Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

Roundup: Leitch keeps digging

Posted on by

So many hot takes on Kellie Leitch and her need to keep digging when it comes to her “Canadian values” test proposal. Leitch continued to insist that this is a topic worthy of discussion, and proposed yet more “Canadian values” to back up her claim, and this time, those values include “equality of opportunity, hard work, generosity, freedom and tolerance,” with a focus especially on the tolerance part. She also denies that this targets Muslims in any way and doesn’t think that characterisation is fair. So there’s that. Oh, and you can add Deepak Obhrai to the list of leadership candidates opposing Leitch’s position, and Maxime Bernier gave a somewhat muddled response that he believes there are Canadian values but you just can’t test for them.

In terms of pundit reaction, Michael Den Tandt seems to think that Leitch is going nativist for the sake of deepening her fundraising coffers, while Matt Gurney sees Leitch’s proposal as unworkable, but not really offensive per se. Susan Delacourt sees problems for Leitch from the perspective of a party that doesn’t seem to want to embrace a young female leader, though she may have tapped into an anti-immigrant sentiment within the ranks, while Madeline Ashby looks at the inherent contradictions in Leitch’s position. My own Loonie Politics column on Leitch’s campaign looks at the ways in which she and some of her fellow campaigners are picking and choosing which intolerances to run on, and her own tone-deafness about it (which, given today’s added comments, seem to really fit the bill).

In other Conservative leadership news, Brad Trost thinks that he can unite the party around his economic ideas while still running as a social conservative, and Deepak Obhari has filed his papers and is officially in the race.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fear change of government!

Posted on by

Another day, another round of completely objectionable things heard regarding electoral reform that need to be countered. Most egregious of all today was Elizabeth May’s musing about the nature of government under current and PR systems.

And then my head exploded.

It sounded for a moment there like May was advocating for a system of basically permanent governments that don’t change, and that basic accountability – i.e. “throwing the bums out” – was a bad thing. It boggles the mind that this would be considered a good thing. Is it a good thing that countries like Germany, Austria and Sweden have basically had one-party rule for decades, where coalition partners get shuffled and that’s that? That hardly sounds like a healthy democracy because longevity can certainly breed complacency and to a certain degree corruption. May also assumes that the “consensus building” of coalitions would somehow produce superior governance without looking at the effect it has on accountability (when everyone’s responsible, then no one’s responsible), or that the watered-down outcomes and lack of ability to govern effectively in many cases is really better than a system that allows for decisive action but also the ability to hold those who take action to account for those decisions. Seriously, though, this dislike of accountability mechanisms is very concerning. Also, this notion that the “right parties” will always be in power to get these mythical better outcomes.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/771181766413398020

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/771182236003512324

And then there’s Andrew Coyne, who again cherry-picks his railing against the arguments to keep the status quo with regards to the arguments about stable governments (as though other PR countries operate on a system of responsible government), or that our current system has been riddled with regional parties that we warn about in PR countries (ignoring that regional parties don’t last long in our system precisely because they can’t get power), and buying into Ed Broadbent’s ridiculous revisionist mythologizing about the NEP.

I’ll end on one good note, which was Samara’s call for better civic education. That should be what the government spends its time, energy and resources on rather than this ridiculous quest for a new electoral system, but it’s a start that people are calling out for it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole a possibility

Posted on by

I’ve generally shied away from talking about these stories about perceived support for leadership candidates, particularly in the Conservative pool, but this one about the potential for Erin O’Toole stuck in my mind after I read it. I will fully admit that my initial reaction was “Erin O’Toole? Really? Why?” But it wouldn’t let go, and I thought about it more, and about O’Toole’s particular political trajectory. To a certain extent, he’s always been one who has been seen as a kind of saviour figure for the party – elected in a by-election to replace Bev Oda after she resigned in disgrace, O’Toole entered as someone who was going to start setting a new tone for the seat and the party. His credentials as a veteran and a lawyer were seen as impeccable and the kind of MP that the party not only wanted but needed as it had taken on the label of being a nasty party, and here was someone who was affable and a nice guy, and was a breath of fresh air for so many. When he made it into cabinet after some time as a parliamentary secretary, it was again in the role of someone who was there to fix things, this time taking over the Veterans Affairs portfolio after Julian Fantino had managed to earn the enmity of pretty much the entire veteran community across the country. (Then again, being a duotronic android will probably do that when you’re in a job that requires a great deal of empathy). O’Toole came in and immediately started to turn things around – well, as much as is possible in a department with a sclerotic culture (and I’ve heard things from some of the Liberals currently on that file about the way that the department runs and it’s a bit shocking).

