Tag Archives: Pierre Poilievre

Roundup: Goodbye, Bubble

Posted on by

Farewell, Atlantic Bubble – we hardly knew you. With growing spread in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, both PEI and Newfoundland and Labrador decided to pull out of the Bubble, and impose quarantines for any arrivals on their respective islands, effectively bursting it (despite some saying that this is only “temporary.” There can be little doubt that much like every other province, even those within the Bubble started to get cocky, and some of the spread can be traced back to restaurants, which remain open in the region. It nevertheless demands that even with border measures, you can’t let your guard down when it comes to taking measures to stop the spread of the virus.

Further west, Alberta premier Jason Kenney remains MIA as the province posts higher raw numbers than Ontario, but a Cabinet meeting was being held yesterday afternoon that is supposed to result in new measures being announced this morning – but we’ll see if a real lockdown gets proposed, because given the math, they are now far beyond what a two-week “circuit-breaker” lockdown could achieve. Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe is now self-isolating after a close contact, while Manitoba premier Brian Pallister insists he didn’t wait too long to take increased measures, and yet also insists that his province doesn’t have a backlog in contact tracing when facts show otherwise. So there’s that.

Meanwhile, we’re getting more MPs who can’t seem to grasp jurisdictional issues. The Conservatives are blaming the federal government for not doing things that were clearly the responsibility of premiers to do, while the NDP are demanding that Trudeau reach down into provincial jurisdiction and do something when premiers don’t, which isn’t how it works. It’s all becoming very tiresome, and exasperating, because there are things that they can legitimately criticize this government for, rather than flailing about and trying to blame him for things that he has no control over. But the current political reality is that truth and jurisdiction don’t matter in the face of the narrative they’re trying to spin.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A spineless premier in the centre of a dispute

Posted on by

The suspicious fire of a lobster pound used by the Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia is the latest escalation in the fisheries dispute in that province, which prompted a number of calls over the weekend for the federal government to do something. But when you ask for specifics, people tend to come up with a bunch of hand-waving and not a lot of answers. As a reminder, policing is a provincial responsibility, and in Nova Scotia, the RCMP are contracted to the province. This means that it’s the province’s responsibility to ensure that the RCMP are doing their jobs and protecting the Mi’kmaq people from the mobs of angry commercial fishers that are threatening them, and not just standing there and watching it happen like they did during the swarming of a lobster pound last week.

Of course, the premier keeps trying to insist that he can’t solve the problem and demands that the federal government define what a “moderate livelihood” for the Mi’kmaq people is under their treaty rights (which, to be clear, the government has been at the negotiation table about for weeks now), which is a cynical exercise in buck-passing from a premier who make a big song and dance about admitting that the province was mired in systemic racism. Funny that when it’s in his face, he doesn’t want to do anything about it. On Saturday, the province’s attorney general finally requested additional support for the RCMP from the federal government, which Bill Blair immediately granted, days after he publicly stated that there were resources waiting to be deployed to the province upon request, which they had not done up until that point. A bunch of people (including Jagmeet Singh) also started chirping over Twitter that this attack was “terrorism,” except that it’s not – the Criminal Code has a very specific definition, and a mob is not it. One of the Indigenous chiefs at the centre of the dispute also mused over social media that the military should be called in, but again, this can’t be done without the request of the provincial government, and I cannot stress this enough, but you do not want the military to conduct law enforcement. It’s a VERY, VERY BAD THING.

Meanwhile, both the fisheries minister and the NDP are now calling for an emergency debate in Parliament over this, which seems to me to be the most useless thing imaginable, but what can you do? Erin O’Toole is also trying to pin the blame on the federal government, insisting that they should have had the negotiations over by now (how? By imposing a solution?) and blaming the federal government for not properly resourcing the RCMP in the province (who are under provincial contract and jurisdiction), but then again, truth hasn’t exactly been his strong suit of late. But this shouldn’t be an issue about the treaty – the government has signalled that they will protect those rights, and are just figuring out the details. Protection of the Mi’kmaq fishers and their property should be a police matter, which is provincial jurisdiction, but so long as the premier is too afraid of the white voters, I don’t see him exactly taking a strong stand on this issue anytime soon, and while all eyes turn back to Justin Trudeau to do something, anything, he doesn’t exactly have the levers at his disposal.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre attacks the central bank

Posted on by

I am generally tolerant of MPs taking on ministerial or critic portfolios without first requiring a background knowledge in the subject matter, because for ministers, what matters is your ability to manage the department and act on advice that you’re given (as well as being accountable for those actions), while critics are playing an accountability role, and don’t exactly need subject matter expertise in order to do that. This having been said, sometimes ignorance is damaging, and we saw a very real example of that yesterday, where the Conservative finance critic, Pierre Poilievre, started taking shots at the Bank of Canada, saying that their quantitative easing programme is a “pyramid scheme” that is enabling the Liberals’ deficit spending (because we’re in a global pandemic!), and in doing so, is threatening the independence of the central bank. Poilievre also raised the spectre of runaway inflation if the Bank keeps printing money, err, except that we are currently facing deflationary pressure – not inflationary.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1316702304867946497

