Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Kenney’s shock-and-awe tour

Posted on by

Jason Kenney is in town on his shock-and-awe tour, with eight ministers and countless staff in tow, intent on making the province’s “Fair Deal” case to their federal counterparts – while those federal ministers smile and nod and say “yes, dear.” Meanwhile, certain credulous journalists and columnists are swallowing Kenney’s presentation whole, as he brings charts and graphs and rattles off figures that they don’t bother to question, never mind that he has a well-known and well documented propensity for lying with these very same facts and figures – and then gets terribly indignant if you call him on it, and will keep reiterating them, bulldozing over his doubters. And we’re going to get even more of that during the media rounds later today – mark my words.

To that end, Kenney’s ever-evolving list of demands continue to be largely unreasonable (as said credulous journalists and pundits nod and say “They’re perfectly reasonable” when they’re not) – things like demanding a solid timeline for the completion of the Trans Mountain pipeline (impossible if there are further court challenges, and Kenney is lying when he says there are mechanisms), along with bringing in First Nations as equity partners (there is little point until the project is completed, which was the whole point of buying the pipeline in the first place – to adequately de-risk it); his $2.4 billion demand for “fiscal stabilization,” some of which he plans to put into remediating orphan wells (never mind the Supreme Court has ruled that these are the responsibility of the companies who owned them); substantial repeals of environmental legislation (because the failed system under Harper that only resulted in litigation worked so well); changing rules so that oil and gas companies can raise revenues (reminder: flow-through shares are de facto federal subsidies); and recognising Alberta’s efforts at methane reduction (I’m going with “trust, but verify” on this one, because Kenney likes to lie about the province’s other carbon reduction efforts). So yeah – “perfectly reasonable.” Sure, Jan.

Bill Morneau, for his part, says he’s willing to talk to his provincial counterparts at their upcoming meeting about fiscal stabilization, but isn’t making promises. While the premiers all signed onto this notion at the Council of the Federation meeting last week, it was because it’s federal dollars and not dealing with equalization which could affect their bottom lines – and Kenney’s supposedly “conciliatory” tone in which he says he’s willing to accept fiscal stabilization changes over equalization is likely a combination of the realization that he’s getting to traction from the other premiers, whose support he would need to make any changes, and the fact that Trudeau publicly called Scott Moe’s bluff on equalization reform when he said that if Moe can bring a proposal forward signed off on by all of the premiers then they would discuss it – something that isn’t going to happen. This all having been said, it also sounds a lot like Kenney wants the rest of Canada to bankroll the province for their decision not to implement a modest sales tax which would not only have solved their deficit but would have provided them with the fiscal stability to help weather the current economic hard times – but that’s an inconvenient narrative. Better to drum up a fake separatist threat and try to play the hero instead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performative fiscal demands

Posted on by

In spite of the fact that Bill Morneau strongly hinted on Thursday that there would be a “fall” fiscal update this week (and technically it is still autumn for another couple of weeks), the Conservatives dispatched Pierre Poilievre yesterday to performatively demand one – along with a bunch of the usual demands for tax cuts and “cutting red tape” (as though governments haven’t been trying to do just that for years). The tax cuts are coming – at least, the planned increase to the basic income exemption, targeted at lower-income brackets – which the government has stated repeatedly will be their first order of business, thought the Conservatives demand more tax breaks for “entrepreneurs,” while the NDP want that income exemption to phase out earlier so as to pay for dental care – ignoring, or course, that such a programme would rely on negotiations with the provinces, just like pharmacare. But hey, once you’re on a talking point, best to stick with it, right?

Meanwhile, the first confidence vote of the new Parliament will likely be tomorrow, as it’s the final Supply Day of the year, and when the Supplementary Estimates need to be passed, and we can imagine that it’ll be a long day of votes and Committee of the Whole to deal with them, before they head off to the Senate, where they might – might – get a bit more scrutiny than they’ll get in the Commons. But a vote on the Speech From the Throne is unlikely to take place until after the Commons comes back from their break in January, just looking at the math on the calendar.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Enter the QP scolds

Posted on by

With the return of Parliament comes the inevitable return of the sanctimonious commentary around the behaviour of MPs in the House of Commons. Already we had Scott Gilmore insisting that MPs “not be assholes,” and this eyeroll-inducing plea from Tamara Miller that goes on about grade eight students. What Miller seems to forget is that the House of Commons is not a classroom. Question Period is not a lecture or a seminar course where all sides discuss this week’s assigned reading. It’s political theatre, and it’s an exercise in holding government to account, and that isn’t always done with dry recitations of scripts and polite golf claps.

