Tag Archives: Veterans

Roundup: A small shuffle

Posted on by

The practical fallout from Jody Wilson-Raybould’s resignation played out with a minor Cabinet shuffle yesterday morning, but rather than simply picking another backbencher to slot into the veterans affairs portfolio, Justin Trudeau moved Lawrence MacAulay from agriculture to put him in veterans, moved Marie-Claude Bibeau from international development to agriculture, and gave the international development portfolio to Maryam Monsef in addition to her status of women portfolio. There are a couple of calculations here – MacAulay held the veterans file over twenty years ago, so he’s not completely new, and he’s someone who is running again and has held his seat forever, so he looks like a steady hand in the department (and as a bonus, the department headquarters is in Charlottetown, and he’s a PEI MP). Bibeau, meanwhile, gets the distinction of being the country’s first woman agriculture minister, but she herself pointed out that she’s from a rural Quebec riding with a lot of dairy farmers, and she knows their issues well, and that’s a constituency that this government is keen to placate after concessions made in TPP and New NAFTA. And Monsef? She’s got a track record of good work in the portfolio’s she’s held, and can handle the added responsibility, as well as it reinforce the whole “feminist foreign policy” line of the government (not that you’d know it from how they’re funding it, but whatever).

In other SNC-Lavalin/Wilson Raybould Affair news, the opposition parties demanded that Parliament be recalled next week to keep this issue going, but Trudeau refused (and it’s worth remembering that the justice committee will still be meeting over the constituency weeks). Former Conservative and NDP Attorneys General have also written to the RCMP to demand an investigation (no political interference here), while former Liberal ones say there’s no clear criminal case. New Attorney General David Lametti says he wasn’t aware that Wilson-Raybould had already made the decision on the SNC-Lavalin file when he took over the portfolio, and that he’s still getting all of the facts on the situation.

For context, here’s a profile of Wilson-Raybould’s former chief of staff, Jessica Prince. Here’s a look at whether the Ethics Commissioner can really look into the whole matter. Here’s a look at the government’s reconciliation agenda in the lens of Wilson-Raybould’s demotion and resignation, and why her Indigenous world-view may have informed her decision not to go ahead with insisting on a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin. Here’s a look back at the measures the Conservatives put in 13 years ago to separate the role of the Crown Prosecutor from the Department of Justice, creating the Public Prosecution Service, which was one of their measures when they rode in on the white horse of accountability. In light of Michael Wernick’s testimony, here’s a look back reforms Brian Mulroney made to the role of Clerk of the Privy Council, which may create untenable contradictions in his role. Here are five possible scenarios for the future of SNC-Lavalin if the trial goes ahead, which includes decamping for the UK, or a foreign takeover.

And for pundit comment, Chantal Hébert has four questions about the ongoing situation. Andrew Coyne is not convinced it’s time for a prime ministerial resignation or an RCMP investigation, but that a rethink of our governing culture nevertheless is what will ultimately be needed. My weekend column contemplates the damage to Brand Trudeau™ after the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wernick calls out Wilson-Raybould

Posted on by

Thursday in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair was much more explosive, on a couple of fronts. First, the Globe and Mail reported that Jody Wilson-Raybould told Cabinet that she was improperly pressured, which raises some real questions as to who the Globe source is, and also raises the question as to why Wilson-Raybould didn’t resign in protest at the time. (It also said that SNC-Lavalin is threatening to relocate their headquarters to the UK, which would be the first company looking to move there in the midst of Brexit chaos). And then, after a forgettable appearance by David Lametti at the Commons justice committee, where he could not guarantee that the solicitor-client privilege issue would be solved by the time Wilson-Raybould appears at committee, Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick let blew up the media cycle, not only with his very frank introductory comments, but also his belief that not only did any improper pressure not happen (going so far as to call the original Globe story false and “defamatory”), but that none of this should be covered by Solicitor-Client privilege because it was not discussed in Cabinet, and no legal advice was given. (Full text here).

Wernick’s comments were praised by some, criticised by others – particularly the Conservatives – with a lot of concern trolling going on about the perception that they were partisan (despite the fact that Wernick praised both the Harper government’s work as well as Trudeau’s). As John Geddes points out, the testimony also gave a glimpse as to how he interacts with power in this city, going so far as to leave an NAC gala to avoid being near SNC-Lavalin executives.

