Tag Archives: Veterans

Roundup: A century of women in the House

Posted on by

The CBC has a look back at 100 years since the first woman was elected to Parliament, and as with the present-day discourse, it’s largely about how other women’s voice were excluded, be they Indigenous, racialized, or otherwise. Yes, early feminists and women who were elected to public office were problematic—the Famous Five were very racist and proponents of eugenics. (So was the founder of the NDP, Tommy Douglas, for that matter, but he is rarely called out as being problematic as early white women in officer were, but that’s a whole other topic altogether).

So while we have a lot more diverse women in Parliament these days, we absolutely do need to do better, and much of that relies on the parties themselves. I would normally say that the grassroots riding associations should have a big role to play in recruiting more diverse women to run for them, but my enthusiasm for grassroots politics is currently being held in check by the fact that overly powerful leaders’ offices have been essentially bigfooting those processes, and so many nominations are being run centrally, if not using outright appointments over the past few cycles, after there was a big push toward “open nominations” for one or two election cycles. And the worst part is that some of this is explicitly about nominating more women to run for office, but in an effort to say that they have more women running, most of the parties will simply run them in unwinnable ridings so that they can say they had them running, but not jeopardise their chances in that riding by running someone who doesn’t fit the popular conception, which perpetuates the problem. And before you say “But the NDP!” I have watched them time and again monkey with their own rules around nominations to run a straight white male in ridings with hugely diverse populations if they think they can win. (Think Robert Chisholm or Joe Cressy). The parties have a big role to play in getting more diverse women to run, and the Liberals were really good about this for an election cycle or two with a sound recruitment strategy, but I’m not sure it’s carried forward as well in the last election cycle.

Meanwhile, I also find myself frustrated by the notion that hybrid sittings are some kind of panacea to women running for office, because it’s based on a few bad assumptions. One of those is the fact that hybrid sittings are demonstrably bad – they are more toxic, and they have a human cost on the interpreters, and using the excuse that this allows more women to run for office should not be contingent upon interpreters needing to injure themselves in order to make it happen. The other is that it simply perpetuates the notion that women must be the primary childcare providers. There are a lot of accommodations for MPs who have small children, and they can develop more as time goes by (and seriously, they need to get over this notion that they can’t hire nannies), but some accommodations—like hybrid sittings—exact a cost that is too high for the benefit. There have to be better ways.

Continue reading →

QP: What is your inflation position today?

Posted on by

Even though the prime minister was in town, he was not in Question Period, but his deputy was, so that was something. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he worried about the news that the coming fiscal update would only have “limited information,” and worrying about them covering up spending. Chrystia Freeland stood up and recited O’Toole’s floundering position on whether inflation is a global problem or not. O’Toole retorted that she was the only politician to have been flagged on Twitter for misleading information, and demanded that she tell the Bank of Canada to get inflation under control. Freeland chided O’Toole for not realising that monetary policy is the role of the Bank, which is arm’s length from government. O’Toole started sputtering about small businesses suffering from inflation, and Freeland reminded him that their campaign documents promised even more government spending in the current fiscal year, and wondered what their position was today. O’Toole demanded to know then a budget would be balanced, and Freeland recited the Economist’s top-ten list of most expensive cities to live in, and noted that none were in Canada. O’Toole then switched to French to say that Quebeckers were tired of living paycheque to paycheque. Freeland repeated the same Economist list in response.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried that the prime minister didn’t raise softwood tariff while in Washington, and Freeland stated that while she could not match Therrien’s ability to play on words, but the file was important and they were continuing to defend the sector’s interest like they did for aluminium. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay demanded that the government insist on separate treatment for Quebec because their forestry rules are different, while Freeland assured him that they were defending sector.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he worried that the COVID rules were too confusing for travellers. Freeland said that they agreed that the fight against COVID was the most important issue for the country and vaccination was the way out, but noted that the current rules are a circuit-breaker to buy them time. Singh repeated the question in French, and repeated her response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole boots Batters at his peril

Posted on by

The internal strife within the Conservative ranks is getting more pointed, as word came down yesterday that Erin O’Toole had lined up enough caucus members to force out any MP who signed Senator Denise Batters’ petition – thus weaponizing the (garbage) Reform Act to protect the leader rather than curb the leader’s powers – and with that threat in the open, O’Toole then kicked Batters out of caucus.