The other thing that I keep needing to drill into people is that Question Period is not the totality of what happens in the Commons. The rest of the day you are more likely to be in danger of narcolepsy than you are of hearing heckling or other boorish behaviour. Committees are generally fairly well behaved, but if there’s a contentious issue then parties will send in their ringers to put on a show when they know people are watching. It’s political theatre. Is it always pleasant? No. But most of the hours of the day aren’t anywhere near what happens in QP, and that’s fine. There is also nothing wrong with heckling per se – some of it is very legitimate, whether it’s cross-talk when ministers are saying things that aren’t true, or when they’re not answering the question but rather just reading non sequitur talking points – as happens too often. I don’t think that MPs should just sit on their hands and be silent when they’re being spun or insulted to their faces by some of what governments – regardless of stripe – pull. Does this mean that all behaviour is acceptable? No – there is a lot of behaviour that is more akin to jeering, hooting baboons than to parliamentarians, and yes, some of it is sexist and bullying, but not all of it, but it should be incumbent upon parties and the Speaker to police the excesses, but the constant tut-tutting about any heckling is frankly gag-inducing.

This having been said, should MPs behave better in QP? Sure. The clapping ban the Liberals instituted helps tremendously (when it’s obeyed – it had pretty much broken down toward the end of the last parliament), and frankly, it makes Scheer and Singh look terribly insecure by comparison if they require ovations every time they stand up to speak when Trudeau doesn’t. But honestly, I can’t think of anything worse than the way that these scolds imagine that QP should be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Payette’s personal contributions

Posted on by

With some adjustments to the pomp and ceremony to accommodate Parliament’s new dual-building status, the Speech from the Throne went ahead yesterday, and the speech itself was not all that exciting. There was a big focus on the environment and climate change, a whole section on reconciliation with Indigenous people, and this government’s watch words of “middle class prosperity,” and the government sprinkled just enough hints that could mollify the other opposition parties if they were looking for something to justify their support, though both Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh came out to puff their chests out and declare that they weren’t happy with what was in the speech.

More concerning was the fact that the Governor General herself contributed to writing the speech, which is unusual, and dare I say a problem. Her role is to read the speech on behalf of the government, and there are centuries of parliamentary evolution as to why this is the case, but her having an active hand in writing the speech – even if it’s the introduction (and in particular the notions of everyone being in the same space-time continuum on our planetary spaceship), it’s highly irregular and problematic because it means that Payette is once again overreaching as to what her role in things actually is, and that she’s unhappy with it being ceremonial (a failure of this government doing their due diligence in appointing her when she is not suited to the task). While one of my fellow journalists speculated that this may have been what was offered in exchange for her having to read a prepared speech (something she does not like to do), it’s still a problem with lines being crossed.

And then there was the reporting afterward. When Andrew Scheer said that he was going to propose an amendment to the Speech during debate, Power & Politics in particular ran with it as though this was novel or unusual, and kept hammering on the fact that Scheer is going to propose an amendment! The problem? Amendments are how Speech from the Throne debates actually work. It’s part of the rules that over the course of the debate, the Official Opposition will move an amendment (usually something to effect of “delete everything after this point and let’s call this government garbage”) to the Address in Reply to the Speech, and the third party will propose their own sub-amendment, and most of the time, they all get voted on, and the government carries the day – because no government is going to fall on the Throne Speech. There is nothing novel or special about this, and yet “Ooh, he’s going to move an amendment!” Get. A. Grip.