So with this in mind, it’s actually not surprising that O’Toole would be considered a fairly reasonable choice for the Conservative leadership. He has some cred and some experience (but not so much that he’s carrying the legacy of the whole of the Harper years on his back), and his French is reputedly decent (but not bilingual, though he has some time yet to get it up there). And he’s avoided some of the missteps that dog certain other leadership candidates like Kellie Leitch, and his story is probably more compelling as a narrative than some of the others, nor is he a more marginal figure (like Michael Chong, who put himself on his party’s fringe by being reasonable more often than not). So it’s possible. We’ll have to see if he does throw his hat in the ring, and whether someone like Peter MacKay does throw his hat into the ring (though it’s starting to feel less likely the longer he waits, not to mention that I have a hard time understanding why he would be the frontrunner considering his own history). But if this is going to be a race without any big stars, then O’Toole may have a surprising resilience.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Begrudging a day off

Posted on by

There was a good piece in Policy Options yesterday from Jennifer Ditchburn which talked about the problem of “vacation shaming” politicians, in light of Justin Trudeau making his first public statements about the Aaron Driver case almost a week after it happened, as part of Trudeau’s Atlantic Canada tour. There is a problem with expecting the PM to be on call for cameras at a moment’s notice, as the Conservatives certainly seem to be demanding, decrying his absence when bad economic numbers came down a few weeks ago, or when the Driver incident happened. But relevant, competent ministers stood up when those things happened, and it’s not like the Prime Minister could have said or done anything that would have added to the situation other than to be the face of it, when he’s made it clear that his is a government by cabinet, and that means that the responsible ministers get to be the ones that get in front of the cameras when things in their bailiwick happen, and guess what – they did.

Ditchburn also makes the very apt points that for everyone who says that they want better work-life balance, especially for MPs, demanding that they be every present fro the media goes counter to that desire, particularly when we badmouth them for being open about taking a day or a week off. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the day off he took during the visit to Japan was outsized and ridiculous, and we’re seeing much the same thing here, compounded with the beating of breasts over the international coverage that people catching a glimpse of said PM with his shirt off. It’s excessive and it’s only fouling the well. Politics is close to being a 24/7 job as it is, and that can be a problem for all sorts of reasons (high divorce rate among politicians being a chief one), and it becomes just one more outlet for cheap outrage when we demand that our politicians now must forgo vacations, as well as forgo the bulk of their salary, pensions and benefits, and expenditures, as so many clueless wannabe pundits will declare over social media. Let’s grow up about our expectations and not begrudge them a vacation or a day off. We’re better than that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Counter-radicalism and reality checks

Posted on by

In the wake of the Aaron Driver near-miss last week, public safety minister Ralph Goodale is set to announce that the government is moving ahead with a counter-radicalization programme, but it looks like the details are still a little ways out. That said, Goodale has been pretty frank that our current counter-radicalisation programmes have little coherence and that’s what he aims to fix over the course of this year. And while we get the musings about what kind of leader Trudeau will be in the face of terrorism, we get his former foreign policy advisor Roland Paris reminding us of what he has done to date (which is not nothing, as his critics have stated). More importantly, however, we need to remind ourselves of the reality of the situation, and for that, I would turn your attention to Stephanie Carvin’s piece in this weekend’s Globe and Mail, which explains why counter-terrorism and counter-radicalism is not as easy as you might think, and provides a good reality check for the kinds of rhetoric out there, and why saying things like “connecting the dots” isn’t actually helpful to any kind of conversation around the subject.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Shirtless panic

Posted on by

Photos of our prime minister, shirtless and on vacation, continues to make people lose their minds. A week later, and it remains an item of discussion – or derision – and feeds this particular faux cynicism about media coverage, despite the fact that it clearly is not what is topping the headlines. The fact that other countries mention it triggers our inherent Canadian desire to go “Look! Other countries are talking about us!” and we report that, and suddenly it’s “all anyone can talk about” when clearly it’s not the case. And then come the lame attacks based on it, like the latest round of Conservative ads, where they accuse the media of focusing on Shirtless!Trudeau instead of the economy.

https://twitter.com/CPC_HQ/status/762742848445943808

https://twitter.com/CPC_HQ/status/762779942627053568

The problem with that narrative is that the economic news was clearly the headline for the days in which those numbers got released, but hey, so long as we can try and keep up this narrative that the PM is a selfie-obsessed pretty boy who’s too stupid to manage the economy, the more we think it’ll do something to bolster our own numbers (never mind that being effectively leaderless is not helping the poll numbers of either opposition party).

