Tag Archives: First Nations

Roundup: It’s all coming back to me now

Posted on by

As Jason Kenney continues his bellicose demands for a revival of the Energy East project, it seems that his arguments have a certain familiar ring to them. Wait for it…

Anyone who has paid any attention to the Energy East demands for the past few years will note that there is a definite NEP 2.0 sensibility to them – especially the notion that in the name of “energy security,” we should repurpose this pipeline/build a new segment to the port of Saint John, where there is a single refinery that can handle limited amounts of heavy crude, and that the Irvings should either be forced to accept said Alberta heavy crude at a cost of an additional $10/barrel than they can currently import cheaper, lighter crude from abroad that their current refinery can handle, and that consumers in Atlantic Canada should be made to pay more for their gasoline for the privilege of it coming from Alberta – because I’m not sure that Alberta is going to accept the $10/barrel discount on their crude when they already are suffering from low global oil prices that have made many new oilsands projects economically unviable. Never mind the similarities of this scheme to the original NEP, for which Alberta has created a grand myth about the Great Satan Trudeau (even though the resulting closures in the industry had more to do with the collapse in global oil prices and global recession that happened at the same time) – the cognitive dissonance will not hold.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting the deficit vapours

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau was back making the media rounds yesterday, and one of the things he spoke about was the “ambitious green agenda” to be laid out in the Throne Speech, which has every pundit in the country clutching their pearls about the state of the deficit. Why? Because in Canadian punditry – and many government departments, finance especially – it is 1995 and will always be 1995. And some of that comes with the usual ridiculous assertions about comparing the nation’s finances to a household’s, or that of a business.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1301527104383848449

And then there was one column in particular which doubled down on not only the usual deficit vapours, but the notions that somehow inclusive growth isn’t a real strategy, which credible economists – and not just those on speed dial for certain media outlets who have one answer for every problem – will tell you is a bogus argument. But hey, it’s 1995 and will always be 1995.

https://twitter.com/twitscotty/status/1301505825366773762

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1301496695814004736

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1301500044315693058

Continue reading →

Roundup: Consulting the caucus

Posted on by

Yesterday the Star reported that Justin Trudeau has been so weakened by the WE Imbroglio that he is *gasp!* asking his Cabinet ministers and caucus for ideas about the upcoming Speech from the Throne. I find the fact that this is a news story to be pretty distressing because this is supposed to be how governments work in this country – it’s not supposed to be a one-man-show with the leader and his or her office running the whole party’s platform and policies.

This criticism certainly extends to what we just saw out of the Conservative leadership race, where each candidate had a policy book that they were running on – something that should never happen because it’s not leaders who are supposed to come up with policy, but the party’s grassroots members, and the Conservatives especially like to crow that they are a “grassroots party” that respects its members, and so on. If that was the case, why would your leadership candidates be trying to run on different policy platforms? And you can’t say that this is about what the leader believes in – policy platforms are not beliefs, and the party shouldn’t be contorting itself to fit the leader because it’s not supposed to be a personality cult, but sadly we’ve missed that boat, and that’s exactly what parties have become in this country.

As for the notion that Trudeau should be consulting with the Conservatives on his Throne Speech, as raised in the Star piece, he really has no obligation to – it’s not O’Toole’s job to prop up the government, even if Trudeau wants to project some kind of “all in this together” message about the economic recovery. That’s not how our system works – we need opposition to hold the government to account, and trying to co-opt the opposition with promises in exchange for co-operation weakens that accountability. There are two other dance partners that the government can tap to maintain confidence, but subverting the official opposition is not a viable course of action.

Continue reading →

Roundup: First attempts to define O’Toole

Posted on by

It was not quite ten o’clock Eastern when the Liberals fired their first salvo across Erin O’Toole’s bow. Liberal MP Pam Damoff put out a press release highlighting three of Derek Sloan’s most egregious comments – questioning Dr. Theresa Tam’s loyalties, comparing women’s bodily autonomy to slavery, and calling banning conversion therapy “child abuse” – and said that if O’Toole didn’t repudiate those claims that he was condoning them. It seems the Liberals took a cue from the Conservatives before them and are trying to define the party’s new leader before he can define himself – payback for Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff (tough Justin Trudeau proved resilient to those attempts).