There are a few things about how this is all going down. First of all, the use of the Reform Act provisions to threaten other caucus members is a completely hypocritical action that would be utterly galling if it were not predictable. If only someone *cough* had warned everyone that this was a garbage piece of legislation that would only be used to insulate leaders and give them freer rein to be more autocratic and to threaten the MPs who get out of line, and literally put a target on the backs of anyone who openly stood against the leader as the Act’s provisions require. Imagine it being abused in exactly the way that someone *cough* warned was likely to happen, no matter what Michael Chong and every talking head pundit in this country gushed over. Funny that.

The other aspect of this is the fact that O’Toole kicking Batters out puts a stake in the party’s self-righteous moralising that they respect strong women and that Justin Trudeau hates them (citing Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott and Celina Caesar-Chavannes – but curiously omitting Chrystia Freeland from consideration). It’s even more curious that Senator Michael McDonald said virtually the same things about O’Toole that Batters did, and he didn’t face any sanction. In fact, this has clearly shown that O’Toole will tolerate the anti-vaxxers in his caucus but not someone who wanted the party’s grassroots membership to have a say in his leadership before August 2023 (at which time they would warn that there could be an election at any time so they couldn’t possibly change leaders then). And by kicking Batters out of caucus, she has nothing left to lose. She can join up with the Canadian Senators Group later today (the likeliest place for her to land) and carry on criticising O’Toole and calling on Conservative grassroots members to have their say about his leadership, and O’Toole can’t do anything about it. All of his leverage over her is now gone. If O’Toole thinks that this move solved any of his problems, he’s mistaken.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another of Kenney’s talking points blows up on him

Posted on by

The Alberta government is facing yet another situation where reality butts up against their preferred victimhood narratives – this time around equalisation. You see, for the first time since the 1960s, they have received more in federal transfers than they paid in federal taxes, and we can thank Justin Trudeau’s benediction, not only in pandemic transfers, but in things like money that they sent to the province to remediate orphan wells as a job-creation (and environmental) programme – never mind that they never should have because it meant that private companies and the province were able to successful offload their environmental liabilities to the federal government after the Supreme Court of Canada specifically ruled that they couldn’t under existing bankruptcy laws.

Of course, this isn’t stopping Kenney or his government from trying to spin this to carry on their narrative. For example, the province’s finance minister is claiming that they are still being unfairly impacted because of their contributions on a per capita basis continue to outstrip their share of the population. Because they have the highest incomes in the country by far and we have a progressive federal income tax. This is yet more of the province’s outright disinformation on how equalisation works because they are trying to make people angry rather than properly telling them how the system works, because if people understood, they might not be able to summon some performative outrage about it, and that wouldn’t help Kenney and his agenda.

Because really, so much of how the province is spinning this is yet more distraction sauce from Kenney’s continued failures, and the thousands of unnecessary deaths on his watch, and as I have pointed out elsewhere, Kenney has only one tool in his toolbox, and that is anger. He’s losing yet one more argument that Alberta is being treated “unfairly,” so you can expect a lot more gaslighting and deception in the near future as Kenney and company will try to push back against reality.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1458600346398478337

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unsuccessful distraction attempt

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole emerged from hiding yesterday, and tried to set the narrative of the day about a supposed scary coalition between the Liberals and the NDP – which isn’t happening. A coalition government means that both parties have Cabinet ministers at the table, and given that we just had the dog and pony show of a Cabinet shuffle not two weeks ago, and there was nary an NDP MP among them, we can be reasonably assured that there will be no coalition government. Nevertheless, even a supply and confidence agreement, or some other arrangement, remains unlikely in the extreme because the Liberals know the NDP are in a vulnerable position, broke an unable to afford another election, so they will ensure the government survives regardless – there is no need to give them any leverage or excuse to try and take credit for the government’s actions (not that anything has stopped them thus far).

But while O’Toole tried to make big noises about the “coalition” that isn’t and never will be, he was trying to deflect from the ongoing problem in his party around MPs like Marilyn Gladu and Leslyn Lewis, who have been stoking vaccine hesitancy (while insisting otherwise), conceding that they have “caused confusion,” which is just more soft-peddling and mealy-mouthed refusal to take leadership or to put his foot down. Indeed, when asked about whether there would be any discipline for these remarks, O’Toole stated that they would deal with it “as a team,” which basically means that no, he’s not going to do anything about it.