So with that in mind, here’s Jen Gerson telling everyone to relax about Shirtless!Trudeau because it’s August, we’re all on vacation anyway, and that this isn’t just about Trudeau but about the sea change in tone that has taken place in this country over the past year, and that people need to lighten up.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Send in the narcissistic clowns

Posted on by

It happened on Thursday, but I’m still fuming about it. Power & Politics interviewed a couple of would-be Senate candidates based solely on what I’m guessing is the sheer power of their narcissism, and not once was the actual Senate itself brought up for discussion. It was pretty much inevitable that this would happen – the moment the government announced that they would allow their advisory committee to allow self-applicants into the process, you were guaranteed to find a bunch of people who felt that somehow they had the right stuff to be a senator, and lo and behold, these people have been making themselves known, like the one guy from PEI who is going around and door knocking to get people to sign a petition about how swell he would be as a senator, never mind that a) it’s not how this works, and b) if he’s so keen about knocking on doors, maybe he should seek a party nomination to run to be an MP. Just maybe. Or the woman in Nova Scotia who thinks that just because she’s championed a couple of petitions to twin highways that she has the right stuff to be in the Senate. Never mind that neither of them have any particular policy expertise that they want to bring to the job. Never mind that both of these clowns are way too young to even be contemplating a position that is generally seen as a way that allows people who have excelled in their fields to contribute to public service as their careers are winding down. They feel that because they’re honest and have integrity (and really, who doesn’t think that they do), that makes them good material for the Senate. Okay, then.

What burns me the most, however, is the way that the media treats the narcissistic clowns and uses this as some kind of human interest story rather than to demonstrate that the Senate is actually pretty serious business. Not once were these wannabes asked what they think the Senate actually does, and how exactly they plan to contribute to a chamber that is full of subject-matter experts. None of them were asked if they know how the legislative process works, though they seemed to think that they had ample time for on-the-job training (and to a certain extent yes, that may be the case, but generally you would have some kind of other expertise going into this rather than you think you’ve got a good character). And by treating the Senate seriously in that you’re not asking people who think they should populate it about the chamber itself, it betrays the fact that We The Media seem to have learned nothing about it despite all the stories about it over the past two or three years, from the ClusterDuff fiasco to the solid debates that were had over the assisted dying bill. And that’s really sad, because you would have hoped that we would have learned something about how interesting and vital a place it is in our democratic process, but no, we remain fixated on spending scandals (for whose coverage and pearl-clutching was hugely out or proportion to what had actually taken place for most senators), and not on the actual work of the chamber, and we are all poorer for it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Gowns for influence

Posted on by

The celebrity status of Sophie Grégoire Trudeau gained some internal clarity within government circles as new ethics rules were published with regards to her as it pertains to gifts and loans of the clothes and jewellery she wears. As a woman with a certain profile, Grégoire Trudeau has done the politic thing to do and showcase Canadian designers, because we all know that she would immediately be subject to criticism if she didn’t. And when a person of a certain profile makes that kind of decision about showcasing designers, she tends to be presented with dresses, outfits, and jewellery to showcase at different high-profile events – often for loan, but occasionally as a gift as thanks for the exposure she gives those designers, so it makes sense that there are some rules around it, as an extension of the fact that her husband is a public office holder. I get it.

What I do not get is this notion that somehow accepting the loan or rental of a gown, outfit or piece of jewellery is going to somehow corrupt the ethics of the government of the day and put them in some kind of impossible conflict of interest. And yet, here we are, once again quoting Duff Conacher, head of the Parliamentary Thought Police, giving credence to this kind of lunacy:

“In terms of personal ethics she shouldn’t be accepting these gifts. She should decide, and she will likely decide, to wear Canadian designers quite a bit to showcase them as others have … [but she should] not be tainted with even the appearance that’s she’s up for sale and happy to receive free gifts when she can afford to buy her own clothes and jewelry.”

