Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: “True Blue” O’Toole

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole made his official entry into the leadership race yesterday by way of a video that takes swipes at “cancel culture” and celebrity activists – the kinds of keyboard warrior buzzwords that are pretty much the domains of O’Toole’s new campaign staffer, Jeff Ballingall, of those “Canada Proud” etc. sites.

At a rally in Calgary later in the evening, O’Toole said that Peter MacKay would turn the party into Liberal-lite, which I have yet to see any actual evidence of (MacKay is not really a Red Tory, guys – he’s not. Stop pretending he is). It also struck me that he kept reiterating the kinds of comforting lies that the party likes to tell itself about issues like the plight of the energy sector, where the woes are blamed on the Trudeau government and not changing market forces (seriously, the shale revolution in the US is a pretty big driver of these changes). He did say that he would march in a Pride parade, and justified it with his military background, which is a bit funny given that he hasn’t marched in one to date, which makes his sudden conviction around it mighty suspect. His opposition to carbon pricing continues to dig the party into its current environmental rut, and his talk of deficits remains completely economically illiterate – all doubling down on the party’s current positions, because that’s apparently what will make him a “true blue” Conservative. I’m not sure how this grows the party’s base, but what do I know?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Coronavirus case in Canada

Posted on by

We can expect a bunch of questions around the first two suspected cases of coronavirus being treated in Toronto when the Commons returns for Question Period tomorrow, and it’s a question of how much we’ll see any kind of politicking being played around it. The line is that we’re not expecting an outbreak in the country – but we’re already at a situation where the suspected case was symptomatic on a flight so that means tracking down the other passengers.

Over the past week, we’ve seen a lot of interviews with former officials, political or bureaucratic, who dealt with SARS and MERS, and they insist that lessons have been learned in Canada, even though we don’t know how this coronavirus will compare. That said, the Ontario government already slashed Toronto Public Health’s funding, so that just may come around to bite them in the ass.

Amidst this, Matt Gurney is decidedly more pessimistic about the preparations and says that the facts we know around this suspected case mean that the system didn’t work, and that’s going to be a problem going forward. He has a point, but we’ll have to see how the response changes in the days ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The glitter of Gold in the Senate

Posted on by

At long last – and indeed, at virtually the last possible minute – prime minister Justin Trudeau finally – finally! – named a new Leader of the Government in the Senate yesterday, independent Quebec senator Marc Gold. This wasn’t actually a surprise to those of us who’ve had our ears to the ground, but amidst the speculation of who Trudeau would name, many of them allegedly said no when they were asked (or at least said they did). The next question is who Gold can convince to come aboard as his deputy and whip (or “liaison” as they like to call themselves), because he won’t be able to replicate Senator Peter Harder’s too-clever-by-half trick of getting a former Conservative as his deputy and a former Liberal as his whip, so that he could insist that look, he was so non-partisan and independent in the middle of the two. Gold does sound like he plans to continue Harder’s half-pregnant fiction that he can be both independent and government “representative,” and has repeated the eye-rolling line that he “represents the government in the Senate and the Senate to the government.” Because no, that’s not actually how this works.

In an interview with CTV’s Power Play, Gold largely stuck to platitudes when asked how he will get big pieces of legislation through the Senate, insisting that the Senate will “rise to the occasion” and have “lively debate,” but would not say anything about things like, oh, negotiation. I will note that it was heartening to see that he did understand that the role of the Senate was to have a longer-range view and the less-partisan perspective, and kept insisting that it was a complementary body to the House of Commons, but his talk about the danger of it being an “echo chamber” of the Commons was a bit more off the mark. But countering this was the fact that he also seems to accept the false notion that these so-called reforms that Trudeau has been pushing somehow “returns” it to its raison d’être, which is not true in the slightest. It was never supposed to be non-partisan, and the more that people keep saying it is, misreading both the original debates on Confederation and the Supreme Court of Canada reference decision, the more it shows that we have an uphill struggle to keep these would-be reformers from doing lasting damage to the institution out of their well-meaning ignorance.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Promising an improper bill

Posted on by

As part of his press scrums coming out of pre-sitting caucus meetings, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh declared that the party’s first private members’ bill would be to make universal pharmacare a reality. And apparently no one in the media pushed back against this, because let me tell you, it’s a whole lot of hand-wavey bullshit, and it quite literally goes against the rules of Parliament.