While my upcoming column will delve further into just why O’Toole refuses to put his foot down, Gladu can insist all she wants that this isn’t a challenge of O’Toole’s leadership, the simple fact is that she continues to undermine it at every opportunity, and that is going to eventually erode what little trust or credibility O’Toole has left.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A headache over added and subtracted seats

Posted on by

The question of seat redistribution and the allocation – and subtraction – of seats has been simmering, and the premier of Quebec is demanding that the prime minister step in and guarantee that Quebec not only retain the seat it is slated to lose, but also to guarantee that because of the notion that Quebec constitutes a nation within Canada, that they must be guaranteed that their share of seats never drops even if their population grows at a much slower pace than other provinces. The problem with that? It would require a constitutional amendment to do, using the 7/50 formula (seven provinces representing 50 percent of the population). And that could be the tricky part.

Of course, the obvious solution is to tinker with the seat distribution formula, which the Conservatives introduced (fully intending to screw over Ontario for new seats along the way). But as I stated in my column a couple of weeks ago, we would probably be better served adding far more than just four seats – something more like 40 would be better for everyone, especially because it would mean better populating committees and keeping parliamentary secretaries from voting positions on them. Mike Moffatt and I discussed this over Twitter:

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1456558821942431744

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1456560023383969796

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1456590475985571840

Furthermore, if we stay at the current redistribution formula, that sole new seat in Ontario is going to cause a lot of problems with redrawing boundaries (which will then have provincial reverberations, because Ontario provincial ridings mirror their federal counterparts, with the exception of an additional seat in Northern Ontario for better representation. Once this reality starts to sink in, perhaps the government would start considering boosting that formula to avoid these kinds of headaches.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1456593608648298498

Continue reading →

Roundup: Glover says she’s the premier

Posted on by

It was quite a day in Manitoba yesterday as Heather Stefanson was sworn-in as the province’s first female premier, but the leadership drama isn’t over. Her challenger, former federal Cabinet minister Shelly Glover has not conceded defeat, and plans to challenge the leadership election in court, citing irregularities and reports that Stefanson’s scrutineers looked defeated at one point of the counting and then something allegedly mysterious happened to a ballot box…or something. I’m having a hard time keeping track of it. Regardless, Glover insists that she’s really the premier, not Stefanson.

One could be very pedantic here and note that Stefanson has been sworn in, so she’s premier regardless. Her immediate predecessor, Kelvin Goertzen, was not chosen in a leadership election by caucus as interim leader, and he was fully and legitimately premier, even if it was only for a few weeks (and yes, he’s going to get a portrait in the legislature to reflect that status). So no, Glover is not premier, and even if by some miracle she were declared party leader (which won’t happen – the courts won’t get involved in the inner workings of a political party), Stefanson is still premier and will be until she resigns or is dismissed.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1455671852647559168

But on a broader point, Glover has always been a very problematic politician, stridently repeating talking points in the face of logic and evidence, and getting combative when challenged on her bullshit, particularly as she seemed to lack the critical reasoning skills to think through her positions. And this attempted court challenge is her combativeness and willingness to believe illogical or contrary things playing out in the very way she demonstrated during her nine years in federal politics (two of which were as a minister). And Glover had her own run-ins with Elections Canada, and at one point Elections Canada asked the Speaker to suspend her because of financial irregularities during an election (which were later resolved with revised filings that Elections Canada accepted, Glover terming them an “honest mistake.”) One has to question her fitness to lead given her history and temperament, but I’m not a member of the party.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bracing for election night

Posted on by

With voting day just days away, we’re starting to see a few “reminder” stories about how our system works, so that we can have some reasonable expectations about what the outcomes might look like on Monday, and why it will mean things like the current government staying in place and having the first chance to test the confidence of the new Chamber once it’s been summoned. There is an interview with Emmett Macfarlane here about how any decision will unfold on Monday night and why Trudeau will remain prime minister until he chooses to resign, which is good. There is also a piece from the Canadian Press which maps out different scenarios about how the evening may play out and what these scenarios might mean.

