that if O’Toole can manage to get enough results to hold onto power, he might have enough time to get the party’s shit together to save it, but it’s going to mean hard choices and dumping the shitposters in his office and the loonies in his caucus like Cheryl Gallant, and have a firm enough hand to be the necessary bulwark. But I have my doubts that O’Toole is strong enough to do this – he’s spent his leadership winking and nodding to this crowd, given a free pass to Gallant and to Pierre Poilievre, and has basically lied his way through his entire leadership, while utterly debasing himself and his party in order to secure the favour of François Legault. I’m not confident that O’Toole is the person capable of doing the hard work of steering the ship away from Charybdis that lies ahead of it. I think Gurney is right that we need a coherent right-of-centre party for the sake of the country (and hell, we need a capable opposition party regardless of stripe to do the work of accountability), but I have less faith in O’Toole than Gurney does, and I think the party needs a complete generation change if it’s going to be truly successful in pushing back against the very populists that they’ve nurtured and coddled this whole time.

With all of this in mind, Jen Gerson lambastes the entire election as a collection of shiny talking points, with the Liberals basically a shell of a personality cult versus O’Toole amorphousness that is certainly not ready for power – and that there may be a problem with conservatism as an ideology when it comes to dealing with issues like a pandemic, as Alberta is demonstrating. Most of her points are legitimate, but I also think that if anyone thinks this election is about nothing then they’re not paying attention. I don’t disagree that the Liberals are largely a personality cult around Trudeau, but at the same time, they are the only party that has put in the homework, whether it’s on their plans for early learning and child care, inclusive growth, the environment, housing, LGBT issues – they have actual feasible plans behind them and aren’t just handwavey platitudes, or fig leaves that are designed to look like they have a plan but they really don’t. That counts for something, and Trudeau won’t be there for much longer. The cult of personality will reform as it always does, but there will be still be the actual work they’ve put in, and it has been a lot of work, even if it doesn’t look like it from the outside (and that’s partially the Liberals’ fault for not properly communicating their own successes).

And with that in mind, I am baffled by the fact that O’Toole is making his final pitch to voters that Trudeau called an “unnecessary” election – omitting the months of procedural warfare that O’Toole’s side was orchestrating, and that Trudeau needed to break that logjam one way or another. There is a lot at stake in this election, and it would be great if we could keep our eyes on some of what that actually is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bracing for election night

Posted on by

With voting day just days away, we’re starting to see a few “reminder” stories about how our system works, so that we can have some reasonable expectations about what the outcomes might look like on Monday, and why it will mean things like the current government staying in place and having the first chance to test the confidence of the new Chamber once it’s been summoned. There is an interview with Emmett Macfarlane here about how any decision will unfold on Monday night and why Trudeau will remain prime minister until he chooses to resign, which is good. There is also a piece from the Canadian Press which maps out different scenarios about how the evening may play out and what these scenarios might mean.

The problem, of course, is that television news in this country is abysmal, and we’ll spend the night listening to inane banter that pretends that there is no sitting government (exacerbated by the fact that they are currently observing a convention that refers to the prime minister as the “Liberal leader” in order to have an exaggerated sense of “fairness” around his incumbent status), and they will throw around terms like “prime minister-elect” even though we don’t elect prime minister (it’s an appointed position) and the fact that if it is the incumbent – which it’s likely to be – he’s already the prime minister and won’t require an “-elect” or “-designate” title to go along with it. We’ll also no doubt hear talk about him getting a “mandate” even though that kind of thing is utterly incompatible with our system of government. And no matter how much people like me will call it out over social media, nobody will care, and they will continue to completely misinform people about our basic civics without any care in the world, because that’s the state of media in this country right now.

Continue reading →