A short while later, O’Toole had his first press conference as leader, where he told people to ignore the Liberal spin, and reiterated parts of his victory speech where he welcomed all kinds of Canadians into the Conservative fold, before he took questions for a whole 15 minutes. To wit, when pressed about how concretely he wants the prime minister to address “Western alienation,” he blustered about support for getting resources to market, as though Trudeau controls the world price of oil. Asked about the social conservatives and Sloan’s comments, O’Toole shrugged them off as an attempt to highlight differences in the context of a leadership but said that he would “have a talk” with Sloan, but gave no indication that Sloan was on thin ice. O’Toole also called himself pro-choice – but in the same breath defended voting for a bill that would give rights to foetuses by claiming it was a “public safety” bill about sentencing, which was the weaselliest thing I have seen in ages. He also said that he supported trans rights more than Trudeau did because he was one of 18 Conservatives that voted for one of the private members’ bills and Trudeau had missed that vote – ignoring of course that said bill died and that Trudeau revived it and passed it in government. He also intimated that it was Trudeau who was trying to force an election, not him, for what that’s worth.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1298277863297298434

Meanwhile, here’s a look at some of the raw feelings inside the Peter MacKay camp as the “co-founder” of the party has been repudiated, while O’Toole is rushing to try and unify the party behind his leadership in spite of the things that were said during the campaign.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Calling the PM to committee

Posted on by

As the WE Imbroglio continues to roll along in the absence of much other news, there are a couple of new developments – one is that both Seamus O’Regan and Katie Telford, both of whom are subject to the Conflict of Interest Act, also have past histories of raising funds for the WE group of charities pre-government formation, which could complicate things as for whether or not they should have recused themselves from any decision-making over the Student Grants programme contract. The other is that the Conservative are proposing to summon prime minister Justin Trudeau before the finance committee to answer questions about the decision to grand that contract – with the added show of having him do so under oath (which is a bit of extraneous showboating – lying before committee would mean that he would face charges of contempt of parliament, and he has already sworn oaths of office which make demands to testify under oath at committee to be unnecessary). Suffice to say, summoning the prime minister to committee is more fraught than you may think, so here’s professor Philippe Lagassé with some perspective.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1282376899512107008

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1282377930405027840

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1282382362593067008

Continue reading →

Roundup: The WE Imbroglio worsens

Posted on by

Because the Liberals’ capacity for self-harm wasn’t apparent enough already, it seems that they decided to find yet another rake to step on as the WE Imbroglio continues to unfold, and we learned that two of Bill Morneau’s children have done work for WE – one of them as a salaried employee, and no, Morneau also did not recuse himself from any Cabinet discussions or decisions when it came to awarding WE the student service grant contract. Because of course he didn’t.

Within the Liberal ranks, so far only Nathaniel Erskine-Smith – already considered a “maverick” – has come out to say that he’s not keen on what has transpired, which makes me wonder how many other Liberal MPs feel similarly but just aren’t saying out of a sense of loyalty or because they would rather close ranks at a time like this. Of course, if we had a properly functioning Westminster democracy in this country, the caucus could get together and say “You know what – the leader keeps hurting the party with these self-inflicted wounds, so maybe it’s time we find a new leader,” and within a few days, they could have voted out Trudeau and voted on a replacement from within the caucus ranks, and then it would be off to Rideau Hall to swear in a new prime minister, who hopefully wouldn’t be a prone to stepping on those rakes. But we don’t have a properly functioning system because the Liberals and the pundit class back in 1919 decided it was somehow “more democratic” to give the party membership the ability to decide on the leadership, and suddenly the accountability of that leader to his or her caucus was annihilated. Now we have leaders who have centralized all power and authority and who are accountable to no one, so that when they cause trouble for their parties, the caucus is now stuck. (It would also help in keeping the party from becoming a personality cult of the current leader because that leader is easily replaced, but again, that’s no where we’re at in this country, and we are paying the price for it.

