Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Big numbers for hate clicks

Posted on by

I’m not a big fan of pieces that construct data in a way to give the worst possible reading, with the intention of making readers angry, because it’s not only bad journalism but it’s irresponsible because our job should be about providing context – not weaponizing it for hate-clicks. And yet, here is a shoddy piece from the National Post designed entirely for the purpose of stoking the fires of the supposed anger in Western Canada right now, by producing a piece which purports to show how Alberta is basically funding Quebec. Oh, they’ll say – this is all Statistics Canada data! But as with any statistical data, it is dependent upon how it is contextualized and presented, and in this case, it’s in terms of “net fiscal transfers” without breaking out what that entails, nor does it actually explain equalization in any way. The most nuanced the piece gets is citing economist Trevor Tombe who reminds people that Albertans pay more in taxes because they have the highest incomes in the country – but it doesn’t then explain that those taxes go to federal general revenues, which then get distributed in programs, which can include equalization. There is no talk about equalization being about the fiscal capacity of a province and ensuring that they can have an equal level of service compared to other provinces, and how that is impacted by their provincial tax rates, or the fact that Alberta has chosen to keep its provincial taxes artificially low and making up the shortfalls with the revenues from their non-renewable resources. The favourite figure is how much Quebec gets in equalization payments, ignoring that on a per capita share, Quebec’s equalization is actually below most other provinces. These are all figures and context that matters – simply throwing big figures around is only designed to make people angry. It’s shite journalism, and yet here we are, yet again.

And speaking of fiscal transfers, here’s a look at how the $1.6 billion that the federal government has been using to bail out Alberta after their last oil crash has nearly fully been paid out, while the province keeps insisting that Ottawa has been “indifferent” to their situation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh thinks he has leverage

Posted on by

Yesterday it was Jagmeet Singh’s turn have his one-on-one with prime minister Justin Trudeau in advance of the Cabinet shuffle and Throne Speech, and Singh came with his own list of priorities and demands – most of them as unrealistic as Andrew Scheer’s. And Singh’s insistence that he was open to voting against the Throne Speech, and that the party was ready to go to another election at any time, was simply precious. Unable to read the room, or calculate the seat maths, Singh apparently thinks he’s going to play kingmaker when there are more willing partners on the dance floor.

To that end, Singh was demanding immediate action on pharmacare, and pretending that Trudeau hasn’t been clear that he plans to implement the Hoskins Report, which called for a universal pharmacare system. The problem is that you can’t have “immediate action” on it, because it’s actually a very complex thing. You can’t actually just say “we’ll pay for all pharmaceuticals” because the costs would be extraordinary, and phasing it in with a single national formulary is actually incredibly challenging to do, especially across all provinces and territories, because they have different formularies currently and you run the risk of reducing people’s existing coverage (as what happened in Ontario when they briefly offered pharmacare for all young people in the province). It’s going to require careful negotiation with the provinces and stakeholders, and Singh’s constant refrain that this can happen immediately is fantasyland – just like his request that they also consider adding dental care in there.

As for some his other demands, the one about more “science-based” targets for emissions reductions is pure buzz-word. Science is not public policy, and you can’t just hand-wave and go “science” because it doesn’t work like that. Demanding the government abandon its judicial review of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision on compensation for Indigenous children in care? As a lawyer, you think he would be sensitive to the concerns of bad precedent – particularly if the Tribunal did exceed their statutory authority. Energy-efficient retrofits? Electrified transit? Green jobs? It’s like they haven’t paid much attention to the Liberal climate plan and what carbon pricing does to create market incentives. Electoral reform? Apparently he didn’t pay attention to the hot garbage report that the parliamentary committee released last parliament. His “super-wealth tax”? The one that would require the government to rewrite the entire tax code to make it conform to American concepts? I’m sure they’ll get right on that. Singh has no leverage, and yet he thinks the government should simply adopt the NDP platform or have the party’s support withheld. I’m sure the government will get right on that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Upcoming Speaker election

Posted on by

As you may be aware, the very first order of business in any new Parliament is the election of a Speaker, and today we have confirmation that the incumbent, Geoff Regan, is planning to run again for the role, as are the deputy and assistant deputy Speakers from the last parliament, Bruce Stanton, Carole Hughes and Anthony Rota, and one new face, Conservative MP Joël Godin. What is new in this Parliament is the plan to run the election by way of preferential ballot rather than successive rounds of voting, which is no doubt intended to speed up the process and reduce the use of hospitality suites between voting rounds as has happened in previous Parliaments. (ETA: Apparently I am mistaken and this is the second time they will have used a preferential ballot. My apologies). The speedier process will also allow them to have the Speech from the Throne on the same day, which is unusual in and of itself.