In related news, it looks like Wilson-Raybould didn’t renew her law licence in BC in 2016, which could mean that she’s not a practicing lawyer, which might also invalidate her claim to solicitor-client privilege. The Canadian Press’ Baloney Meter™ also tests Trudeau’s assertion that waiving solicitor-client privilege may impact the other two ongoing court cases involving SNC-Lavalin.

In pundit reaction, Susan Delacourt lays out how Wernick’s testimony is a direct challenge to the version of events that the Globe and Wilson-Raybould’s silence has allowed to develop, which puts pressure on Wilson-Raybould to confirm or deny his testimony. Jen Gerson doesn’t see Butts’ resignation as solving any of the Liberals’ problems. Robert Hiltz says that more than anything, this whole affair puts a lie to the government’s promise of being “real change” in doing politics.

Continue reading →

QP: Chagger has some new talking points

Posted on by

Following an explosive morning at the justice committee, QP got underway without any of the major leaders in attendance. That left Lisa Raitt to lead off, asking if the prime minister asked David Lametti to leave the room when Wilson-Raybould addressed Cabinet on Tuesday. Lametti first accused Raitt of cherry-picking the testimony, and said that since Clerk of the Pricy Council, Michael Wernick, released him from Cabinet confidence he recused himself of his own volition. Raitt asked why Trudeau met with Wilson-Raybould after the Director of Public Prosecutions made a decision on SNC-Lavalin, to which Bardish Chagger read that it was confirmed verbally and in writing that Wilson-Raybould was not being directed on the file. Raitt went through the timeline, and accused Wernick of pressuring Wilson-Raybould, to which Chagger read out about Raitt’s own meetings with SNC-Lavalin. Alain Rayes took over and re-asked in French why Trudeau had the meeting with Wilson-Raybould, and Chagger read that they need to respect the independence of committees. Rayes tried again, and Chagger read out Wernick’s assurances that the kinds of discussions that Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould had were perfectly appropriate. Alexandre Boulerice led off for the NDP, and he demanded that Wilson-Raybould be allowed to speak, and Lametti assured him that the issue was complex but they too wanted to ensure she could speak. Boulerice asked if Trudeau’s meeting with Wilson-Raybould was to change her mind, and Chagger stood up to remind him that the NDP leader also met with SNC-Lavalin, and that the government respects the legal system. Nathan Cullen stood up to repeat the allegations in the Globe and Mail that Wilson-Raybould told Cabinet she was pressured, to which Chagger reminded him that committees are independent and should do their job. Cullen railed about the government not caring about employees and pensioners, to which Chagger praised the Ethics Commissioner and the government’s record.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit Butts, leaving uncertainty in his wake

Posted on by

So, mid-Family Day when most people in most provinces of this country were enjoying a day off (federal workers excluded), the latest bombshell in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould drama dropped – that the prime minister’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts, resigned his position. In his resignation letter, he vigorously denied any wrongdoing but was removing himself from the office to defend himself and to keep from being a distraction. Of course, the Conservatives cheered, but insisted that this was the sign of a PMO in crisis, and they would continue to get to the bottom of things at the Justice Committee (despite the fact that they’re limited in what they’re actually able to look into, and they are apparently going to go beyond the bounds of what procedure allows). The NDP, meanwhile, will be using their Supply Day to move a motion to demand an independent inquiry into the whole matter – because what government would welcome a Gomery-style inquiry that has the potential to spin out of control and blow up in their faces?

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1097580024742531073

It’s not hard to note that this leaves a gap in Trudeau’s office – Butts was his long-time friend and one of the architects of his success. But he was also seen by opponents as this puppet-master figure (RIP all of those “PM Butts” Twitter accounts), and among other observers of politics that he and Katie Telford may have also been a bit of a bottleneck for decisions. We’ll see who Trudeau replaces him with, and if the management style in the PMO changes as a result. We’ll also see if the mood in the caucus changes as well, and it’s been theorized that it’s another reason for the departure – that MPs have been getting restless with the amount of control that Butts has (cue the stories about MPs disgruntled about the way that caucus meetings are being handled, and that they’re afraid to air their views there for fear of being insulted). There are several months before the election, so perhaps this will give them time to right the ship in time. Maybe.

