Tag Archives: Nominations

Roundup: From a bad bill to a useless one

Posted on by

Rona Ambrose’s judicial training bill looks like it may have some life left in it, as Independent Senator Pierre Dalphond himself a former judge, has started making deals and compromises to see the bill go ahead in an amended form. Working both with the bill’s Senate sponsor and one of its critics, Dalphond has come up with an amended version of the bill which should address most of its critics, and apparently got a procedural deal passed in the Senate as a whole, which gave instruction for the legal and constitutional affairs committee to hold a special session next week to deal with the bill, outside of the normal process where it would be dealing with government business (which is the whole reason the bill hasn’t gone anywhere – the committee is loaded with government bills, which Senate rules state needs to take precedence).

The amendments would ensure that a judicial appointee must commit to sexual assault law training as designed by the Canadian Judicial Council, and administered by the National Judicial Institute – moves that address many of the concerns around judicial independence (which likely would have rendered the bill unconstitutional), and would have created conflicts of interest where the bill as it stands would demand that future judges need to be trained by sexual assault survivors groups – the same groups that would normally be called upon to be expert witnesses in trials. This help to address other concerns about the bill, such as access for lawyers who aren’t in urban centres, or that requiring training before application would tip off coworkers to those lawyers that they were applying for a position on the bench. I remain curious what other objections the Canadian Judicial Council still has about the bill, but I guess we’ll find out next week when they will likely appear at the committee.

This all having been said, we need to remember that the Canadian Judicial Council has been seized with this issue for a few years now and has been ensuring that there is better training for judges, which is as it should be – the system is already working. That means that Ambrose’s bill is really, if amended, just another bit of feel-good legislation that MPs keep burdening the Order Paper with. (Note that as it stands, the bill is likely unconstitutional and actually a very bad bill despite its good intentions). And as with so many feel-good bills, it takes up all of the space in the media for little actual benefit, but that’s politics these days, unfortunately.

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1132389428910088192

Continue reading →

Roundup: A few straw men and some rhetoric about immigration

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer gave another one of his “economic vision” speeches yesterday, this time on the subject of immigration policy. And while it was all “yay economic immigrants,” there were still a few questionable pronouncements throughout. It should be pointed out that off the top, he made a big deal about how they don’t want racists or xenophobes in the party (in apparently contradiction to the succour they gave avowed racists when they thought they could use them to paint the Liberals as the “real” intolerant party), and invoked his belief that we’re all God’s children so nobody is inferior regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation, and if they didn’t like that, the door was that way. So there’s that.

As for the policies, they were not only deficient when it comes to detail, but there was some of his usual problems of straw man arguments and hollow promises. For example, he repeated his usual argument that privately sponsored refugees do better than government-sponsored ones, but nobody is disputing that, and nobody is arguing against private sponsorship, but there is a place for government sponsorship which has to do with the most vulnerable who need more timely relocation and who may not have private sponsorship lined up. And yet, it’s part of his dichotomy about private groups being better than government. He also vowed to stop irregular border crossings, and good luck with that, because it’s always going to happen, and unless he can also stop Donald Trump from threatening immigrants and refugees in his own country, it’s not going to stem the flow coming into Canada irregularly – it’ll just push them to more dangerous crossings. He also didn’t stop the usual rhetoric that pits immigrants against asylum seekers that this kind of vow just exacerbates, so that’s not exactly turning over a new leaf. He also promised that economic migrants would get their credentials recognised in Canada faster, but good luck with that because credentials recognition is a provincial responsibility, and the federal government has precious few levers there, and successive federal governments have tried to deal with this situation in the past and not had much success, ensuring that his promise is empty. But what was perhaps most frustrating was his talk about intake levels – and while he took a dig at Maxime Bernier for calling on them to be reduced, he also said that the level should change every year based on “Canada’s best interests,” which is a giant loophole for that same kind of talk about reducing levels for bogus reasons.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1133506929442131971

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1133508491438624769

Meanwhile, the IRB says they need more funding if they’re going to tackle the asylum claimant backlog (which again, they inherited from the Conservative government) rather than just stabilize growth, which is what they’re projecting currently – but the real kicker here is that they’re still relying on faxes and paper copies rather than emails or electronic files, because they can’t share information effectively with CBSA, which should boggle the mind. And this problem was identified a decade ago (as was pointed out by Liberal MP Alexandra Mendès at Public Accounts), and it’s still a problem. I’ve talked to immigration and refugee lawyers who say that it’s a huge frustration for them that until recently, they couldn’t even schedule hearings by email. The IRB say they’re seized with the issue, but cripes, this should be embarrassing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Independence and admissions of political ignorance

