Tag Archives: Nominations

Roundup: Danielle Smith’s problematic tales

Posted on by

The Danielle Smith/Wildrose drama continued yesterday, as details about her decision to defect to the ruling Progressive Conservatives started spilling out, and Smith herself started giving interviews. Interviews that, well, didn’t offer a whole lot of clarity to the issues at hand. The shift in tone from when two of her former MLAs crossed the floor just weeks ago, the statements about the party culture of the PCs, about leadership changes not being the answer – all blown out of the water as Smith equivocated about all of it. There were some tantalizing hints, however, in some of what she said, talking about how the party was already self-destructing, as the grassroots membership voted against policies that would have moved them into the social mainstream rather than keeping them squarely as a protest movement of cranks and what Heather Mallick dubs “angry pyjamas.” As a leader who was increasingly disconnected from her party, she had choices of her own to make. Then comes in revelations about talks with the centrist Alberta Party to merge – in Smith’s estimation to help get an urban base for a rural protest party – and that Preston Manning had a hand in convincing the other Wildrose MLAs to cross the floor. It’s incredible to read, but I still find myself unmoved by this notion that it’s a kind of “reunification,” and that it’s all about the conservative movement as a whole. The problem with that is that it’s hard to consider the PC party as conservatives to a great extent because they’re more populists than anything, and that’s what allows them to remain as amorphous as they are and keep reshaping themselves to allow the One Party State™ to continue carrying on. That it merely absorbs the more strident fiscal conservatism of the Wildrose members is merely a sign of the times. By that same token, the federal Conservatives are also more populists than they are conservatives, if you judge by their fiscal policies, so it’s hard for me to swallow this narrative around the merger. It’s also hard to see how nine MLAs would cross out of the sake of careerism, but again, I go back to Smith’s comment about the party in a state of self-destruction. I’m sure more stories will continue to tumble out, but it’s a lot to try to wrap your head around. Kathleen Petty offers some thoughts, while Jen Gerson pitches for the leadership of the merged party – in 2042.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another unhappy premier

Posted on by

He still won’t meet with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, dropping by Toronto for a meeting with new mayor John Tory on Thursday instead, and yesterday, Stephen Harper met with Paul Davis, the new premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. That meeting, however, did not go happily as the premier is accusing the PM of changing the rules unilaterally regarding their agreed-upon compensation for fish processing losses under the EU trade agreement in such a way that the province will never see those funds. So, still trying to win the province over, I see. Meanwhile, PostMedia imagines how the conversation between Harper and Wynne will go when it eventually does happen, and Paul Wells has some thoughts on the affair as well:

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/543599417958629376

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/543599850051620864

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/543600261449936896

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/543600752879763456

Continue reading →

Roundup: Backtracking and disowning

Posted on by

Having pretty much run out the parliamentary calendar for the year, Stephen Harper started dropping bombshells yesterday – some obvious, some subtle – as he answered questions in the Commons. The first was the more obvious one, that those long-promised oil and gas emissions regulations weren’t going to come anytime soon because the Americans weren’t onboard with them, and apparently it would be crazy – crazy! – to get a head start on them. It wasn’t a complete surprise, given that the Conservatives have mentioned needing a continental approach before, but the blanket refusal, wrapped up in this kind of “aww, shucks, I’m as disappointed as you guys – really!” approach, was what was new (and Paul Wells digs into that here). The other, more subtle bombshell, was Harper disowning the New Veterans Charter as he defended Julian Fantino’s disastrous handling of the Veterans Affairs file yesterday. As he was questioned about the government lawyers going to court to say that the “sacred obligation” to veterans was just political rhetoric, Harper shrugged it off saying that the New Veterans Charter at the centre of the legal dispute, which was implemented by his own government, was a “Liberal programme.” Nobody picked up on the significance of this disavowal during the remainder of QP enough to come back about it, and Harper won’t be in QP tomorrow either (nor will Trudeau or Mulcair for that fact), so there won’t be the ability to press him about just what he meant by it. And that’s probably how he wants it too as Parliament prepares to rise for the Christmas break.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A largely fictitious distinction

