Tag Archives: Jagmeet Singh

Roundup: Endorsing the Brexitshambles

Posted on by

In case you haven’t been paying attention, Britain is currently in a state of utter omnishambles as they try to deal with Brexit. A potential deal that was reached resulted in Cabinet resignations, and some very real threats not only to Theresa May remaining as PM, but possibly toppling the government as a whole. It’s lunacy over there right now. Back here in Canada, Andrew Scheer has decided that this was the right time to reiterate his support for Brexit. Because “sovereignty.”

While Scheer can bang on about how much control the UK gave up to the EU, and repeating falsehoods like the canard about the EU having regulations around the curvature of bananas, he both ignores that the EU has created a peace that has been unknown in Europe for centuries, and the fact that much of the Brexit campaign was fuelled by straight-up xenophobia. It’s this latter aspect that is particularly relevant because it’s part of a pattern we’re seeing with Conservatives, as John Geddes pointed out a couple of months ago – that they have this inability to orient themselves in a plausible way with the current nationalist populist trends in conservatism globally. Add to that, there is this naïve notion that they can somehow play with just enough extremism without it going into outright xenophobia or racism (and we’re especially seeing this playout with Maxime Bernier who blows the xenophobia tuba and then acts bewildered that white nationalists start showing up in his new party). But you can’t play with “just enough” extremism, because you can’t actually contain it. And when you wink about things enough times, you can’t act shocked and surprised when your adherents spell out what you were saying – like that post from a riding association Facebook account that posted Harjit Sajjan’s photo with the tagline “this is what happens when you have a Cabinet based on affirmative action.” They’ve only stated repeatedly that ministers in the Liberal cabinet are only there to fill quotas (whereas everyone in the Conservative Cabinet was there “on merit,”) but the moment someone puts Sajjan’s face next to that, well no, that’s totally not what they meant at all. Sure, Jan. And that’s why you can’t actually claim that Brexit is all about “sovereignty,” because it absolutely wasn’t. You can’t divorce the inflated sovereignty concern trolling from the xenophobia – it’s the same mentality as trying to assert that you can use “just enough” extremism for your political ends, but not go all the way.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne remains boggled by Scheer’s continued endorsement of Brexit, and wonders if he’s trying to appropriate some of its populist nationalism (the aforementioned “just enough” extremism).

Continue reading →

Roundup: StatsCan’s self-inflicted wounds

Posted on by

The furore and histrionics over the planned administrative data scoop by Statistics Canada continued to boil over the weekend, and there were further interviews with the Chief Statistician, and some other analysis, such as this look at how the agency’s current data collection with long-form surveys are becoming increasingly unreliable, and this private sector view that warns that because of the European Union’s increasingly stringent privacy laws that it could somehow affect our trade or business ventures with European countries.

A few observations:

  1. The Chief Statistician is not a very effective communicator, and I’ve seen several interviews where the host of whichever political show he’s on has completely railroaded him. StatsCan hasn’t been good in demonstrating why they need the data, and what kind of value it holds, and this is important, and they need to better make the case that the way the data are being collected currently is becoming unreliable, and that hurts everybody. They could say that they already have our SINs, because they linked our census data to our tax forms, and lo, there were no problems (and we got more reliable data for it). But they’re not. That they’re leaving the explanation to the government, which can’t communicate its way out of a wet paper bag, compounds the problem.
  2. Most of the journalists and political show hosts out there are exacerbating the problem, worse than the politicians mendaciously framing the issue as one of mass government surveillance, because they’re muddying the waters and trying to get some kind of unforced error from the Chief Statistician or the government spokesbodies, rather than trying to clarify the issues. This in turn feeds the paranoiacs on the Internet (and seriously, my reply column is replete with them right now on the Twitter Machine).
  3. These worries about the EU’s privacy laws are likely overblown, or more likely concern trolling. More than a few EU countries rely on scooping up administrative data rather than using a census, so they will have an idea about how this kind of thing works. Which isn’t to say that perhaps our own laws need updating, but I think the fears remain a bit overblown here.
  4. It remains the height of hypocrisy for the Conservatives to stoke fears about using administrative data like this, because in their attempt to kill the long-form census on trumped up privacy and invasiveness grounds, they were promoting using administrative data in its place. That they’re concerned about it now as being too invasive (while simultaneously lying in their construction that this is somehow a surveillance directive of the Trudeau-led Cabinet that they are using StatsCan as cover for) is more than a little rich, and dare I say amoral.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Debating the future shape of the Commons