Are. You. Serious? Aside from the fact that such a shopping habit would quickly become very expensive and become the subject of all manner of other gossip pieces (and let’s face it – the PM’s salary isn’t that generous, no matter what you may think), fashion is an industry that is not static. It’s very difficult to buy a few pieces and then just recycle them endlessly while you’re in the public eye and being seen to promote designers. That invites its own kind of damning criticism. But how, pray tell, is she “up for sale?” What influence does she wield that this is some kind of ethical dilemma for the operation of the government? She’s promoting the industry, and she is circumscribed from accepting items over $1000 (which are surrendered to the Crown collection unless she chooses to purchase them), and gifts over $200 are disclosed, which is fine. But “up for sale”? Seriously? Do you think they’re seriously going to ask her husband to send along subsidy cheques? Then again, this is from the mind of someone so paranoid that he thinks that $1500 can buy influence in government, and that capping donations at $100 will somehow fix the system rather than drive financing to less reputable channels (as it did in Quebec, which is the model he curiously admires). The disclosure rules are sensible. Let’s leave it at that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Beware blinkered history

Posted on by

There is always a danger in trying to look for lessons from history when you do so selectively. This is the case with a column by William Watson in today’s Ottawa Citizen. Watson – an economics professor at McGill and not a parliamentary observer, it should be noted – dug through the 1917 Hansard to look over the debates on bringing in income tax (remember, this was the “temporary” wartime measure that was introduced and then eventually became a permanent thing), and discovered that lo, the debate was so much more serious then and nothing like things are today, ergo Parliament was better in 1917 than it is today.

And then I bashed my head against my desk for a while.

This is what happens when you take a look at a narrow slice of history without actually looking at the broader context or picture. It’s easy to take a single debate and declare a golden age because hey, the government of the day was giving complex answers to complex questions, but that’s not to say that there weren’t antics that took place. Remember that this was not far removed from the days when MPs would light firecrackers and play musical instruments to disrupt the other side during debate. Hell, I was speaking to a reporter who was in the Gallery during WWII, and she said that there was far less professionalism in those days, and MPs who got bored would often break into song during debate. This was also the era before TV, before the proceedings were recorded in audio or video and able to be checked, so we don’t know what the transcriptionists missed. It was also an era where I’m sure that time limits for questions and answers were looser than they are now, and where MPs weren’t playing up for the cameras. Does that make it better? Maybe, maybe not. Parliament was also composed entirely of white men, mostly of a professional background – does that make things any better? You tell me. Parliament had very different responsibilities in those days as well, and government was much, much smaller. Patronage ruled the day, and government was more involved in direct hires of the civil service rather than it being arm’s length. Is this something we want to go back to? Watson kind of shrugs this important distinction off because they had more meaningful exchanges about income tax.

Declaring simply that Parliament was composed of “intelligent, informed adults” in 1917, and the implication that it is not so today, is a grossly blinkered view of history and of civics. I will be the first to tell you that the state of debate today is pretty abysmal when it mostly consists of people reading statements into the record, talking past one another, but that doesn’t mean that MPs aren’t intelligent or informed. Frankly, it seems like Watson is longing for the days of the old boys’ club if you read some of his nostalgic commentary. I’m not sure that’s proof that things were better then, and it certainly should be a caution about taking a blinkered view of history.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Segal’s misplaced demand

Posted on by

Oh, Hugh Segal. While I can understand your concern for your former colleagues, and that there were problems around due process for the trio of formerly suspended senators, I have to say that your demand for a formal apology from the Senate to Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau seems a bit…off-base. The three were suspended in large part because of the ill repute that they brought to the Senate, and just because the Crown abandoned charges against two of them in the wake of Duffy’s acquittal, nobody is saying that none of them did anything wrong. A finding that Duffy’s actions were not criminal is far from finding that there was no wrong that had been done – the Senate’s own rules were broken, even in Donald Bayne managed to convince a judge that the rules were vague. Segal is also off-base when he says that the Senate should have spent their energies fixing those rules instead of throwing people under the bus – in fact, the Senate has been working on updating their rules for years, even before the Duffy expenses were brought to light, and that trial hastened the reform process that had already been underway. Saying that they are owed back pay and again forgets that they brought disrepute onto the institution, and were punished for it within the rules of the Senate. Yes, as stated, there were problems with the due process of it, but rules were broken. Expenses were claimed when they should not have been. Calendars were altered, meetings were claimed that did not happen. Official addresses were made where senators did not live. These facts are not really in dispute, and the Senate had an obligation to do something about it, if not for any other reason than to be shown to be addressing the problems that were addressed rather than letting them slide and opening themselves up to even more criticism about letting people get away with it just because they’re senators. Was it embarrassing for everyone involved? Yes. Is it “torture” to still demand that Duffy repay expenses that were proven to have broken the rules? Hardly. Is it the Senate’s fault that the RMCP and the Crown didn’t do a thorough enough job? Not really. In light of all of this, I find Segal’s insistence on apologies to be hard to swallow.

Continue reading →