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1316703965585833984

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1316854251826683904

There are plenty of economists who can explain these concepts to Poilievre, except we know that he’s not interested. He was given the portfolio in order to be a shit-disturber, to knock Bill Morneau off his game (and Morneau was fairly easily rattled by this kind of partisan buffoonery), and presumably kept in the role because Erin O’Toole thought he was doing a good job of it. Mind you, Chrystia Freeland is not Bill Morneau, and she’s not affected by Poilievre’s antics, and frequently puts him in his place in QP. But the fact that this is the state of the discourse on the economic recovery is both disappointing and dispiriting. We should be having reasonably conversations about what is happening with the economic recovery, not this kind of performative baboon jeering and hooting that we’re getting from a party that claims to be the better economic managers.

Good reads:

  • The Chinese ambassador has implicitly threatened Canadians in Hong Kong if Canada grants asylum to Hong Kong protesters. So that’s going well.
  • The new commercial rent subsidy will be retroactive to October 1st, but will require legislation to pass before those funds can roll out.
  • Indigenous Services minister Marc Miller says the raid on the Nova Scotia lobster pound on Tuesday was an attack on all Mi’kmaw people.
  • The Mi’kmaq chief involved in the fishery dispute says that the RCMP inaction on the scene as their property was destroyed in the raid is systemic racism in action.
  • The federal government is investing $20 million in helping bring small modular reactors to market as part of the goal of reaching net zero emissions.
  • The RCMP’s union is back in talks around salary increases, after they were delayed for the pandemic.
  • The government’s COVID Alert app has a bit of a glitch on Apple phones running older iOS, where it’s telling them they have potential conflicts when the app doesn’t.
  • The Bank of Canada is preparing to have a digital currency at the ready in the event it’s needed should Facebook’s planned Libra get blocked by regulators.
  • Pharmaceutical companies are threatening not to launch new medicines in Canada if new regulations come to force that would lower some prices.
  • Liberals on the finance and ethics committees are continuing their filibusters to avoid resuming the investigations into the WE Imbroglio.
  • Economists Andrew Leach and Blake Shaffer consider Alberta’s shift away from coal-fired electricity to be a success story for tools like carbon pricing.
  • Susan Delacourt recounts a political scientist’s attempts to interview women MPs about their experiences, and how that translates into changing the political culture.

Odds and ends:

Colin Horgan gives a wake-up call that the end of 2020 won’t bring relief, but will probably make things worse because we’ve exposed the problems in society.

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

Roundup: Testing names in the field

Posted on by

Over the weekend, I got a call from a public opinion research company who was doing a survey on the Conservative leadership race. While many of the questions were fairly loaded or leading when it came to things like carbon pricing, and there were a lot of questions relating to just how progressive one thinks a future Conservative leader should be, I was most fascinated by the testing about potential candidates. There was an open-ended opportunity to provide a name that one might think could entice voters to switch to the Conservative party, followed by a list of names where one was invited to rank how much it would make you switch your vote for the Conservatives. That list: Gerard Deltell, former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney, Doug Ford, Jason Kenney, Jean Charest, Peter MacKay, Rona Ambrose, Lisa Raitt, Pierre Poilievre, Erin O’Toole, and Christy Clark. The inclusion of Carney is a head-scratcher considering that there was a Big Deal a few years ago about his apparently sniffing around the Liberals about a possible future leadership bid, while the fact that Michael Chong was left out despite his previous leadership run and the fact that he has stated he is seriously considering another go of it. So anyway, make of the list what you will, but those are the names that someone is testing.

Meanwhile, the first “official” declared candidate is Bryan Brulotte, a one-time Progressive Conservative staffer and failed candidate, who is pitching a negative income tax and “luxury tax” in lieu of a carbon price. Pierre Poilievre is also planning to announce his candidacy today, with John Baird chairing his campaign – though one wonders if that will conflict with his post-mortem report on how the party botched the election.

On that note, here’s Jess Morgan’s argument why he would be the absolute worst thing, while Paul Wells sizes up what we know of the race to date, and what kinds of choices the party faces in the process.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Competing economic illiteracy

Posted on by

As someone who covers a fair bit of economic stories, the absolute inability of this government to come up with a definition of “middle class” is exhausting – and those of you who read me regularly will know that I will instead use Middle Class™ as a means of showcasing that it’s a meaningless branding exercise. And lo and behold, when challenged to offer up a definition during one of his year-ender interviews, Justin Trudeau said that “Canadians know who’s in the middle class and know what their families are facing and we focus more on the actual issues.” And I died a little bit inside. For a government that keeps insisting they’re all about data, and evidence-based policy, their refusal to offer a meaningful measure of what their core narrative is all about is entirely about branding. By not offering a definition, they don’t have to exclude anyone – because everyone believes they’re middle class (whether they had ponies or not). And more to the point, by not offering a metric, they can’t measure whether they’ve succeeded for failed – it’s only about feelings, which makes their talk of data and evidence all the more hollow.