Posted on by

In a piece for Policy Options, Jennifer Ditchburn worries that there hasn’t been enough public discussion about the forthcoming renovations to the Centre Block, and what it means for our democracy. Part of the problem is the structure by which these decisions are being taken, and much of the decision-making is being put off until after the building is closed and the workers have a better sense as to the deterioration and what needs to be done as part of the renovation and restoration, which seems problematic. That said, it’s not like there hasn’t been any debate over the whole project, lest anyone forget the weeks of cheap outrage stories over the price tag of the “crystal palace” that has been created in the courtyard of the West Block to house the House of Commons on a temporary basis.

Ditchburn goes on to lament that we haven’t had any kind of public debate over how we want the House of Commons to look, and if we want to keep the current oppositional architecture (though she later tweeted that if forced to decide, she’s probably want to keep it). I will confess to my own reluctance to open up a debate around this because it has the likelihood that it will go very stupid very quickly, if the “debate” over electoral reform is any indication. We’re already bombarded by dumb ideas about how to reform the House of Commons, with ideas like randomized seating as a way to improve decorum, but that ignores both tradition and the fact that our system is built to be oppositional for good reason, as it forces accountability, and a certain amount of policy dynamism. I’m especially leery of the coming paeans to semi-circles, and people who think that the circular designs of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut legislatures as being at all replicable in Ottawa (which they aren’t).

If I had my druthers, I’d not only keep the current oppositional format, but would get rid of the desks and put in benches like they have in Westminster, thereby shrinking the chamber and doing away with means by which MPs have for not paying attention to debate as it is, where they can spend their time catching up on correspondence or signing Christmas cards, or playing on their iPads. Best of all, it does away with the mini-lecterns, which have become a plague in our Chamber as the scripting gets worse. The reasons for why they had desks have long-since vanished into history (as in, they all have offices now), and if we want better debates, then benches will help to force them (even if it means we’ll have to learn faces instead of relying solely on the seating chart to learn MPs’ names).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not the right by-election

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau called a by-election yesterday – but only in the riding of Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands, and not Burnaby South, where Jagmeet Singh has declared that he wants to run – and now the NDP are sniping about it, calling it “petty and manipulative,” and even more curiously, griping that Canadians from that riding are being deprived of representation.

A couple of things: First of all, Singh has had several opportunities to run for a seat before now, and has turned them all down. The fact that he has suddenly realised that his being “comfortable” with not having a seat until his poll numbers started plunging doesn’t mean that the Liberals have an obligation to get him in the House as soon as possible – he already made it clear it wasn’t a priority. As well, it they were so concerned about a lack of representation, they should have said something to their MP who vacated the seat in the first place – and not only that, who waited until the last minute to vacate it after spending the summer campaigning for another job. Likewise with Thomas Mulcair in Outremont and now Sheila Malcolmson in Nanaimo – they chose to leave before the current parliament expired.