Posted on by

Somewhat unexpectedly, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott each announced that they would be running as independents in the next election, eschewing the Green Party (even after Elizabeth May said that she would even step aside as leader if Wilson-Raybould was interested in the job). Both of them made speeches that were variations of the same theme – that they want to “do politics differently,” that they were tired of parties, and wanted “non-partisan” ideas and to do things by “consensus” – all of which betrayed an ongoing naiveté and lack of understanding about Responsible Government and Westminster parliaments. Talking about “cooperation” and “non-partisan” ideas, or “consensus” sounds good, but it doesn’t understand how things actually get done. Partisanship when done properly (as in, not devolved into tribalism) is about having competing ideas – which is a good thing. Add to that, “consensus” may work in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut where you have small assemblies and a cultural predisposition to it, but it’s not the same in the House of Commons with 338 MPs – not to mention that consensus demolishes the ability to hold governments to account. When everyone is responsible, then no one is accountable. And sure, the pair might decry that there is “too much power in the centre,” but I’ve said time and again that the cause and solution of centralised power in our parliament is about the way in which we choose leaders, and done in a way that gives them an imaginary “democratic mandate” that they then abuse. Having more independent MPs won’t change that – assuming that they can get re-elected on their own. (Celina Caesar-Chavannes, incidentally, said that their speeches were “inspiring” and she too is now considering running again as an independent after previously saying she planned to bow out of elected political life).

In hot takes, Andrew MacDougall assesses what kind of stars would need to line up for either Philpott or Wilson-Raybould to win as independents, with Éric Grenier crunching the numbers of past independent MP victories. Chantal Hébert considers the long-game implications for the decision to run as independents, and how it lines them up for future moves or influence if the next election results in a hung parliament. Paul Wells looks to both history and Jerry Macguire to look at the lessons that this whole quixotic independent run amounts to, and how the lessons for other MPs may just be the opposite of what Philpott and Wilson-Raybould intend.

Meanwhile in Alberta, the UCP’s House Leader wants to ban floor-crossing in the legislature, which is complete patent nonsense and an affront to our Westminster system of government. Our system is predicated on how we elect individual MPs/MLAs as individuals, not as party ciphers – no matter what your calculus is in the voting booth. That’s why we don’t elect party lists or the likes. If the UCP can’t understand that, for as much as they like to talk a big game about respecting democracy and traditions, then it shows how craven they really are. All this move does is demonstrate that they view their own party members to be drones for the leader, at which point you may as well replace them all with battle droids and be done with it.

A reminder to Philpott, Wilson-Raybould, and Nixon – all of you may want to read my book in order to get a proper grasp of how Westminster democracies actually work.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Alberta sends the wrong (price) signals

Posted on by

It was Throne Speech day in Alberta, and sure enough, it contained an ambitious laundry list of upcoming legislation designed to undo much of what the NDP had put into place as a means of “restoring” the mythical Alberta Advantage. (Full speech here). Shortly thereafter, the promised Bill 1 to repeal the province’s carbon levy was introduced – pretty much guaranteeing that the federal carbon price will be imposed once the bill is enacted. It doesn’t repeal all of the carbon prices in the province, however – it merely shifts them to the largest polluters, which does nothing about the demand side of carbon consumption, and won’t shift consumer behaviours, nor will it do enough for those large emitters, because for all of Kenney’s talk about looking to protect the energy sector, he just shifted the bulk of the burden onto them. (It also won’t really help consumers because poorer households will be worse off now).

Meanwhile, here’s Andrew Leach to explain why Kenney’s repeal of the carbon price is handing a rhetorical victory to Ontario, and why the reliance on magical technology from the future to reduce emissions won’t happen if there aren’t proper price signals to spur its development.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A trio of justice issues

Posted on by

There were three major law-related stories in the news yesterday, starting with the announcement that Supreme Court of Canada Justice Clement Gascon has opted to retire early, citing “personal and family reasons.” This was quickly followed by Justin Trudeau announcing that a replacement process would be launched, and would again be headed by Kim Campbell, while the Conservatives followed a few hours later with a demand that this process not go ahead until the leak from the previous process was investigated (though the Privacy Commissioner is already on that case). The thing to remember of course is that there is something of a deadline here, being the election, and it’s more than possible that the Conservatives want this delayed so that they have the possibility of naming the next judge if they should happen to form government in October. For what it’s worth.