One of Regan’s main advantages in this race is experience, which is going to be a very important consideration in a hung parliament situation. And while many of us would love an assertive Speaker like the UK’s John Bercow (perhaps without the alleged bullying of House of Commons staff), who did a lot to protect the rights of MPs against the party leaders and the Cabinet, we have to remember that Canadian Speakers are hampered by the Standing Orders that limit their powers. Some of those rules may be changing – the Liberals pledged as part of their platform that they would like to see the Speaker do away with the speaking lists provided by the party whips and House leaders, which frees up the Speaker to pick MPs to speak and perhaps enforce some more discipline that way – but it’s only a half-measure so long as we still allow scripts and prepared speeches in the Commons. Nevertheless, if they go ahead with even the half-measure, that could be a bigger challenge for any Speaker to take on, so having one with some experience under his (or her) belt would be a beneficial thing.

Meanwhile, Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column offers the guidebook on how the Speaker election will be run, as well as just what the job entails should any other MPs be considering the job.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scheer’s risible demands

Posted on by

Even before the day’s meetings got started, Justin Trudeau offered up a pre-emptive strike against Andrew Scheer’s demands by announcing that Parliament would be summoned on December 5th – immediately after his return from the NATO summit – where they would hold both the Speaker election and the Speech from the Throne on the same day (rather unusually, as they tend to be on subsequent days). When Scheer did meet with Trudeau, he came armed with seven demands, and immediately following that, Trudeau met with Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe, who also moaned that his own demands weren’t being capitulated to.

https://twitter.com/rachaiello/status/1194313181990129665

As for Scheer’s demands, a good many of them are simple non-starters, and others are simply laughable, but let’s walk through them, shall we?

  1. Keep Canada united and strong by launching a task force to study the establishment of a national energy corridor, which could bring Ontario and Quebec hydroelectricity to new markets, open up opportunities for Western Canadian oil and gas, and connect rural communities in Atlantic Canada and the North.
  2. Help Canadians get ahead by offering broad-based tax relief, providing a date for balancing the budget, and proceeding with fair tax-free maternity benefits.
  3. Restore ethics and accountability to government by introducing stronger penalties in the Conflict of Interest Act.
  4. Get the energy sector back to work by tabling a detailed plan, with concrete deadlines, to build the Trans Mountain expansion and repealing Bills C-48 and C-69.
  5. Take real action on the environment by drawing on policies from our Real Plan to Protect the Environment, such as the Green Patent Credit, the Canadian Clean brand, the Green Home Renovation Tax Credit, and ending raw sewage dumps.
  6. Immediately fund regional transit expansion in the GTA, starting with the Ontario Line and Yonge Extension.
  7. Reduce the paperwork burden on Quebecers by adopting a single tax return.

To start with, I’m puzzled as to how Scheer believes that his “national energy corridor” scheme is a national unity project. I mean, I get that he keeps insisting it’s “a win-win,” but if you stop and think about it for thirty seconds, they’re demanding that decades be spent on land negotiations and expropriations involving First Nations and provinces that may not be keen on them, for another decade to be spent building a pipeline that, by the time it’s completed, will be in the middle of massive global decarbonization. That’s some forward thinking. The broad-based tax relief that was in the Liberal platform was better targeted to low-income Canadians than in the Conservatives’, as was their proposal for tax-free maternity benefits; the date for a balanced budget is also somewhat mired in mid-nineties thinking, while the government has chosen a different fiscal anchor that allows them to take advantage of the low-interest rate environment to make investments in Canadians. The demand for a detailed plan with concrete deadlines for the TMX construction is farcical because any delays would be contingent upon the Federal Court’s hearing the concerns of those Indigenous groups who are challenging the most recent consultations, and that’s not something the government has any control over, but never mind that there is pipe going in the ground right now. The repeal of C-69 and C-48 are non-starters, and would do absolutely nothing to benefit the energy sector because the problem is the low world price of oil. Demanding that the government adopt the Conservative non-plan for the environment? Hilarious. Immediately funding the GTA transit expansions? How is it responsible to sign a blank cheque when there is no concrete plan on the table? Seriously, you claim to be the fiscally responsible party. And having Quebec adopt a single tax return? Yeah, if Quebec wants that, they can adopt the federal one. They made the choice for the current system. Is rudimentary critical thinking dead in politics?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fair deal to direct anger