For the uninitiated, private members’ bills have a very limited scope, and they are not allowed to spend public funds. To spend public funds, you need a Royal Recommendation, which only the government can provide. (It would have been nice if The Canadian Press article could mention that fact rather than simply say that PMBs have a tougher time passing). You can’t make pharmacare a reality without money, and given that it’s an area of provincial jurisdiction, it’s likely any bill would be unvoteable. In his release, Singh says he wants to legislate the necessary criteria by which provinces will get funding for the programme, which is a very interesting way to go about negotiating something that is in their area of jurisdiction. (Also, Singh’s constant line that Trudeau is somehow acting on the bidding of Big Pharma ignores that they are not happy with him, particularly over the changes the government made to the Patented Medicines Price Review Board – essentially, Singh is lying for the sake of a talking point he’s borrowing from the Justice Democrat crowd in the US). Singh also says that restoring the health transfer escalator will bring the provinces onside, which holy cow is a lot of money, but also ignores that the escalator was rising faster than healthcare spending, so it meant provinces were using that money for other things. But it’s only money, right?

You can’t just handwave this. I point this out over Twitter, and every NDP apologist under the sun insists that a) this is about keeping pressure on the government, and b) that the Liberals have somehow backed away from their campaign promise, which is false. The campaign promise was a $6 billion “down payment” while they negotiate with the provinces, because it’s largely provincial jurisdiction. They committed to following the Hoskins report, and already started with the creation of some of the necessary organizational tools necessary. A few days ago, the health minister said she couldn’t guarantee that it would happen during this parliament because it’s contingent upon negotiation with the provinces – provinces who are publicly reluctant, and we haven’t even broached the subject of how to negotiate a national formulary, which is a Very Big Deal and integral to any pharmacare system. And yet Singh was out promising that this could be done by 2020, because since when are these kinds of negotiations a problem? Yeah, that’s not how this works, kids, and lying about what Trudeau promised in order to justify Singh’s promises doesn’t make you a hero.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1220070604872671232

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ambrose rules out a return

Posted on by

It was a day of a lot of movement within the Conservative leadership race, with big repercussions to come. Early in the day, we got word that two more names were added to the Conservative race – rookie backbencher Derek Sloan, and failed leadership candidate (and aspiring narcissist) Rick Peterson. Sloan has already come out and said that he’s open to having a debate over abortion, and he’s putting forward this absurd notion that they need to stop being apologetic about being Conservative – which would be great if the party actually put forward conservative ideas like market-based solutions to problems rather than just populist pandering. Shocking. Peterson, meanwhile, is continuing his schtick that his business success is going to translate to political success, even though he did abysmally in the last election and couldn’t secure a nomination to run in the election, which shows you just how profound his organizational skills are. Nevertheless, expect him to position himself as the “Western” candidate in the race.

And then the big bombshell – Rona Ambrose announced that she is officially out of the race. It wasn’t a surprise really, especially as word has been circulating in Conservative circles that she hasn’t made any phone calls or secured any kind of organization while she considered her options. Nevertheless, it now opens the race wide open because a lot of people who had been holding their breath and waiting for Ambrose to make a move can now make their own moves. It also means that currently, Marilyn Gladu is the only woman in the race, which can’t be healthy for the party either. (It also makes me wonder who the Red Tory in this race is going to be, because it’s not actually Peter MacKay).

And just minutes after Ambrose made her announcement, another would-be candidate, former staffer Richard Décarie went on Power Play to expound on his social conservative views. It went as well as can be expected.