In terms of reaction columns, Susan Delacourt reflects on the Trudeau-Butts power dynamic within the party, and the uncertainty that is left in the wake of the departure. Chantal Hébert notes that Butts’ resignation may deflect the internal friendly-fire, but could leave Trudeau vulnerable on the eve of the election campaign (which is still eight months away!). Likewise, John Ivison hears that there may have been a “riot” at Liberal caucus on Wednesday had Butts not resigned, and this move makes him something of a scapegoat. Paul Wells regales us with the role Butts played as the “senior Liberal insider” in media stories, and how this central role in the PMO was probably not suited to federal politics, which will mean a way of reforming how Trudeau’s government operates.

Amidst this, there are two threads from Philippe Lagassé that you need to read – the first questions the critique that there are too many political staffers running things and that Parliament would work just great if they were gone. (I too find this a problematic assertion given that the bigger problem is the way in which our bastardized leadership contests have inflated the leader and his or her office in the first place). The second is a corrective to the specious lines about the “unelected” nature of the PMO and the power it wields, as people forget that we don’t elect prime ministers or Cabinet – they are appointed positions. Only the House of Commons is elected.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The drip, drip, drip of details

Posted on by

At a press event yesterday morning, Justin Trudeau tried to offer some reassurances around Jody Wilson-Raybould, and only seemed to complicate matters – which didn’t help that everyone seemed to read meaning into what he said that I don’t think was at all was intended. To recap, Trudeau said that back in September, at a time when there was a lot of discussion about the SNC-Lavalin, and the jobs and economic repercussions, Wilson-Raybould asked him if he intended to direct her on how to deal with the issue, and he said no, it was her call; in October, the Public Prosecution Service rejected the notion of giving SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement. He also said that if Scott Brison hadn’t resigned that she would still be in justice, but things get moved around when you start shuffling Cabinet pieces around (which is fair – there are a lot of considerations). This of course turned into a childish game over Twitter about “blame Scott Brison,” which is not only ridiculous, but completely misrepresents what he said. (Note that regarding her poor performance managing her department, Brison’s departure may have been the opportunity to deal with it, but that it was considered manageable until the next election, but I can’t say that I’m privy to those determinations). Oh, and Trudeau also said it was unacceptable for people to be taking shots at Wilson-Raybould, but this was also about eight days after the anonymous grousing started appearing in media reports.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1096465016100777986

Amidst this, people have started taking a look back at the deferred prosecution portion of the budget implementation bill when it was being debated and studied back in the spring (*coughs*my story once again*coughs*), perhaps to prove that this was something the government snuck through to the benefit of all of that SNC-Lavalin lobbying. While Aaron Wherry finds a voluminous paper trail here, and the chair of the Commons finance committee, Wayne Easter, told Power & Politics that he personally questioned why that section wasn’t being sent to the justice committee, where things get really interesting is before the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee, where those provisions were sent for study. It becomes exceedingly interesting that Wilson-Raybould refused to make herself available to testify on the issue – which is a very bad thing for a minister – and while Senator Serge Joyal, who heads the committee, says that in hindsight she may not have been comfortable with the subject matter if there was pressure (if that is indeed what was happening), we also need to remember that she refused to appear on other bills, which was holding them up because the committee (quite rightly) said no minister, no bill. Since she was shuffled, Lametti has agreed to appear before the committee on those bills. This kind of truculent behaviour should be taken into consideration when people think that she was doing a “great” job (she wasn’t), but even when she did appear to answer questions, the only thing she’d ever say was how proud she was of the job she was doing (another strike on her record).

Former BC premier Christy Clark affirmed Trudeau’s line that if Wilson-Raybould had a problem and was feeling unduly pressured that she had a duty to say something and resign, which she didn’t. And as a related note, here’s a closer look at the principles of Cabinet secrecy that Trudeau has noted are a consideration in what’s going on here, and how Trudeau has the prerogative to invoke it or not.