Posted on by

Jason Kenney was determined to swallow much of the news cycle over the long-ish weekend (depending on where you were in the country), first by announcing on Friday that he had appointed a “fair deal” panel to look at ways in which Alberta can assert more independence – but many of those items don’t make any sense, especially as they will be more costly in the long run (or look particularly suspicious, like replacing the RCMP provincial policing contract with an Alberta Provincial Police when the RCMP is deep in investigating the UCP leadership contest corruption). In fact, the former chair of the province’s “Firewall” panel from 2003 says that this is just an exercise in blowing off steam that won’t amount to anything that they didn’t learn back then, which will be amplified over social media into promises that could never be fulfilled – which is a problem. Kenney then doubled down with a lengthy speech at the Manning Centre conference in Red Deer on Saturday, where most of these items were further listed.

This all having been said, I’m hearing from my friends and family in Alberta that Kenney’s cuts are already starting to affect them, and that anger may start to hurt him sooner than later. (Family examples: I have a nephew with special needs whose school aide’s hours are being slashed, and my brother-in-law is a volunteer firefighter, and their training budget has just been decimated). I fully expect that Kenney is going to go hard on trying to direct the anger to Justin Trudeau and Ottawa in order to deflect the anger from his cuts, and you can bet that he’s going to go to absurd lengths to stoke it.

Meanwhile, here are some reality checks into the kinds of things that Kenney is proposing for his “Fair Deal” nonsense, whether it’s for the creation of their own provincial pension plan, or to collect federal taxes on their own.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1193379952961277952

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1194018713629904897

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1194072739243446272

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1194075167506386945

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1194092599918944256

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making demands with a smile

Posted on by

Manitoba premier Brian Pallister was in Ottawa yesterday to meet with prime minister Justin Trudeau, and to try and offer some “friendly advice” about dealing with the whole “Western anger” situation. Pallister also penned an op-ed for the Globe and Mail that was full of said “advice,” most of which was pretty dubious, but in the aftermath of his meeting, he said a bunch of things like the country can unite around climate action if they set their partisan differences aside – in other words, if the federal government abandons their plans and just lets the provinces do whatever, adding that a carbon price “isn’t the only way” to fight climate change – technically true, but it’s proven the most effective mechanism and the only one which deals with the demand-side of the problem. (In subsequent interviews, Pallister also ignored that the point of the national price is to avoid provinces from undercutting one another, which you would think might be a big deal). Pallister also made some hand-waving gestures around a municipal handgun ban given the province’s problem with violent crime, but that’s already being panned locally.

But back to Pallister’s op-ed, which was largely an exercise in blame-shifting and simple fiction. He blames the divisions on the federal government’s “economic, energy and environmental policies,” which is curious and convenient. Those policies? Bill C-69, which he blames for delays in a Manitoba flood mitigation project for which the new regime doesn’t apply. That project has been under the Harper 2012 assessment regime, which should be a clue as to why the federal government saw the need to make changes to it – not that it stops Pallister from repeating a bunch of the fictions that have been applied to the legislation by its opponents. He also counsels finishing the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is what the federal government is in the process of doing. Pipe is going in the ground. People beating their chests about it won’t make the process go any faster.