And now, the hot takes on the Speech, starting with Heather Scoffield, who calls out that the Speech neglected anything around economic growth. Susan Delacourt makes note of how inward-focused this Speech is compared to its predecessor. Chris Selley lays out some of Trudeau’s improbable tasks in the Speech, as well as the one outside of it which is to play a supporting role to Freeland and her task at hand. Paul Wells clocks the vagueness in the Speech, but also the fact that they are setting up for games of political chicken in the months and years ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: That Video and worst instincts

Posted on by

For well over the past two days, the news cycle has been consumed with That Video, and the interpretations of what was said on it. And because so many members of our media act feel the need to be tattletales, narcs, and scolds, what was an interesting tableau turned into an international attempt to get someone – particularly Justin Trudeau – in trouble.

First, despite the fact that the scene was spotted by a CBC producer from the NATO pool feed, people started circulating that this was some kind of illegally obtained footage from Russian spies and circulated as disinformation on their Sputnik network. (Nope). Then came everyone interpreting it as some kind of mockery or high school gossip, when it turned out to simply be an animated recounting of the unscheduled press conference, and the surprise announcement that the G7 meeting was to be held at Camp David. And because everyone is a tattletale and a narc, they brought it up at Trump’s press conference with Angela Merkel, he responded by calling Trudeau “two-faced” and that he was just sore because he got called out for not spending enough on defence (that’s not how NATO works), and then he cancelled his closing press conference and went home – but not before remarking before reporters that the whole “two-faced” thing was a big joke to him. Meanwhile, all of the Canadian commentariat is having a meltdown, and all of them went on the air with fantasy versions of just what the conversation was in That Video, and everyone describing it as “disparaging” or “gossip,” when they simply didn’t have the context that Trudeau provided to them the next day when he was pressed about it in his own media availability. So, any serious conversation about the future of NATO was basically overshadowed because a bunch of excitable journalists watched a video, jumped to conclusions, and let their narc instincts get the better of them – and then wouldn’t shut up about it.

And then come the scolding pundits, as night follows day. Like Matt Gurney, who characterized Trudeau as “mocking” and “gossip” and who said that Trump was right about our not spending enough. (Reminder: DND can’t actually get all of the current spending out the door because they don’t have the capacity or manpower, and it will take years to get enough people trained up). Or Heather Scoffield, who is concerned that this could mean Trump will tear up the New NAFTA or start imposing new tariffs – as though he needed excuses anytime in the past. Much more sensible was Susan Delacourt who said that it was about time that world leaders didn’t walk on eggshells around Trump, and that world leaders should stop simply looking on silently as his constant rule-breaking goes on around them.

On top of this incident was the complete mischaracterization of a video of Princess Anne, the Queen, and the Trumps. While there was a longer video where Anne escorts the Trumps to the Queen’s receiving line, and at one point the Queen looks over to her and she shrugs – no one left in the line but me – and everyone carries on. But a shortened clip started circulating and certain journalists falsely characterised it as the Queen chastising Anne for not greeting the Trumps and Anne didn’t care. And yet the false version went viral.

We don’t need Russian disinformation bots. We’re perfectly capable of distributing all manner of breathless disinformation without them. Cripes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Contemplating compromised committees

Posted on by

As the summoning of the new Parliament draws ever closer, we’re seeing more stories about the procedural intricacies of the first few sitting days, and the coming confidence vote on or before the 10th because of the Supply cycle and the need to pass the Supplementary Estimates before that date. Fair enough – those can be expected to pass pretty handily because nobody is going to want to head right back to the polls (and I wouldn’t expect the Governor General to grant an immediate election either – the developing convention is waiting at least six months, providing there is another viable governing party, though that would be the real trick given the current seat maths).

This all having been said, there was something in this interview with Pablo Rodriguez, the new Government House Leader, which sticks in my craw, and that’s the talk about possibly undoing the rule changes that prevent parliamentary secretaries from being voting members on Commons committees, and I. Just. Cannot. Even.