Posted on by

While the battle over what’s happening at Veterans Affairs continues to rage, we are continually reassured by both the Prime Minister and the Original Series duotronic computer system known as Julian Fantino that we shouldn’t worry – that any cuts that have been made are all “back office” bureaucrats, and that front-line services haven’t been affected. Really! And while the example of cutting 12 photocopy clerks by moving to digitised medical records may be an example of those “back office” cuts, we should stop kidding ourselves – there is no neat dividing line between what is a front-line service position and a back-office bureaucrat because it’s the job of those bureaucrats to process the work of the front-line providers. If anything, this notion that back-office positions are being eliminated means anything, it’s that it forces more front-line workers to do the processing work themselves, essentially increasing their workload and making them less able to help veterans because they’re the ones busy processing the paperwork rather than focusing on the service aspect. Using the excuse of it being “back office” is largely a fictional distinction made for the sake of optics – but then again, that is the way that this government likes to operate, by photo op and announcement rather than by actual results, so this really should surprise nobody.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wynne questions the prostitution law

Posted on by

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has announced that she has grave concerns about the anti-prostitution bill, which came into effect on Saturday, and that she will ask her Attorney General for a legal opinion on the law so as to be sure that the province is not being asked to uphold an unconstitutional law, given the concerns that were outlined in the Bedford decision by the Supreme Court. It’s a fairly interesting challenge that Wynne is making, having a provincial government coming out against federal legislation in this sense, but as the province has the duty to enforce the Criminal Code, her asking for options so publicly is an interesting case. As Emmett Macfarlane notes, it’s also interesting that she didn’t directly ask the Ontario Court of Appeal for a reference and their opinion on the law, but that could still come once the Attorney General and her office have had time to weigh in. It probably won’t make Wynne any more popular in Harper’s eyes, and will be one more reason for him to avoid meeting with her, but it could also be the first shot in a Supreme Court challenge of the legislation, which could conceivably be much faster-tracked than it would be if we had to wait for a Charter challenge the traditional way, which could conceivably help save lives, going back to the thrust of the Bedford decision in the first place.

https://twitter.com/HisFeministMama/status/541696722196787200

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/541659937022414848

Continue reading →

Roundup: Doubling down on cognitive dissonance

Posted on by

With some of his trademarked clownish theatricality, Charlie Angus described his exasperation with We The Media for apparently getting the headlines wrong about the NDP’s promises around restoring the long-gun registry. Describing his reaction as having “banged his head on the table,” Angus tried to insist that no, they weren’t going to bring back the registry. Really! But they still plan to put in a system to track every gun, which is pretty much a registry, even if they don’t want to call it such. (The cognitive dissonance! It burns!). And while Angus and others try to double down on their senseless attempt at holding contradictory thoughts in their heads, it’s starting to look a lot like a facile attempt to please everyone – to play to their Quebec base (for whom the registry is a very big deal and tied to the École Polytechnique massacre), to keep their urban voters happy with their penchant for gun control, while trying to ensure that what few rural and northern voters that they have, who objected to the registry, aren’t similarly put out (and to ensure that they don’t have any other MPs rebel like Bruce Hyer did before they ousted him for standing up for his constituents wishes and thus going against party orthodoxy). It can’t really be done, certainly not how they’re describing, and yet here we are, pretending that their registry proposal isn’t really a registry, as though we’re idiots. It’s a nice try, but no.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Buttressing the Fantino problem

Posted on by

You may think that Julian Fantino’s days in cabinet are numbered. Tone deaf to his file and to the particular needs of veterans, for a government that has tried to make the military a point of pride, Fantino has pretty much been a robotic disaster on par with the reprogrammed Robot from the Lost in Space reboot film. But don’t think that will be enough to convince Stephen Harper to decide it’s time to shuffle the cabinet and oust Fantino. No – that would be a sign that he made a mistake, and of weakness, and well, that simply couldn’t be done. Instead, there has been a great deal of shuffling of the deck chairs – moving retired General Walt Natynczyk to head the department as Deputy Minister, and now the PMO’s director of media relations, Stephen Lecce, has been reassigned as Fantino’s chief of staff – at least on an interim basis. In other words, everything is being done to buttress Fantino from the outside, but short of completely reinstalling his duotronic databanks with a new personality matrix, I’m not sure that it will help. I will add that Leona Aglukkaq’s decision to spend Question Period yesterday reading a newspaper while serious questions were being asked about the food crisis in her own riding were being asked was also not good optics, but as of yet, there are no calls for her resignation, not that it would have any success either, as she is too much of a needed symbol in the cabinet for Harper to let her go for any reason short of leaving briefing binders within reach of the associates of biker gangs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Protection through body cams