Add to that, the time to call this particular by-election was running out, and with the other current openings, Trudeau may be waiting on Malcolmson to give a date as to when she officially plans to leave her seat, and for Liberal MP Nicola Di Iorio to officially vacate his own seat in Montreal (given that he suddenly started having second thoughts after declaring he was going to resign) before Trudeau calls the other by-elections, so that they can “cluster” the by-elections in those regions. I’m not convinced that there’s a crisis here. Singh made his bed, and now he gets to lay in it.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1056716042976747521

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1056717272276918273

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1056717517324832768

Continue reading →

Roundup: Finishing a ham-fisted job

Posted on by

In the wake of Karina Gould’s appearance at Senate QP earlier this week, the ISG is reaching out to the media to push the narrative that they desperately need changes to the Parliament of Canada Act in order to “finish the job” of making the Senate “independent,” which has me giving a bit of a resigned sigh because it feels to me a bit like someone climbing onto a steamroller when they’ve barely taking the training wheels off of a bicycle. While there are arguments to be made for changes to the Act, it ignores the fact that it’s actually fairly difficult to do (previous attempts to change the Act have been curtailed because of legal opinions that have stated that it may require the consultation of the provinces), and the fact that it’s probably premature to start making these changes.

While on the one hand, I understand that the ISG is looking to cement changes to the Senate in advance of the election in the event that the Liberals don’t win and a hypothetical Andrew Scheer-led Conservative government starts making partisan appointments again, and they want to protect the gains they’ve made, but on the other hand, they really still haven’t even learned how the Senate operates currently, so demanding changes in advance of that seems a bit precious. The fact that they haven’t managed to figure out some pretty basic procedure (while complaining that it’s being used against them) and then demanding the rulebook be thrown out and rewritten to suit them is problematic, and making what amount to permanent changes to the institution on the basis of what is currently a grand experiment seems completely foolhardy – particularly when they have already negotiated workarounds to most of the issues that are currently irritating them, such as funds for the ISG, while I’m really not sure why the length of vote bells is being treated as a dire circumstance demanding action.

The other thing that bothers me with the interview that Senator Woo gave is that he’s demanding that Trudeau pick up the reins with this modernisation while he’s thus-far been content to let Senators figure it out. Granted, there is an element of “he made this mess and now he’s letting everyone else clean it up” to the whole thing, but I’m not sure I want to trust Trudeau to finish the job of “modernising” the Senate because of the fact that he’s caused significant damage that a future generation is going to have to undo, and along the way, he’s managed to centralise more power within the caucus room as part of his ham-fisted “fix” for a Senate problem that didn’t actually exist. Trying to get him to finish the job may simply be inviting bigger problems that will take even longer to undo.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A new NAFTA

Posted on by

Apparently, we have a NAFTA deal. Or “USMCA,” as Trump wants to call it, because that’s so much better. After a weekend of negotiations and a 10 PM emergency Cabinet meeting last night, everything was The “senior sources” are saying that dairy access will be around what was negotiated for the original TPP (or maybe a little more) along with eliminating the “Class 7” pricing, but we managed to keep the cultural exemptions and dispute resolution mechanisms, so that’s something. What we apparently didn’t get were any new guarantees around those steel and aluminium tariffs, so that’s less of a good thing. More details are due to be announced this morning, for what it’s worth.

And now for the Conservative shitposts to begin, and Michelle Rempel has offered us a taste of what’s to come. Because remember, they’re the “grown-ups” in the room.

https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1046611767185440768

Continue reading →

Roundup: The people’s vanity project

Posted on by

Yesterday, Maxime Bernier confirmed his party will be called the “People’s Party of Canada,” just like so many communist parties in the world. Oops. And like those other “People’s Parties,” he won’t hold a contested leadership race, and he’ll get the final say on policies, so that’s off to a great start. Even better was the fact that his logo is simply a repurposing of an old Reform Party logo, and the policy page is a word-for-word copy of the Libertarian Party’s policy (which people also insist was a copy of Bernier’s leadership race policies), so that’s a great start. And during his press conference, he already started with the policy musings that apparently originated from the Internet’s darker recesses. So there’s that.

And aside from the trite attempt to use gay rights as a cover for bashing Muslims, Bernier has a glimmer of awareness that he’s going to be branded with the xenophobes he’s riling up, and he insists that anti-Semites and xenophobes will be kicked out of the party, while at the same time as he’s still using not-even-thinly-veiled xenophobia to try and create a wedge between his nascent party and the Liberals. But while he hopes to make immigration and refugees (and yes, there is a difference) between them as a wedge, he’s already getting warnings that he’s going to have to be very careful to keep the racists out (not to mention the alt-right, the MRAs, and whichever other dog-whistles he happens to be blasting at the time).