While the chances of this happening are fairly slim, given that it would require opposition support and they are unlikely to get it, it’s still crazy-making. This reflex to go super political in a hung parliament is understandable but deeply frustrating because it undermines the whole raison d’être of Parliament, which is to hold the government to account, and committees are one very big piece of the accountability puzzle. Parliamentary secretaries should have no business even being near committees because it undermines their independence. It’s bad enough that under the previous parliament, they were still on the committee in a non-voting capacity, but it still allowed ministers’ offices to attempt to stage manage what went on (to varying degrees, depending on which committee it was). Having the parliamentary secretaries as voting members simply turns committees into the branch plants of ministers’ offices, and we saw this play out for the better part of a decade under Stephen Harper. Committees are not there to simply take orders from the minister and waste everyone’s time, and it would be hugely disappointing if the Liberals returned to that way of thinking simply because it’s a hung parliament. If we think that the only time to let Parliament function properly is if there’s a majority for the government, then it’s a sad state of affairs for our democracy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poisoning the free market well

Posted on by

Last week, former Reform Party leader Preston Manning stated that conservatives across the country need to get their acts together when it comes to real environmental plans – but then made the boggling case that the Liberals and NDP had “poisoned” the notion of carbon prices, so those were off the table. I can barely even. Stephen Harper called for carbon pricing in the form of a cap-and-trade system when Stéphane Dion was calling for a carbon tax, until Harper decided that doing nothing was preferable to the actual decent plan that he had a hand in developing. For Manning to blame the Liberals and NDP for poisoning the well is more than a little rich – particularly considering that you have a center-left party adopting free market principles in carbon pricing, which you would think would overjoy a small-c conservative. But no.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1201524374106451973

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1201528489507270656

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1201528491365273600

Meanwhile, the story about those conservative premiers who signed a Memorandum of Understanding about developing Small Modular Reactors? Well, it turns out that the MOU is basically about declaring interest in the hopes of forcing the federal government to invest in their research and development – so that they don’t have to put any of their own dollars up front. Add to that the temptation for them to treat this as a form of technosalvation – that they can cite it as the excuse for why they’re not doing more to reduce emissions in the short-term – and it all looks very much to be a big PR exercise. (Look surprised!)

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pride vs St. Patrick’s Day

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer’s new deputy leader, Leona Alleslev, started off her new role with a bang this weekend by doing the media rounds, and when asked about Scheer’s continued refusal to attend Pride parades, Alleslev responded with “Have we asked anybody if they marched in a St. Patrick’s Day parade?”

Oh no she better don’t!

Alleslev apologised several hours later, but by then you had a lot of Conservatives completely outraged that this was the kind of thing that was going to lose them the next election (and renewing the calls for Scheer’s resignation). While the point was made that she shouldn’t have needed to apologise because it was Scheer’s lines she was parroting, it’s difficult to imagine how anyone would have even for a second thought that there was an equivalence to the two. And Scheer’s own campaign communications director started a lengthy tweet thread to show all the various ways in which Scheer paid lip service to every religious and cultural event out there – except Pride, which is something that speaks volumes.

Alleslev also went on to insinuate that those who raised questions about Scheer’s leadership – and the numbers are growing, as are the profile of raising those questions – are somehow being “disloyal” to the party. And this irritates me, because this notion that parties are supposed to be personality cults for leaders is toxic and antithetical to how our system operates. The leader is not the party. The party is more than the person who leads it at any one moment, and it would be great if everyone could get on the same page about this because it’s kind of embarrassing for everyone who is carrying on otherwise.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The call is coming from inside the caucus room

Posted on by

The hits just keep coming for Andrew Scheer, as one of his MPs came out vocally against his leadership yesterday. In the wake of the fairly low-key announcement of his Shadow Cabinet, it was quickly noticed that Ed Fast was not on said list, and Fast himself said that he was asked to be part of it and he declined, saying that Scheer should be surrounded by people loyal to his leadership, while Fast has concerns about it. Up until this moment, Scheer’s loyalists were dismissing those vocally and publicly calling for Scheer to step down as being Toronto elites and sore losers that go back to leadership rivals. Fast’s public denouncement puts a lie to this narrative.