While most of the other candidates quickly came out to condemn these comments, there are a few things to note here – Décarie is worth following because he has attracted some organizational heft, particularly from those who were behind Tanya Granic Allen in Ontario, and it’s not insignificant, and when you recall that Brad Trost did come in fourth the last time around. There is a particularly strong social conservative organization within the party, and they do a lot of fundraising and organizing, and that can’t be overlooked when it comes to a leadership race, where those to factors are going to count for a lot more.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The reality of negotiation

Posted on by

As was ever thus, the Twitter Machine erupted with fury and disingenuous outrage when health minister Patty Hajdu told reporters that she couldn’t guarantee that a national pharmacare programme would be in place at the end of the current parliament (for which we don’t know when that will be, as a hung parliament rarely lasts beyond two years.

“Some of that will be predicted by, predicated by, the responses of the provinces and territories,” said Hajdu, because *mind blown* healthcare is largely the domain of the provinces and any pharmacare system would have to be negotiated with them – in particular, a national formulary, which is going to be extremely complicated to ensure that existing plans don’t get left behind or that the new national plan isn’t worse off than any existing ones that it would replace.

What is especially irritating are all of the voices crying out that this just means the Liberals were lying on the campaign trail, which is false and ridiculous – Trudeau spent the campaign not overpromising on this file, but rather kept saying that it was contingent on negotiation with provinces, which is why their fiscal plan only called for a “down payment” on such a programme rather than the whole thing, but nevertheless, the promise was to go by the principles of the Hoskins Report, which they have bene doing thus far. The NDP, by contrast, insisted that this could be done by 2020, and whenever anyone brought up the fact that the provinces may object, the line was largely that why would anyone say no to federal dollars? It’s absurd, of course, because provinces are rightfully afraid that they would be stuck with an expensive programme to run if the federal government suddenly cut out transfers or funds to it because they suddenly had other priorities (which has happened in the past).

And to that end, we have a bunch of premiers who are balking at it, Quebec and Alberta want to be able to opt-out with compensation, and Ontario is instead insisting that the federal government pay for drugs to treat rare diseases – the most expensive kind, and the ones where costs are rapidly escalating. So of course they want the federal government to pay for them rather than to share the burden. It’s predictable, and for anyone to be shocked and appalled that the Liberals have to deal with this reality is really, really tiresome.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cutting through Pallister’s bluster

Posted on by

With the Cabinet meeting in Winnipeg, Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland took an opportunity to meet with premier Brian Pallister yesterday, and boy howdy, was his tone in interviews afterward a hugely problematic mess. Pallister kept insisting that the province wasn’t getting the “respect” they deserved for their environmental plans, while ignoring the legitimate concerns that the federal government has – to the point where he was deliberately obscuring the actual issues at play.

One of the main issues in contention is the federal carbon price, which Pallister has famously waffled on (to the point where Paul Wells has referred to him as “Canada’s tallest weather vane”) – first he was going to implement one, then got huffy and stopped the plans because he didn’t want to increase it every year as is the plan, and because he saw momentum with other conservative premiers in challenging it in the courts. With those challenges coming down squarely in the federal government’s favour, Pallister is again floating the idea of implementing it, but doesn’t want it to increase, saying that a low price will let them meet their Paris targets. The problem, of course, is that there needs to be a common carbon price across the country so that provinces don’t undercut one another, which Pallister (and others) continue to ignore, as though the fact is a triviality when it’s the crux of the whole issue. All the while, Pallister is swearing up and down that he’s not asking for a special deal, when he is in fact demanding just that. I’m not sure how else you would describe being exempted from increasing the carbon price in line with the rest of the country as anything other than a special deal.