Meanwhile, John Geddes deciphers Bernier’s messaging and what he’s offering based on it, while Andrew Coyne reminds all of those who insist this will simply split the Conservative vote that yes, there is actually room in the Canadian political spectrum for such a “worthy experiment,” assuming that Bernier were capable enough to pull it off (and Coyne, like the rest of us, has his doubts). And Paul Wells delivers an epic takedown of Bernier’s potential voters.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Offering justifications for the indefensible

Posted on by

The attempts by conservatives, both provincial and federal, to justify the use of the Notwithstanding Clause is in full swing, and it’s a bit fascinating to watch the intellectual contortions that they will go through in order to justify a) the abuse of process for Bill 5 in the first place, b) the need to ram it through during the middle of the election itself in order to interfere, and c) why they need to go to the mat and use the nuclear option in order to help Ford enact petty revenge. One of Ford’s MPPs wrote up her legal analysis, which is more than Ford or his attorney general have bothered to do, but it still didn’t explain the need for haste when an appeal of the lower court decision would have been the proper way to go about disputing its reasoning. Ford’s MPPs would go on TV and throw around the word “elites” as though that justifies the nuclear option, which, again, doesn’t actually constitute a proper reason for employing said nuclear option. Andrew Scheer, meanwhile, is falling back on the technicality that Ford’s using the Clause is “within the law” because municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction, which is beside the point – the point being that Ford is violating the norms of our democratic system for his own personal ends, and not calling out that violation of norms is troubling.

Even more troubling was that during yesterday’s raucous Question Period in Queen’s Park, Ford stated that we don’t need the Charter because people elected him – all of which just continues his particular inability to discern between popular rule and democracy. Popular rule is justifying breaking rules and norms because you got elected – democracy is those rules and norms that keeps power in check. That he can’t grasp the difference should be alarming.

The LeBlanc Report

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner issued his report yesterday on whether Dominic LeBlanc violated ethics rules regarding the awarding of the Arctic surf clam fishery to a company that was headed (on an interim basis) by his wife’s cousin – the context is that he’s one of sixty first cousins, and his relationship with LeBlanc is at best described as an acquaintance. Reading through the report, it hinges upon the Commissioner reading the definition of family much more expansively than it is interpreted elsewhere in the very same regime, which is how LeBlanc interpreted it. LeBlanc took responsibility, vowed to do better in the future, but that hasn’t stopped the opposition from taking the usual route of wailing and gnashing of teeth to decry just how unethical this government is.

In the demonstrable instances, however, the ethics violations have been pretty small ball (i.e. Bill Morneau not properly reporting the ownership structure of the French villa he disclosed), or legitimate differences of opinion on relationships (whether the Aga Khan was a family friend in Trudeau’s case, or the closeness of the relationship between LeBlanc and his wife’s cousin in this case). These are not instances of influence being peddled, people being unjustly enriched (and I know people will quibble about the Bell Island vacation, but the Aga Khan is not some tycoon looking to increase his corporate holdings by way of government connections), so perhaps a bit of perspective is warranted. Should Trudeau and LeBlanc have cleared things with the Commissioner beforehand? Absolutely. But this performative outrage we’re seeing will only get you so far, and railing that there have been no consequences beyond naming-and-shaming means little considering that it was the Conservatives and NDP who designed this ethics regime back in 2006, and they could have designed a more robust system them – or at any point that it’s come up for statutory review – and they haven’t.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Self-inflicted leadership wounds