The problem, of course, is that television news in this country is abysmal, and we’ll spend the night listening to inane banter that pretends that there is no sitting government (exacerbated by the fact that they are currently observing a convention that refers to the prime minister as the “Liberal leader” in order to have an exaggerated sense of “fairness” around his incumbent status), and they will throw around terms like “prime minister-elect” even though we don’t elect prime minister (it’s an appointed position) and the fact that if it is the incumbent – which it’s likely to be – he’s already the prime minister and won’t require an “-elect” or “-designate” title to go along with it. We’ll also no doubt hear talk about him getting a “mandate” even though that kind of thing is utterly incompatible with our system of government. And no matter how much people like me will call it out over social media, nobody will care, and they will continue to completely misinform people about our basic civics without any care in the world, because that’s the state of media in this country right now.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, fixed election dates don’t give the GG unconstitutional powers

Posted on by

The “debate,” if you can call it such, over Jagmeet Singh’s decision to undermine Her Excellency Mary Simon by publicly writing her and telling her to refuse the advice of the prime minister who commands the confidence of the Chamber just got more ridiculous, as Andrew Coyne decided to weigh in yesterday (and no, I’m not going to link because hate clicks are still clicks). Coyne contends that the fixed election date law empowers the GG to turn down such a request, and “proves” it by quoting testimony from former justice minister Rob Nicholson at the Senate committee.

No. Just…no.

The logic in Coyne’s argument can’t hold because the Governor General’s role in accepting the advice of the prime minister who enjoys the confidence of the Chamber is the very basis of our constitutional framework under Responsible Government. The only discretion she might have over dissolution is when a request is made shortly after an election – that’s it. Nothing a simple statute, like the fixed election date law, can change a constitutional element, and there is jurisprudence to back this up, particularly the doomed attempts at trying to get the courts to uphold the fixed election date legislation, which they dismissed (including the Supreme Court of Canada). Fixed election date legislation is an empty shell – a bit of theatre and attempt to Americanise our system, and is antithetical to how Westminster systems operate – it shouldn’t be on our books as a result. There is no way that it could empower the GG to do away with constitutional norms to refuse dissolution, and if she did refuse, the prime minister would be obligated to resign, and we’d be in an election regardless. It’s ridiculous and wrong to suggest otherwise.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1422914814494584833

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1422925735472271369

What is even more ironic about this whole situation is that Jagmeet Singh and Coyne himself will often rail that the “undemocratic Senate” shouldn’t be allowed to exercise their constitutional powers to veto legislation, and yet they are demanded that an appointed Governor General exercise powers that she doesn’t actually have under the constitution. It’s bizarre, and it’s a lot of bullshit masquerading as principle.

Continue reading →

QP: The documents have been sent to NSICOP

Posted on by

It was one of those days in the Chamber where the benches seemed particularly thin, and once again, only Mark Gerretsen was present for the Liberals. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and wanted a new commitment to the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Report around the graves around former residential schools, and Mark Miller assured him they are working with communities so that they can come up with their own processes and that the federal government was there to support them and with funds when they were ready. O’Toole repeated in French, and Miller gave him the same answer. O’Toole then switched back to English and the issue of the National Microbiology Lab, raising redacted documents that have been released to date, tying it to the lab in Wuhan, for which Patty Hajdu assured him that they were cooperating with any investigation and that the correct place for Parliament to deal with the matter was NSICOP, which has been provided with documents. O’Toole insisted that they weren’t being given enough to hold government to account for a security breach, but Hajdu repeated her assurances with a warning not to play games with national security. O’Toole repeated the calls in French, and Hajdu repeated herself.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded that Quebec’s Bill 101 be extended to federally-regulated workplaces, and Mélanie Joly gave her assurances that they would ensure that French would be a language of work and service. Therrien wanted government support for their bill to make the extension formal, but Joly deflected with talking points about the government’s forthcoming Official Languages Act reforms.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded support for their Supply Day motion on ending litigation around Indigenous children — litigation that is about a bad precedent by the Tribunal and not the compensation order. Miller assured him they were working toward proper compensation. Singh repeated the question in English, and gave a more clear response on the substance of the action around the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and that discussions around compensation are ongoing.

Continue reading →