Add to that, Pallister is demanding a cookie for past emissions reductions when there is a hell of a long way for the country to go to meet our current targets. Ontario is trying this tactic as well, when the Ford government has completely derailed the province’s planned reductions, and insisting that you’ve already done your bit just puts even more pressure on Alberta and Saskatchewan, which I’m not sure Kenney and Moe would appreciate terribly. Pallister was also on TV grousing that he’s not getting credit for exporting cleaner electricity to Saskatchewan and the United States, which is funny because the reward for that is money, which presumably they are earning for doing so. Suffice to say, all of Pallister’s excuses are amounting to a pile of bullshit, and it would be great if our media brethren could do better at calling him out on it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving up HRH

Posted on by

News came down on Saturday from Buckingham Palace that Harry and Meghan had given up their royal titles – they remain the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – and that they would be repaying for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which would continue to be their residence in the UK. On Sunday, Harry gave a speech that outlined his continued commitment to causes, but said that he had no other choice than to step back from royal duties, and it wasn’t possible to keep up Commonwealth and military commitments while not being senior royals receiving the sovereign grant.

The fact that the pair have given up their royal titles is likely to mean that they are no longer on the list of internationally protected persons, meaning that Canada will likely not have to foot any kind of security bill for them – even though no assessment had even been made on it (as it was still a bit early considering that little had been finalised).

So what does this mean for my proposal that we put them to work giving patronages in Canada? Well, very little, actually – Harry has insisted that they are still devoted to causes, and well, they have the time and the availability to devote themselves to these causes while they’re spending (likely just shy of) six months of the year here. It will just mean that they will be more under their celebrity status than royal status, which is more the pity. Besides, what could be more Canadian than getting something second-hand from Britain and hoping that it doesn’t catch fire on its way across the Atlantic?

Continue reading →

Roundup: When lower carbon is not lower carbon

Posted on by

As the various interests trying to promote the continued development of Alberta’s energy sector amidst changing global markets and the need to move to a carbon-constrained future, one is bound to find a number of arguments that are inherently self-serving and containing falsehoods (such as the fiction that Andrew Scheer and Jason Kenney keep trying to promote that somehow Alberta energy can reduce the environmental footprint in China and India, and that we can take their emissions credits for it). Energy economist Andrew Leach found another one promulgated by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (which I will remind you is an organization that has gone so far to the one side that major players like Royal Dutch Shell have withdrawn from the group, because they understand the need for mechanisms like carbon pricing).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Congeniality by way of TV

Posted on by

Maclean’s has a profile of the TVO series Political Blind Date, which pits politicians from rival parties – sometimes from the same level of government, sometimes from different provinces – in situations that help them understand each other’s viewpoints and helps to break down the partisanship barriers. And this is great – but what it was missing was any particular context as to why partisanship has grown to such toxic levels in the first place, and that has a lot to do with parliaments and legislatures rejigging their rules to be more “family friendly.”

Until the early 1990s, parliament used to hold evening sittings three nights a week. At six o’clock, the House would adjourn, and everyone would head upstairs to the Parliamentary Restaurant (aided by the fact that there was a dearth of restaurant options in the area, and liquor laws were such that you bought a bottle of booze that was kept behind the bar in the restaurant with your name on it). MPs would eat together, drink together, get to know one another across party lines, and it developed a sense of congeniality, and at eight o’clock, they’d head back to the Chamber and debate for a couple of more hours. The arrival of the Reform Party and the move to end evening sittings to be “family friendly” ended the congeniality and cross-party opportunities to just be parliamentarians together. With no impetus to break bread together, caucuses grew insular, and it became easier to treat other parties as the enemy rather than just having opposing points of view. Now, it’s rare that cross-party friendships occur unless there is committee travel that helps MPs bond, but that’s not very often. It’s disappointing that we are now relying on a TV show to build these relationships which used to be part and parcel of being an MP.

What’s particularly sad is that this kind of thing is now infecting the Senate, which used to be a far less partisan place than the House of Commons, and for which many senators have formed close and long-lasting friendships across the aisle. They still have more of the convivial culture that the Commons did, but that too is fading as the new Independents, eager to burn things down and declare anyone with partisan affiliation to be tainted and in some cases the enemy (particularly the Conservatives), it is polarizing the Chamber, and souring the mood therein. For a move that was supposed to lessen partisanship, Trudeau’s brilliant attempt to reform the Senate is doing the opposite – just one more unintended consequence that nobody bothered to consider, and all Canadians suffer as a result.

Continue reading →