Posted on by

One of those bizarre incidents that happens from time to time overtook the conversation last night as Conservative MP Peter Goldring put out a statement at the end of the day declaring that he wears a body-mounted camera to protect himself from people who would otherwise abuse their authority or hide behind a cloak of anonymity – making clear connections to the current harassment allegations on the Hill – and suggests that others do so. A few hours later, the PMO sent out a statement claiming that Goldring was having trouble sending a statement of his own, but that he retracted it because it was ill-thought, and that was that. While people have been poking fun at Goldring all night – and equally being horrified that he would basically accuse the complainants of making up the allegations in order to trap the accused MPs, apparently – much of Goldring’s obsession with body-mounted cameras has gone ignored. I interviewed Goldring a couple of months ago (paywalled) after he put out a different release calling for the RCMP to all be issued body-mounted cameras, talking about all of the cost savings in court time that would be a result because there was a visual record and not just a notebook written in pencil that police officers could change at will. Most of this stems from this 2011 arrest for failing to provide a breath sample, for which he was cleared in 2013, but Goldring is now promulgating a notion that police routinely lie, and that video evidence is the answer to everything. These harassment allegations against those two suspended MPs seem to have pushed Golding over the edge, it would seem. Goldring, incidentally, is not running in the next election.

https://twitter.com/laura_payton/status/537807683743940608

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/537825035529244672

Continue reading →

Roundup: An interim process

Posted on by

The Commons Board of Internal Economy met yesterday and adopted the House of Commons administration policy on harassment as an interim measure going forward, but noted that they didn’t have any mandate to deal with the harassment incidents in question, and that they should be referred to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee instead (as only MPs can discipline themselves. Parliament is self-governing after all). That leaves the two suspended MPs in limbo for the time being. The NDP meanwhile are saying that one of the incidents may have actually been sexual assault and not harassment, according to Craig Scott who was in one of the meetings with one of the complainants. But the NDP’s justice critic, Françoise Boivin, said that Trudeau should have delivered a verbal warning to the two MPs and left it at that, because they didn’t want to lay charges or file a formal complaint. So they could then turn around and claim that Trudeau didn’t do anything about the incidents once he was made aware of them? Especially if they waited until the election to make that particular reveal? Trudeau maintains that he had a duty to act, which he followed up on.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Theatrical tough talk

Posted on by

It’s a bit of a strange thing, but we’re told that Stephen Harper decided to play tough at the G-20 summit in Australia, where he apparently told Russian president Vladimir Putin to “get out of Ukraine” while shaking his hand. And while the PMO tried to spin it as Putin “reacting negatively,” what the Russians say the response was, was “That’s impossible because we’re not in Ukraine.” This should have been predictable given the series of denials to date, while the only other response would logically have been “Make me,” thus calling Harper out on his bluff since we don’t exactly have the military capabilities to take on Russia. We just don’t. Harper’s chest-puffery follows on that of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who had previously apparently told Putin off for the downing of that Malaysian Air flight over western Ukraine, as it contained 38 Australian nationals. Given that we know that Harper and Abbott are members of the mutual admiration society, that they would engage in copycat techniques is not unsurprising, but still – it all comes across as stagey the whole way through – especially the way the PMO started boasting to the media there. Shortly before that, while in New Zealand, Harper said that he wants to ensure that any fight in the region of Iraq is against ISIS, and not against any government, meaning the Assad regime in Syria. He doesn’t want to go there, feeling the solution to that civil war remains a political one.

Continue reading →