Pallister then goes on to complain about interprovincial trade barriers which is – wait for it – entirely in the hands of the provinces and not the federal government to lower. He makes mention of 34 exceptions which the federal government controls, but that’s 34 out of hundreds, and this government has set up a process to work with provinces to harmonize regulations that create barriers. They have been doing the heavy-lifting – more than the Harper government did – but it’s gone completely unacknowledged. That Pallister is shifting blame to the federal government is pretty rich when it’s the provinces who are the problem. His final “advice” for unity? Giving the provinces more money for healthcare. I’m not sure what that has to do with national unity or “healing the divisions,” but there you have it. It’s pretty clear that like Jason Kenney and Scott Moe, Pallister is trying to use the focus on this “anger” to try and leverage it to what he wants, and he won’t let the truth be a barrier for him. Just because he delivers the message with a smile doesn’t make the “advice” friendly.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Humble and concerned

Posted on by

The Liberals had their post-election unofficial caucus meeting (technically true that it can’t be an actual caucus meeting as Parliament has not been summoned and only a handful of MPs have actually been sworn in yet), and the early results are that they need to be more “humble,” and address the concerns of Western Canada – somehow. Particularly because squaring the economy versus environment circle is harder in that part of the country (though really, the world price of oil is the bigger problem for them right now than any amount of environmental regulation could ever be). And like Scheer, there is this emphasis on the need for some kind of “listening tour” of the region, though I have my serious doubts about the utility of it given that the demands being made of the federal government are largely nonsensical, counter-productive, or non-starters (and many are being made intentionally so by the likes of Jason Kenney and Scott Moe because they want federal inaction on those specific items to be things they can get people angry about).

With this in mind, there were two interesting pieces out yesterday – one, a retrospective from Rosemary Barton about the recurring nature of Western anger, which has been around for decades and the fact that the Liberals have often been shut of the region in terms of seats, even worse than they are currently, and yet the country mas managed to survive. The other piece, from Jen Gerson, is a lengthy and exasperated piece that tries to shift some of the blame for the sentiments on the narratives that spring out of Central and Eastern Canada about Alberta, and how those contribute as much to Western alienation than anything else. And while Gerson makes some really good points in her piece, I did find it a bit one-sided in several respects, because it ignores some of the attitudes in the province that are just as off-putting to the rest of the country, from their smugness, their patronizing attitudes about how other regions facing unemployment should just decamp to the oilsands (which is ironic now that other regions are facing labour shortages but I don’t see a lot of Albertans eager to move there), their hostility towards Quebeckers (which many pundits raised as a factor in the return of the Bloc in this election), and this sense of entitlement that it was their hard work an ingenuity that put the oil under the ground rather than an accident of geology. And yes, I am an Albertan and I grew up with these attitudes as much as I did the feeling of being put upon by the rest of the country, or the grand mythologies we built up for ourselves about Pierre Trudeau and the National Energy Programme, and the conflation with the collapse of world oil prices that happened at that time.

Another of Gerson’s recurring themes is her insistence that Jason Kenney is simply trying to replicate Preston Manning’s attempt at channeling the province’s anger into a more productive course of action – forgetting that Manning’s Reform Party did serious damage to the institutions of Parliament, which have never recovered, or the fact that Kenney is not channeling those feelings in any productive way, but deliberately stoking anger through lies and snake oil promises for his own benefit. This needs to be identified and called out, and it needs to be done repeatedly and forcefully because Kenney will simply double down and bulldoze over anyone who challenges him over his bullshit – which makes it all the more important that it be challenged again and again. Giving him a pass because he says he’s a federalist and a patriot (while also sounding like a movie mobster running a protection racket) will only make it fester.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Frank dialogue and tone-deaf pronouncements

Posted on by

The Conservatives had their big post-election caucus meeting, and to the surprise of absolutely nobody, they voted not to enact the provisions of the (garbage) Reform Act that would give caucus the ability to turf their leader and force a new leadership contest – predictably under the rubric of empowering the “grassroots,” which as was explained in yesterday’s post, does the complete opposite. As this is going on, Angus Reid had a poll of Conservative voters that showed them particularly split on whether they want Scheer to stay or go (42 percent go, 41 percent stay, 17 percent undecided), so that could be an indication that their own base is leaning toward dumping him at their leadership review in April – especially as the convention will be in Toronto, an area where the party was shut out, and they may be more motivated to punish him for it.