In other related news, a former SNC-Lavalin executive had his obstruction of justice charge stayed because it “timed out” under the Jordan principles outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada. As for SNC-Lavalin’s pursuit of a deferred prosecution agreement, here is an explainer of what kind of process a company would need to go through for a prosecutor to consider granting them one, and why it’s not simply paying a fine.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne insists that because SNC-Lavalin couldn’t meet the tests necessary to even qualify for a DPA that there shouldn’t have been any reason for Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould to talk about one, while Paul Wells looks at the polling numbers on the issue, and finds Trudeau’s credibility lagging Wilson-Raybould’s on the issue.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A hard Wilson-Raybould exit

Posted on by

The day got off to a quiet start, with news of an emergency Cabinet meeting (via teleconference), followed by the news that Jody Wilson-Raybould had resigned from Cabinet (but not caucus), and retained a former Supreme Court of Canada justice as a lawyer to figure out what she’s able to say. Trudeau’s office later said that she informed him last night, and that Harjit Sajjan would be temporarily taking over the Veterans Affairs file until someone new can be put into the position. And people noticed that Trudeau didn’t thank Wilson-Raybould for her contributions after the fact either.

When he did face the media later in the day, Trudeau said that he was surprised and disappointed by Wilson-Raybould’s decision, and that he couldn’t understand why she made it. But as is his usual way of doing things, it was all a bit rehearsed, because he repeated those words almost verbatim in response to reporters’ questions. But he also said that if Wilson-Raybould felt like rules weren’t being followed that she should have come to him, and she didn’t. He did also say that he’s trying to figure out the options around what they can say under solicitor-client privilege because they don’t want to have unintended consequences for the two other ongoing court cases related to the SNC-Lavalin matter, which is fair and valid, but he’s already given flat denials about what was reported in the Globe and Mail initially. (Here is a more in-depth explanation of the restrictions she is under when it comes to Cabinet confidence and solicitor-client privilege, neither of which have a time-limit).

The next battleground is going to be the justice committee, which meets today, and the question is how the Liberals are going to decide to go. Trudeau is publicly saying he’s not directing them because that would be against their parliamentary role (and I will say it was mighty galling for Candice Bergen to go on TV yesterday to say that the Liberals direct what happens at committees when they are far more hands-off than the Conservatives ever were, given that they had ministers’ staff directing their committee members when they were in government). The chair, Anthony Housefather, says that he is leaning toward hearing from witnesses on the issue, but he is more likely to do so under an amended motion rather than the one the Conservatives and NDP tabled (in part because of the suggested witness list), not to mention the fact that he’s wary of the whole exercise turning into a partisan gong show rather than a non-partisan way to get some answers. But with this in mind, the Conservatives are doing everything they can to make this a partisan exercise, from Andrew Scheer tweeting out the phone numbers and email addresses of the Liberals on the committee so that people can “demand” they agree to their motion, and the fact that they are putting Pierre Poilievre on the committee as one of their “replacement” members, because “logistics” with the snow storm. It would almost sound to me like they want to do as much as they possibly can to annoy the Liberals and to turn them off from holding any kind of hearings so that the Conservatives can claim they’re participating in a cover-up. Because they would never engage in that kind of concern trolling. (Note that Scheer has also demanded that they “preserve all records” on this, because he is also pushing the narrative that the same Liberals from Queen’s Park who destroyed the gas plant files are now in Ottawa).

As for Wilson-Raybould’s departure, some of the reporting is getting a bit cringe-worthy, particularly how they keep reaching out to her father for comment. I can think of no other ministerial demotion or resignation that sought comment from their parents, for what it’s worth. As well, the fact that the reaction from Indigenous leaders as this being some kind of betrayal also leaves me a bit unsettled because it was no secret that things were not being well managed in Wilson-Raybould’s office in Justice, and the narrative seems to reinforce the notion that it’s not the quality of the job being done, only the symbolism of the person holding the office. That particular lens on what has taken place over the past few days seems to be absent, while Wilson-Raybould is tactical in her silence. Meanwhile, some Cabinet and caucus colleagues are tweeting support for Wilson-Raybould, while others try very much to walk the line.