The second story was that of the carbon tax reference at the Ontario Court of Appeal, which was live-streamed for the first time in its history. The province’s argument apparently is that if the federal government is allowed to impose a carbon tax, that they’ll start intruding into other areas of provincial jurisdiction, which is…dubious. And it sounds like the judges weren’t having much of that line of reasoning either.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1117808109802663938

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1117809485395816451

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1117811576940060673

The third law story of the day was the revelation that the directive around civil litigation involving Indigenous people that Jody Wilson-Raybould instituted as one of her last acts as justice minister has been fiercely contested within the department because it many cases, it amounts to litigating badly and not actually getting the courts to resolve the legal questions that are at issue, which they argue doesn’t actually help reconciliation because you’re not dealing with underlying issues that require resolution. The piece also noted the frequent and direct political interference that Wilson-Raybould exerted on civil litigation (which she can do as Attorney General, unlike the arm’s length nature of criminal prosecutions), sometimes undermining the arguments that Crown attorneys were trying to advance in the middle of cases. It’s fascinating reading and yet more insight into what was going on with Wilson-Raybould in the lead up to her being shuffled.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Missing the mark on encouraging participation

Posted on by

The House of Commons’ status of women committee tabled a report this week that is about getting more women into politics? The problem? That all of its recommendations are focused on what the government can do, when it’s not their job. Rather, it’s the job of political parties, and only some of them take it seriously. Add to that, the one recommendation that people tend to focus on — that the federal government give some manner of financial compensation to parties who recruit more women candidates — is bad policy because it simply rewards parties for putting women candidates in unwinnable ridings and lets them claim their percentages. The Conservatives had their own dissenting report as well, which focused on their notion of women running on “merit” rather than quotas (because there’s apparently no tokenism in their party), and wanted more focus on women who bully and discourage other women in politics. (The NDP’s own dissent focused on some of the language of the recommendations, and more funding for women’s groups, childcare, and so on).

And I have to stress that this is a party issue, not a government issue. Parties are the ones who set the rules for their nomination contests, and are responsible for recruiting their own candidates, and even more to the point, these should be grassroots efforts rather than coming on high from party headquarters. That means mobilising party members at the ground level to find and recruit more women, and to convince them to run. The Liberals have had success with this — they instituted a programme of getting people to find women in their communities and then asking them several times to run, because they know the research that shows that while a man would likely accept on the first request, women can take something like seven times being asked before they will accept to run. Overcoming that socialised reluctance is a big part of it, and where the focus needs to lie — on top of the parties making their nomination rules more clear (and less reliant on the “unwritten rules” as have been spoken of), and ensuring that things like childcare are being taken care of so that women can do things like door-knock and and canvas. None of this is something that the government can take care of, but the party grassroots needs to be aware of and work toward implementing.

It’s not just rules — it’s an ecosystem. Part of that is civics education, because we don’t teach students about things like nomination races and why they matter, and how to get involved. That’s one of the most fundamental parts of our system, and we don’t teach it. How do we expect more young women to get involved if we don’t tell them how? This is where the focus needs to lie if we’re to make any lasting change.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A list of demands

Posted on by

It was another day full of plot threads in the ongoing Double-Hyphen Affair and its associated fallout, and boy oh boy was there some overwrought rhetoric throughout the day. First up was the release of that memo that the Deputy Minister of Justice apparently wrote for PCO about DPA but was blocked by Wilson-Raybould from being delivered, and it outlined areas where SNC-Lavalin may still be able to bid on federal contracts if they did not get a DPA and was convicted. Wilson-Raybould claims she don’t recall blocking the release, and said that Michael Wernick should have taken her word that she considered it. (Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column adds this to the list of unresolved plot points in this Affair). Following this was the Daughters of the Vote event, where a number of the attendees walked out on Andrew Scheer, and others stood up and turned their backs to Justin Trudeau in solidarity with Wilson-Raybould and Philpott. Trudeau also took a number of questions from the attendees, and many of them were not friendly. Before Question Period, Philpott and Wilson-Raybould scrummed on their way into the House of Commons, Philpott saying that trust was a two-way street, and Wilson-Raybould said that interference in a prosecution was “unconscionable,” echoing Trudeau’s words, and that she made the recording to protect herself from “danger.” And then came QP, which was largely 45-minutes of policing each other’s feminism. Because of course it was.