Let’s face it – public dissent in caucus is rare because we have virtually eliminated all of the incentives for it. Our bastardized leadership selection process has leaders claiming a “democratic legitimacy” that they use to intimidate MPs into not challenging them, because it goes against the “will of the grassroots” (and to hell with that MP’s voters, apparently). We gave party leaders the power to sign off on nomination forms with the purest of intentions and it quickly got perverted into a tool of blackmail and iron-fisted discipline. Pretty much the only time MPs will speak out is if they have nothing to lose, and Fast is in that position – he could retire tomorrow and be all the better for it. And it’s when the dissent goes public that leaders really need to worry because that means that it’s happening by those inside the caucus room who aren’t saying anything out loud. Provincially, we’ve seen instances of it taking only one or two MLAs coming out publicly for leaders to see the writing on the wall and resign. The caucus may be bigger in Ottawa, but the sentiment is increasingly out in the open – that can’t be sustainable.

Scheer later went to the annual UCP convention in Calgary, where he was predictably given a fairly warm welcome– but he shouldn’t rest on this applause because he doesn’t need to win Alberta – he already has their votes, and they’re not enough to carry the country, no matter how much they increase their vote share. He needs seats in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, and he is having a hard time cracking those areas, in particular because of his social conservatism and the UCP convention isn’t going to be the place to go to get honest feedback about that problem. It’s a bubble, and a trap that becomes too easy to feel that there is nothing wrong if he stays in it too long.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Putting Alleslev at the fore

Posted on by

As expected, Andrew Scheer named Leona Alleslev as his new deputy leader yesterday, but left the majority of his House leadership team in place. Alleslev is a bit of a curious choice, given that she was a Liberal until a little over a year ago until she crossed the floor in a huff (and in conversation with MPs, it seems that a large part of her reason for crossing was because she was essentially being ignored by the PMO when she was trying to step up, and she felt unappreciated for her efforts, which is fair enough). There were plenty of sarcastic responses from long-time Conservatives over Twitter, given how she campaigned against Stephen Harper in 2015. Others Conservatives – Scheer loyalists in particular – were trying to insist that Alleslev represented the way the party needed to bring Blue Liberals into the fold – but this assertion is fairly problematic given that the Venn Diagram of Blue Liberals and Red Tories would show a fairly significant crossover in areas of being socially progressive, which is partly where the Conservatives are having problems right now. As well, it’s hard to qualify Alleslev as reaching out to those voters when she goes on TV and just parrots all of Scheer’s talking points, particularly around the environment, to the point where she was contradicting her previous statements and trying to walk them back when called on them. I’m not sure how demonstrating groupthink is reaching out to new voters. It’s also hard not to be cynical about Alleslev’s appointment as a box-ticking exercise about her being both a woman and from the GTA as the political reasons as to why she was chosen.

Scheer also took the opportunity to vow that he was staying on as leader, and insisted that the party needed to pull together behind him. This while Stephen Harper’s former campaign manager, Jenni Byrne, also called for his ouster, and there also talk about how Conservatives in Alberta are angry that he wasn’t able to defeat Trudeau in spite of Trudeau doing his level best to defeat himself in some cases.

In amidst this, Lisa Raitt was also keeping herself in the media, putting out the supposition into the public sphere that the more xenophobic populism that reared its head during the party’s last leadership campaign branded them during the election, and that it changed the perceptions around the party. (Raitt is also defending Scheer and saying that his weakness is that he doesn’t come off as a “strong man” on any particular area). And while Raitt is trying to insist that the likes of Kellie Leitch (and eventually Maxime Bernier’s Twitter persona) were somehow isolated incidents, she ignores the fact that Scheer himself promulgated far-right conspiracy theories about the UN Compact on Global Migration, that his comms team spread racist memes about irregular border crossings, that he offered succour to avowed racists because he thought he could use them to “own the Libs,” and that even though he knew that the xenophobia and far-right element of the “yellow vesters” had taken over that so-called “convoy” to Ottawa, he nevertheless still met with them – in full view of their xenophobic signs and symbols – and then took weeks to actually denounce white supremacy when called on it. So I’m having a hard time giving Raitt the benefit of the doubt for this theory of hers.

Meanwhile, Matt Gurney posits that Scheer’s ability to survive now turns on whether he can convince enough people that he can actually do better in the next election – and that’s becoming harder to do. Paul Wells poses more questions that the Conservatives need to consider regarding Scheer, the direction of the party, and their ability to build a winning coalition internally that has proved fairly elusive in recent decades.

Continue reading →