It’s worth adding that SNC-Lavalin is in the midst of yet another criminal investigation in Quebec regarding their bid for the Cartier Bridge. This while every newspaper in Montreal is running columns wondering why the opposition wants the federal government to let SNC-Lavalin fail – something that will have impacts come the election.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095350523933278208

Meanwhile, Anne Kinston parses Wilson-Raybould’s resignation letter, while Susan Delacourt notes the weight of the silence on what has taken place – and offers us some new information about the shuffle and the discussions with Wilson-Raybould that took place at the time. Paul Wells looks at all of the behind-the-scenes work done by SNC-Lavalin through the past few years, and the way in which they attempt to exert influence in Ottawa, and shows that this seems to be the underlying way things work in Ottawa amidst the government’s talk of a new way of doing things.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095517895205871617

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095519163601154048

Continue reading →

QP: Whacking and managing

Posted on by

Monday on the Hill, and the prime minister was present, but Andrew Scheer was not. Candice Bergen led off, and she demanded to know why Adam Vaughan was not fired from his parliamentary secretary role for his tweet about “whacking” premier Ford. Justin Trudeau said he would get to the question in a minute, but wanted to first pay tribute to the late Auditor General, Michael Ferguson. Bergen said that there would be time for that during ministerial statements, then reiterated the question. Trudeau said that Vaughan had apologised and they were endeavouring to keep debate civil. Bergen tried again, and got the same response. Gérard Deltell was up next to offer his usual questions about the deficit, and Trudeau dutifully recited his memorised talking points about investing in the Middle Class™ over Conservative cuts. Deltell tried again, and Trudeau reminded him they cut taxes. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he demanded to know why oil and gas subsidies were not yet cut, and then railed about the Trans Mountain pipeline, repeating the misreading of the PBO report. Trudeau noted that they were honouring their commitment to cut those subsidies by 2025, and they were balancing the economy and the environment. Caron railed that the government wasn’t doing enough, and Trudeau rattled off the government’s many environmental measures. Murray Rankin took over in English to make the same environmental demand, and Trudeau reiterated his responses in English. Rankin tried again, and Trudeau lectured him that it was irresponsible not to get a proper price for oil while they needed to make investments in renewables. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The myth about the tweet

Posted on by

At a townhall event in Surrey, Andrew Scheer made a very big deal about the border and the “integrity” of our immigration system. At the centre of it is his invention is the mythology that the #WelcomeToCanada tweet two years ago somehow opened the floodgates. It’s ridiculous on its face, and it ignores the context during which that tweet happened – the recent election of Donald Trump, and the talk of the “Muslim ban” that was ramping up tensions and causing a spike of panic among asylum seekers and refugee claimants in the States, as well as a demonstrable rise in hate crimes. And we can’t forget that within days of this tweet, the Quebec City mosque shooting happened, from which there was a direct correlation drawn to the rhetoric of Trump and his surrogates around Muslims. Trudeau was attempting to take a different approach, and to highlight the decision to bring over Syrian refugees when Trump and his surrogates were insisting that it would be bringing in terrorists (recall the “poisoned Skittles” meme), but Scheer is choosing to ignore all of this.

And then there’s the entire mischaracterisation of the immigration and refugee determination systems, and the very deliberate conflation of the two. They’re separate, and are resourced separately, which makes the constant attempt to portray asylum seekers as somehow disadvantaging “legitimate” immigrants a deliberate attempt to turn immigrants against refugees and asylum seekers. Scheer will then insist that he’s not anti-refugee – that he’s met people in refugee camps who don’t understand why other people can cross the border and “jump the queue” – except of course that there isn’t an actual queue, but rather a process. In fact, those in the camps are usually chosen for resettlement by the UNHCR, and often done by private sponsorship – something that Scheer is a big fan of. In fact, during the Harper era, they reformed a lot of the refugee system to try and offload as much responsibility for resettlement onto the UNHCR, and to more heavily weight private sponsorship over government. (Note that Maxime Bernier is making a big deal about taking more responsibility for refugee determination away from the UN, which could create a wedge, or push Scheer to up his tinfoil hattery around the UN’s processes). Again, asylum seekers who cross the border are separate from those processes, and don’t have the same system impact, because it’s not Canadian officials doing most of the work. It’s another artificial dichotomy that ignores the context of the situation of these asylum seekers and seeks to again create divisions between people involved in those separate processes. Nothing about refugee claimants or asylum seekers is actually impacting the “integrity” of the immigration system – it’s a false dichotomy.