And then came the inevitable bombshell. It’s starting to feel like this is becoming a daily occurrence, this little game of tit-for-tat, where those anonymous senior Liberals leaked to both the Star and CBC that there had been weeks of negotiations between Trudeau’s office and Wilson-Raybould on what it would take for them to end their rift, and Wilson-Raybould had a list of demands, which included firing Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick (done), an apology of some sort, and assurances that David Lametti would be instructed not to override the Director of Public Prosecutions on the SNC-Lavalin file – and it’s this one that’s pretty problematic, because it sounds an awful lot like she wants the prime minister to interfere in the decision of the Attorney General on an ongoing prosecution. One might say it’s political pressure – especially given the continued media leaks and dribbling of information. If these negotiations are true, it could explain why it took Trudeau so long to come to the decision to oust them, but even then, it all starts to feel like a bit of a bad play where the threat is brand damage, and a calculation that it’s survivable in the face of other options. I guess we’ll see what the rebuttal to this will be. And the subsequent rebuttal. And so on.

Chantal Hébert notes that wherever Wilson-Raybould and Philpott wind up, they would find that most other parties have their own internal divisions as well. Emmett Macfarlane thinks that if the decent people in the PMO and among the Liberal caucus had simply exercised some self-reflection, the expulsions would not have been necessary. Sarmishta Subramanian looks at some of the odd media narratives that have emerged throughout this whole Affair, where some cases see the media doing the spin for the parties without them even bothering to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The caucus question

Posted on by

The question of the future of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott in the Liberal caucus is a very live question as sentiment seems to be turning against them – though one imagines that Wilson-Raybould’s ouster is probably of bigger concern to most Liberals given the revelation of the tape she made of her conversation with Michael Wernick. Apparently, the various caucus chairs have been meeting, and pushing for an emergency caucus meeting before the regularly scheduled Wednesday meeting to try and resolve the issue before then. Some of them want a declaration from the pair that they support the leader before they will consider letting them stay – and Wilson-Raybould would not give that when scrummed after QP yesterday, saying she believes in the party and what it stands for, but would not give any assurances about the leader. (She also scoffed at the idea of resigning, insisting that she was doing the best job she could). Of course, the fact that she made the secret recording means that she has broken the trust of colleagues, even though she has made the excuse that Wernick was neither a member of caucus, nor her client. (I would add that it doesn’t explain her conduct during that call, which contained a number of irregularities, leading questions and directed conversation in search of quotes). There are questions still about Philpott, and where she will position herself since the release of the tape, and some Liberals have suggested that perhaps she was “used” by Wilson-Raybould. (And one has to wonder if the tape would change her own notions about her support for Wilson-Raybould).

I have to say that I’m struggling on the question of whether or not Wilson-Raybould should remain in caucus, because while I believe there is room for dissent, and even for MPs who don’t support the leader – because it’s a gods damned political party and not a personality cult – I also find that the tape causes me a great deal of concern for the reasons articulated above, as do the opacity of her motivations for behaving in the way she has, particularly around the tactical use of silence on something that you would think she’s be pulling the fire alarm over if it was what she is hinting. Too many things don’t add up, which is both distressing and exhausting for someone trying to understand what is going on. I get that there are Liberals with battle scars who don’t want a replay of the Chrétien-Martin years (or the Dion-Ignatieff wars, or even Turner-Trudeau Senior if you want to go that far back), and there is the worry that Wilson-Raybould’s presence in caucus will be a potential source of internecine warfare that Liberals apparently excel at, or that Trudeau should be putting some metaphorical heads on spikes to reassert his dominance, or any of that, but again, this is a political party, not a personality cult. This is not and should not be Trudeau’s party, but there is a live question about the damage she has done to the party and its chances in the election given the way that this has rolled out, and members of caucus will need to consider that. It’s not an easy task, and they should think carefully, because expelling those two could create bigger narrative problems for them in the longer term. But it’s also not up to me to decide (and I’m not one of those journalists who enforces caucus loyalty), so I await to see what everyone in the caucus room decides.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives decided that their next pressure tactic would be for Pierre Poilievre to “filibuster” the budget debate – err, except it’s not really a filibuster because it can only take place during the time allotted for government orders, and the Standing Orders limit the budget debate to a maximum of four days, those days being at the government’s choosing. So essentially, Poilievre is holding himself hostage, and by him taking up all of the speaking time over those four allotted days, he’s essentially ensuring that nobody else has to prepare a speech of their own, so all of the MPs on House duty can simply spend their time doing paperwork at their desks while he carries on. So…I’m not sure what exactly the Conservatives are hoping to accomplish. It’s another ill-conceived move by a caucus who mistakes tactics for strategy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Competing leaks