And then there’s Pierre Poilievre, who, when challenged about the definition of a recession, makes up a bullshit response and thinks it makes him clever. It’s as economically illiterate as the Liberals’ Middle Class™ prevarication, but the fact that the Conservatives keep cheerleading a “made-in-Canada recession” that no economist sees on the horizon, and which they can’t even fit into the actual definition of what a recession is (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth) sets a dangerous path of spooking markets. It’s all so stupid, and reckless, but the party’s current path of pathological dishonesty makes them blind to the danger of it all.

On perhaps a related note, Trudeau’s director of communications, Kate Purchase, is leaving to become a senior director at Microsoft, and good luck to her – and she really is one of the nicest staffers and was actually helpful to media in stark contrast to the Harper crew. But I also hope that perhaps this means that her replacement can start ensuring that this government can start communicating its way out of a wet paper bag, because cripes, they have done themselves zero favours over the past four years.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Media rounds and brand damage

Posted on by

Freed from the expectation that they needed to stay quiet(er) in order to not jeopardise their chances of remaining in caucus, both Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott hit interview circuit, the former in Maclean’s and the Globe and Mail, the latter also in Maclean’s and on CBC Radio and Power Play. And there is no doubt that both of them thought they were doing the right thing, but I’m not sure they quite grasp some of the political realities that the prime minister is grappling with. They kept saying that if Trudeau had just apologised from the start, this all could have been avoided, but that would have meant admitting that he was in the wrong, and that’s both a problem on every level for him to do, and I get the impression that nobody thinks they were trying to interfere or apply inappropriate pressure. And because they both think they’re right, we’re in the situation we’re in. Philpott did tell Don Martin that she’s aware of other conversations that are still relevant to what happened, but she’s not going to dangle them out there (err, she just did) because everything that people need to know is already public, but she didn’t say that she thought the prime minister was lying. In her interview with the Globe, Wilson-Raybould admitted to clashing with Carolyn Bennett over the Indigenous Rights framework, but it was her comments to Maclean’s that really made me pause, where she said she didn’t really understand the Liberal Party anymore, and it makes me wonder if she actually understood them to begin with, given how the party morphed itself as the cult of Trudeau after his messianic leadership campaign, and that many of the new MPs are as a result of that rather than stalwarts who stood with the party through the lean opposition years. Oh, and Wilson-Raybould also sorta disputed that there were negotiations regarding ending the tiff with Trudeau, and some confusion as to whether that was before she quit Cabinet or in the weeks that followed, and we got a bit of clarification.

Speaking of Trudeau, there has been a lot of focus on the damage to his brand, in particular his Feminist™ brand in the past few weeks, and with the ouster of Wilson-Raybould and Philpott (not to mention Celina Caesar-Chavannes’ decision to leave caucus of her own accord). In particular, the symbolism of the whole Affair crashing down around the Daughters of the Vote event was a darkly ironic for the prime minister, with one of his former youth delegates calling his rhetoric hollow. Add to that, there has been an expectation built up around him that his “doing politics differently” led people to believe that when push came to shove that he wouldn’t act like a politician, in spite of all of the symbolism he invested in. (There is probably a lesson in there too about filling in the blanks when someone says they’ll be different, but won’t specify how). Over on Twitter, Moebius Stripper reminds us not to confuse the actual good feminist work of this government with its Feminist™ branding.

Amidst the awfulness and brand-torching, Chris Selley recalls weeks ago when the Liberals floated a trial balloon to say that Trudeau would apologise for…something, didn’t, and now the claims that Wilson-Raybould tried to force an apology. Paul Wells, meanwhile, is in a Mood, and he (quite properly) lambastes this while Affair as another in a line of incidents that reveals the true heart of this government, and the ramshackle way in which they run this government (and if you looked at what they’ve done to the Senate alone, I would absolutely agree).