But it’s a wedge, and one built on lies, which is what Scheer is hoping for. Is there a cost to asylum seekers? Yes, absolutely. But we also need to remember that Canada is getting off extremely lightly by sheer virtue of our geography, surrounded by ocean on three sides and the US border on the other, which filters out the vast majority. Scheer shouldn’t expect sympathy from anyone about the influx we’ve seen (which, I remind you, is not out of step with historic norms). In a world facing a migrant crisis, with more displaced people since the Second World War, there are far more who would argue that Canada isn’t doing enough, and telling lies to make it look like we’re under siege because of a single tweet is more dangerous than he realizes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to un-resign

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day that the Liberal drama in Burnaby South went completely sideways, as resigned candidate Karen Wang decided that she wanted to un-resign. And the Liberals said nope, and Wang’s attempt at a press conference turned into a gong show as she chose a location that she didn’t ask for permission from and they said nope. So, gong show. Wang later spent the day a) insisting she wasn’t racist, and this was all a mistranslation, and by the way a volunteer wrote the WeChat post anyway; and b) fending off the notion that she also tried to run for the Conservatives, by saying that the Conservatives had approached her after she ran for the provincial Liberals (remember the BC Liberals are more of a centre-right coalition than the federal Liberals are), and that she didn’t say yes to them. Oh, and she still supports the Liberals. And amidst this all, certain other anonymous voices in the local Liberal riding association are now saying that they warned the party that she was “difficult to handle.”

Meanwhile, this hasn’t stopped the utter lunatic notions floating around the national media that somehow the PMO engineered this whole incident in order to essentially hand the victory to Jagmeet Singh and the NDP, because the Liberals will ultimately benefit from his weak leadership carrying on, or something.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1085960409654255616

And then there are the NDP surrogates trying to insist that the Liberals are trying to spin this version of events, and trying to build the case that it’s really just racism that the Liberals and the mainstream media are to blame for Singh not having a seat or a national profile. And lest we not forget that Maxime Bernier’s candidate in the riding is polling higher than expected, which has people wondering if it’s Scheer who should watch out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another solution in search of a problem, by-election edition

Posted on by

The good folks at Samara Canada have penned an op-ed in the Globe and Mail to call for legislation that demand swifter by-elections than currently exists, and would seek to remove the discretion of the prime minister in calling them. To this I say nay, because much like fixed election dates, this is a solution in search of a problem. Indeed, the piece entirely ignored that fixed election dates are not only antithetical to our system, which is based on confidence, but that it created a whole host of new problems and solved none. It used to be the big concern that prime ministers would call “snap” elections when it was deemed politically suitable, and that it wholly disadvantaged opposition parties. Of course, that’s entirely a myth that doesn’t survive actual scrutiny (recall that governments in this country were punished when they called elections too soon because they had good poll numbers), and fixed election dates instead created interminable election campaigns that required even more legislation to crack down on spending and advertising in defined pre-writ periods – something that wouldn’t need to exist under the proper system of ministerial discretion.

Throughout the recent round of braying to call by-elections, none of the arguments has convinced me that this is anything more than a moral panic. While the op-ed does correctly point out that MP offices remain staffed and operational, reporting to the party whip instead of the departed MP, the op-ed laments that there is no MP to push files through the bureaucracy – something that is not only not an MP’s job, but is something we should actually be discouraging because it sets up a system that starts to look corrupt, when it becomes who you know that will get action on your files. If anything, parties should actually take advantage of the fact that when a by-election hasn’t been called yet, it gives the riding associations ample time to locate a good candidate, run an effective nomination process, and then start door-knocking. If parties got their act together, they’d have more time to do this, rather than waiting months, and trying to get a hint as to when the by-election might be called before they even start their nominations – something that is absolutely boggling. Jagmeet Singh should have used the time to do the door-knocking at every available opportunity, and yet that didn’t seem to be the case for the months he was complaining that the by-election hadn’t been called.

You don’t have to convince me that it’s important to run these by-elections in a timely manner, and that having an MP in place as soon as possible is the right thing to do. It absolutely is. But more legislative constraints on executive discretion won’t solve any problems, and only creates more of them. We keep seeing this time and again, and yet we keep coming back to yet more proposals for even more of them, creating a spiralling cycle of more rules to fix a problem that was never actually a problem in the first place. Time to step off this merry-go-round.

Continue reading →