Posted on by

And now we’re into competing leaks. In the Globe and Mail, we got another leak from a “mysterious” source that posited that Jody Wilson-Raybould was trying to elevate Justice Glenn Joyal to the Supreme Court of Canada because she apparently felt the LGBT community wouldn’t be receptive to presumptive heir Justice Richard Wagner (now the Chief Justice) for what I assume was a trumped up reading of his not inviting LGBT groups to present at the Supreme Court in the Trinity Western case (which is pretty absurd), and because she wanted Joyal’s successor at the Court of Queen’s Bench to be a Métis judge. In other words, it was trying to burnish Wilson-Raybould’s progressive credentials in light of the prior leaks attempting to make her look more of a social conservative (as though one didn’t need to look too hard at her record to see signs of it). Because hey, why not keep up leaks that damage the perceptions around Supreme Court of Canada appointments? Way to go, team! (And before anyone gets too self-righteous, don’t forget that in 2014, Stephen Harper leaked the six names he was considering when he named Justice Marc Nadon to the bench, and putting words in the mouths of the MPs who served on the “selection” committee at the time, knowing full well that they couldn’t respond).

And then come the denials. Wilson-Raybould and PMO each denied that they were the source of any of the leaks, and Wilson-Raybould (who submitted her additional materials to the justice committee on Tuesday afternoon) said there should be an investigation into who was leaking these Supreme Court deliberations. Lisa Raitt tried to insist that it should be the Federal Judicial Affairs Commissioner who should investigate, and he quickly wrote back with a giant nope, citing that he has no mandate to do any such investigations. Which leaves us with who for an investigation? The RCMP? Yet another demand for a public inquiry? Our very own Goolding Inquiry? Won’t that be fun?

And with all of this going on, in swoops Neil Macdonald to remind us that everyone in the media gets “used” by leakers all the time, and hey, the preponderance of leaks is a sign that journalists are doing their jobs because they are competing to do the best job. There is certainly a mercenary aspect to it all, not to mention some status-seeking, but I’m not sure he’s entirely wrong.

Continue reading →

Roundup: We join you now from West Block…

Posted on by

And so, the Big Move is complete, and the House of Commons has settled into its new home for the time being. Many MPs were still trying to find their way around the new building, going through wrong doors, coping with more cramped quarters, but they did make some history with the first instances of simultaneous interpretation of Cree in the Chamber thanks to Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette. The changes were all cosmetic as the partisan rhetoric on both sides largely remained the same dichotomy of pabulum from the Liberals, and lies from the Conservatives.

Just what kinds of falsehoods were being peddled? For one, the Conservatives leaned heavily on the notion that the Liberals had “raised taxes” on most Canadians, which isn’t actually true – it’s torque that comes from a Fraser Institute report that considers increased CPP contribution taxes (they’re not), and similarly calls the cancellation of non-refundable boutique tax credits in favour of the (non-taxable) Canada Child Benefit to be “tax increases.” Scheer lied that the government the government’s “own documents” show that they plan to raise the carbon tax to $300/tonne, which is also false, and as Alex Ballingall debunks here, it’s based on redacted documents that point out that higher prices will be needed to meet emissions targets, but don’t say that they are actually planning to do so. And Michelle Rempel also tried to make partisan hay of the fact that the government’s yearly quota of applications for family reunification immigration spaces was open for the space of eleven minutes before it maxed out and tried to equate this as somehow being the fault of asylum seekers who cross the border irregularly – another complete falsehood that Althia rage debunks here, and more to the point, Rempel is engaged in concern trolling – her own government did not prioritize this immigration stream and limited to 5000 cases per year while the Liberals increased it to 20,000. (They also tried to make the small number of spaces “fairer” by attempting to do it on a lottery system rather than one where high-priced immigration lawyers were able to get their files in faster, but that lottery system was abandoned this year). So yeah, the House was mired in bullshit today, but would the government refute most of this on the record? Not really – we got plenty of bland talking points instead that allowed most of these distortions to remain on the record. Slow clap there, Liberals.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert enumerates the government’s many self-inflicted wounds as the new sitting gets underway. John Ivison notes the same old fear and division being peddled by both sides despite the new digs. Paul Wells makes us feel bad for thinking that things might be different in the new locale. I was on Kitchener Today yesterday to talk about John McCallum, China, and the return of the House of Commons.

Continue reading →