Posted on by

There was a fairly damning piece out about the state of the NDP yesterday, as they began their caucus retreat in Surrey, BC, and how the party basically put itself on hold for two years after they turfed Thomas Mulcair but left him in place for two years while they engaged in an overly long leadership process, only to let their fundraising collapse and their outreach stagnate. I do have vague recollections about how they were totally going to use the two-year!leadership contest to totally re-energise the party, and it would totally bring in all kinds of new fundraising and members, and so on. Turns out, none of that happened, Mulcair being left in place slowly poisoned the well, and at the end, they wound up with a leader without a seat, and who has been largely absent both from Ottawa and the national stage (leaving another defeated leadership candidate in his place in Ottawa). I’m hoping that the entire Canadian political scene takes this as an object lesson that the way we’re running leadership contests is very bad, and that we need to get back to the sensible and accountable caucus selection (and removal) of leaders. The pessimist in me, however, sees this very likely reality that they won’t take the lesson, and we’ll continue stumbling along.

Also in NDP news is the damage control about the Erin Weir debacle, and they’re getting out activists and pet columnists to come to their defence and to insist that Weir is the worst person imaginable, ignoring that he took to the media to defend himself after a campaign of leaks started against him as part of the Mean Girling around him, and they’ve offered nothing to substantiate that he is a harasser in any meaningful sense of the word. Jagmeet Singh even proclaimed that he wouldn’t be intimidated by “elites” from the party’s own grassroots – their own current and former MPs and MPPs in Saskatchewan – into changing his mind. It’s actuall a bit stunning.

Notwithstanding

Because this is still Very Big News, there is talk coming out of PC circles in Ontario that Doug Ford is willing to use the nuclear option to show that he’s tough against the courts where Trudeau isn’t, and then uses the false notion that the Notwithstanding Clause could have been used on the Trans Mountain ruling – which it couldn’t, because the Clause only applies to certain sections of the Charter, for which Section 35 is not a part of. But since when to facts matter when you’re pursuing a private grievance in a big, public way? Worse was the fact that people were trying to get Ford to bring up the fact that Justice Belobaba refused to freeze Omar Khadr’s $10 million settlement and turn it over to the widow of his putative victim. Justin Trudeau, meanwhile, continues to say that this is a political issue for Ontarians to deal with, not for him to swoop in and do something about, and he’s right.

Meanwhile, here’s Paul Wells snarkily congratulating Ford’s government for embracing the extremism it too Stephen Harper a decade to find and for making the Notwithstanding Clause easier for any other government to use in a fit of their own pique. Law professor Vanessa MacDonnell thinks that Ford should clearly articulate why he is invoking the Notwithstanding Clause, while Susan Delacourt wonders why Trudeau left it up to Brian Mulroney to forcefully denounce the invocation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Those pesky gasoline prices

Posted on by

While avoiding condemning Maxime Bernier’s choice of language and engagement (moving from just winking at white nationalists to now trying to delegitimize the media), Andrew Scheer has resumed his practice of shitposting misleading statistics memes over Twitter, and yesterday it was in relation to gasoline prices. Yes, Statistics Canada reported that the inflation rate in June was 3.0 percent, which is the Bank of Canada’s upper bound for their target, and yes, it was fuelled in part by gasoline prices. (Core inflation, stripped of volatile factors like gasoline, remains closer to the 2.0 percent target, so it’s not really anything to worry about). But why would those gasoline prices be higher? Hmm…

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1030574821543829504

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1030574941060517888

That’s right – the world price of oil has increased over the past year after its recovery from the price collapse nearly two years ago, and that’s an unambiguous good thing for provinces like Alberta, who rely on oil prices being on the higher side for their economies. Trying to cast this as a carbon tax issue – and that oh noes, carbon taxes will make this even worse – is a bit disingenuous considering how small of a fraction of the price that entails.

Meanwhile, with a number of voices (Jason Kenney and Scheer among them) calling for the revival of Energy East in light of the Saudi Arabia spat, energy economist Andrew Leach crunched the numbers on the economic case for that pipeline. Short version: there is no economic case. Stop trying to pretend there is one or blaming Justin Trudeau for its demise.

Continue reading →