As for Scheer, he arrived at his planned press conference three hours late because the meeting kept going, and it makes one wonder if the “frank discussion” going on inside were to blame – it’s possible there was an airing of the grievances happening, particularly for those who lost their seats. It didn’t seem to daunt Scheer, however, because when he arrived at the microphones, he essentially repeated his stump speech from the campaign. Sure, he said that “no one was more disappointed than me,” but he offered no signs of humility in defeat. When asked about the failure of his climate plan, Scheer said that they simply didn’t communicate it clearly enough rather than admit that it transparently wasn’t an actual climate plan (and his own senators have publicly clocked him on this fact). When asked if he thinks homosexuality is a sin, he prevaricated – again – and forcefully stated that he will defend people’s rights, which shows that he hasn’t learned anything from the campaign about his evasiveness.

Meanwhile, Matt Gurney makes the point that the party isn’t listening to what people in the GTA have been trying to tell them about what will and won’t fly there if they want to win seats there ever again, and are being told to “calm down” in response – which could spell trouble for Scheer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The knives and the Reform Act

Posted on by

The Conservatives are having their first post-election caucus meeting today, and there is talk that the discontent may be more serious than the public picture they’re letting on in public – not that that’s surprising. But all of the talk of forcing an early “leadership review” of Scheer rests – whether from the talk of the disaffected Conservatives, or in the public musings of Andrew Coyne and Stephen Maher to name a couple – haven’t made a very careful study of the Reform Act beyond its stated good intentions when the bill is actually garbage.

In fact, I think that relying on the Reform Act could insulate Scheer more readily than it could push him out, given that it has a relatively high threshold to trigger the caucus vote to ouster a leader, and that high threshold can be used to intimidate any would-be usurpers or those who would use the ability to hold their leader to account for his or her sins – in this case, a bad campaign based on lies, a platform that didn’t appeal to any of the target demographics or ridings that they needed to win, and the inability of said leader to articulate positions on socially conservative issues that would offer any kind of reassurance to those target demographics and regions. (And did I mention the campaign of lies?) That intimidation can make it harder for the caucus to make a clean break and get on with choosing a new leader.

This having been said, I want to push back on something that Conservative MP Chris Warkentin said on Power & Politics last night as it pertains to this Reform Act business, wherein he said that he didn’t agree with giving caucus that power because it somehow “disempowered” the grassroots (followed by the ritual motions of insisting that they are a “grassroots party” as though that were actually true). For a century now, political parties in Canada have flattered their grassroots members by pretending that letting them choose the leader is “democratic,” when all it does is obliterate accountability. It means that the leader can claim a false democratic legitimacy and centralize their power by marginalizing both the MPs in his or her caucus, and eventually marginalizing the grassroots because that power has been centralized and those grassroots become an increasingly irrelevant means of pretending to get policy advice. It’s simply become an exercise in the grassroots willingly turning over their agency and power to the very person who will undermine them, but hey, it’s “democratic.” This is the root of the problems that have developed in our system, and we can’t just keep pretending that they don’t exist because “grassroots parties” no longer resemble that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A quasi-exit for May

Posted on by

The other, non-Senate big news on Parliament Hill yesterday was Elizabeth May’s decision to step down as Green Party leader – sort of. She said that she would stay on as the “parliamentary leader,” but give up the mantle of big-P Party leader, and that one of her appointed deputy leaders, Jo-Ann Roberts, would be interim leader until the party could have a leadership convention – next October. May fully intends to stay on as an MP and run again as an MP (and said that she would not run for Speaker this time, but would pursue it in the next Parliament).

This particular kind of leadership dynamic is part of what ails Canadian democracy right now – this notion that there should be year-long leadership races, and that someone who doesn’t have a seat in Parliament should be leading the party in any capacity. The fact that the leader is not selected by caucus alone is one of the biggest problems with our system – it has allowed leaders to centralize power and when they get into power, that centralization rests in the PMO. And with May stepping back, and new MPs Jenica Atwin and Paul Manly also eschewing running for the role, they will again be a party where their leader is outside of Parliament, and who may or may not run for a seat anytime a byelection comes around, and they will face some of the challenges that Jagmeet Singh became all too familiar with.

There needs to be a rebalancing of leadership roles in our system, and we need to keep the party leader’s focus back on parliament, with the rest of the leadership better handled by the Party president. But what the Greens are doing now is just perpetuating what is horribly wrong with our system.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt remarks on how May left on her own terms, while Paul Wells sees the end of May’s leadership as a chance for her party to overhaul its message and its organizational abilities.

Continue reading →