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 →

QP: Poilievre makes a scene

Posted on by

A grey day in Ottawa, but today, most of the leaders were away. This left Candice Bergen to lead off, wondering how many organisations got job grants to protest energy projects. Jim Carr replied that they will get Trans Mountain built, preemptively called out the false equivalence between protesting energy projects and hiring students to distribute flyers with graphic images of aborted foetuses. Bergen insisted that the Liberals want to shut down the energy sector, and Carr dismissed the concerns. Bergen demanded Carr tell the prime minister that giving funding to these protesters is wrong, and Carr reminded her that the Harper government gave twice as much money to the same group. Alain Rayes took over in French to rail about the same issue, and Carr noted his recent trip to Fort McMurray to highlight the jobs in the energy sector. Rayes tried again, and in response, Carr regaled him with a tale about how they engaged in a better process of Indigenous consultation where the previous government failed. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, demanding the government come clean that they rigged the Trans Mountain approval process, to which Carr reiterated that they engaged with Indigenous communities in unheard of consultations. Caron tried again in French, and Carr noted that all of the Access to Information documents are all online and he can look for himself as to the process. Anne Quach was up next, demanding pay equity legislation in advance of the G7, to which Patty Hajdu noted the items in the budget. Niki Ashton was first concern trolled about InCel followers, and demanded a gender-based violence strategy. Ralph Goodale said that they have put resources to tackling these issues, and that they met with G7 leaders to get that material off of the Internet.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Procedural shenanigans beget the new anthem

Posted on by

There has been some drama in the Senate over the past couple of days as the procedural shenanigans to bring the national anthem bill to a final vote culminated in a motion to call the vote, and eventually that happened. The bill has passed, and the new national anthem will be law once the Governor General gives it royal assent. But the procedural moves have the Conservatives in a high dudgeon, somewhat legitimately.

https://twitter.com/larrywsmith36/status/958840131481423872

My understanding of events was that the main motion to call the vote has been on the Order Paper for months, and was finally called Tuesday night. This was a debatable motion, and likely would have sparked a few weeks of adjournments and debate, but ultimately would have delayed the vote for only that long. But a second, also legitimate procedural move was used by another Independent senator immediately following, and Speaker apparently didn’t hear Senator Don Plett’s desire to debate it. What I’ve been able to gather is that this was likely a mistake given lines of sight, but were compounded by tactical errors on the Conservatives’ part in demanding to debate the first motion and not the second (or something to that effect). Points order were debated last night, but they had agreed to end the sitting at 4 PM in order to have the votes at 5:30, and when they didn’t get unanimous consent to extend the sitting, debate collapsed and when 5:30 rolled around, the Conservatives boycotted the vote in protest. According to those I’ve consulted, the moves were all legitimate but messy, and have the danger of setting up bad precedent for not allowing debate on this kind of motion.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/958853911888080898

The Conservatives in the Senate, meanwhile, are caterwauling that their democratic rights have been taken away, and there is talk about conspiracy between Mélanie Joly’s staff, and other threads that are hard to track when they’re throwing them against the wall like spaghetti. And while I share the concerns about bad precedent, I can’t say that I have too much sympathy because they’ve used (and one could argue abused) procedure for over a year to keep the bill at Third Reading, with the intent to ultimately delay it until it died on the Order Paper. They insist that they offered the chance to amend it to the more grammatically correct “thou dost in us command” rather than the clunky “in all of us command,” but I find it a bit disingenuous, because it was simply another delay tactic. And I’ve argued before that this continued tendency to use procedural tactics to delay bills is going to end up biting them in the ass, especially because it plays into Senator Peter Harder’s hands in his quest to overhaul the chamber in order to strip it of its Westminster character. The Conservatives are overplaying their hand, and it’s going to make it very difficult to drum up enough legitimate concern to stop Harder when crunch time comes, and they should be very aware of that fact.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/958861523878789120

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fill in the blanks

Posted on by

None of what happened with the Amherst branch of the Royal Canadian Legion announcement yesterday was out of the ordinary or unexpected, but it was one giant confirmation of what we are seeing daily in the debasement of our politics. Conservative MP Scott Armstrong mistakenly sent out a press release that still had all of the track changes, and it showed very clearly that it was a fill-in-the-blanks job. Because gods forbid an announcement was made that wasn’t pabulum. Pretty much all political speech has become this – checklists of talking points that need to be ticked off in whatever the context. Giving a members’ statement? Here are the talking points you need to say – or better yet, here’s the fill-in-the-blanks statement we’ll hand to you. Going on a panel show at 5 o’clock? Here are the lines you can deliver, and the slogans you need to recite. The funny thing is, I’ve met MPs who’ve gotten media training – which they paid for out of their own pockets – and they can do without all of this box-checking, blanks-filled-in pap that they would recite otherwise. But those MPs made the choice to not do what their fellows were doing, and proved they could speak on their own without sounding like a babbling idiot. But most MPs don’t take the time to learn how to speak in public, or in the media, or how to write a speech on their own. It’s mostly just a handful of veteran MPs who can do it these days, and that doesn’t bode well for the future seeing the number of incumbents who aren’t running again. Unless MPs start to do something about their own situation – or better yet, voters demand that they do – we’ll wind up with a parliament of MPs reading more of these scripts like robotic simpletons.

Continue reading →