As for the Conservatives, they decided that they needed to up the stakes and send a letter to the RCMP to demand a criminal investigation of this contract, under the flimsiest of pretences. It’s ludicrous, of course, but what it allows them to do is to insinuate that the RMCP are investigating when they likely aren’t because they’re not public about what they are and are not investigating, and they can spend the summer asking Trudeau “have the RCMP contacted you yet?” and posting those clips all over their social media channels. We’ve seen this particular play before, and it wasn’t great the first time, and this iteration won’t have improved either. I suspect there is also an element of “lock her up!” as part of their calculation for this, because they know that there is an element of their base that will respond to this bit of red meat, and they can’t help themselves, no matter how corrosive this is to our political discourse, or the long-term the damage that it causes.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt hears from Erskine-Smith and other unnamed Liberals who are balking at how closed-off to caucus Trudeau has been, and how that breeds these kinds of problems. Chris Selley marvels at Trudeau’s trilogy of scandals, and the ways in which they are continually minimized.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hot and Bothered for Basic Income

Posted on by

The idea of a Basic Income has been a hobby-horse of parliamentarians for a while, and yesterday the Parliamentary Budget Officer came out with a report that purported to cost one out in a couple of different scenarios. But it’s a bit of a horror show of a report because what it’s actually describing is a cash transfer and not an actual Basic Income scheme, and more than that, some of the things it purports to strip in order to pay for its high price tag are a number of disability supports. Remember that while a Basic Income may sound like a left-wing idea, there is plenty of right-wing support for it if it dismantles the welfare state, where replacing tailored disability programmes with a one-size-fits-all cash transfer is a feature and not a bug. (More from economist Mike Moffatt here).

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280537746881212422

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1280630991661535238

Suffice to say, this report got some senators all hot and bothered, including Senator Yuen Pau Woo, who put out a press release on the topic, calling for a pilot project, so here’s Lindsay Tedds, who worked on BC’s Basic Income project for the last two years, and who knows a thing or two about Basic Income.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280562781142388736

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280643403349291008

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280623432766353408

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280623434410496003

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280624155994361856

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280628328622219265

Continue reading →

Roundup: Armed intruder at Rideau Hall

Posted on by

The big excitement for the day was that there was an Incident at Rideau Hall first thing in the morning, as a Canadian Forces member, who was armed, crashed his truck through the gates of the compound and headed over to Rideau Hall on foot, where he was then apprehended by RCMP in what sounds like a two-hour “dialogue.” Apparently he wanted to “send a message” to the prime minister – who wasn’t at home at nearby Rideau Cottage at the time, nor was the Governor General in Rideau Hall (but if you recall, she has consistently refused to move into the residence there, preferring to stay at Rideau Gate). He was arrested without incident, and has apparently made online posts about a supposed COVID-19 conspiracy theory – and it comes just a day after anti-lockdown protests were happening on Parliament Hill, featuring a former has-been wannabe party leader who shall not be named, and some of the images seen on the Hill included those of Trudeau being hanged, while others touted these kinds of COVID conspiracies. So that’s fun.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1278788951885721602

Meanwhile, over in Alberta, the rhetoric about the plan to hold a referendum on equalization rolls along, so here is political scientist Melanee Thomas to spill some tea about just exactly what they are talking about, and why the arguments aren’t as clever as they think they are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No to hostage diplomacy, yes to dubious administration

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau held his no-longer-daily presser at Rideau Cottage today, and finally unveiled the Canada Service Grant programme for student and recent graduate volunteers, where every hundred hours of volunteering earns them $1000. On top of that, he announced some $40 million for Mitacs internships, and 100,000 new summer job placements as the programme has apparently become fully subscribed, along with another 20,000 post-secondary job placements. While the Q&A touched on the problem with the rent subsidies where businesses re-opening can earn too much to qualify, and long-term care – where he bluntly stated that provinces failed to support seniors but that the federal government was happy to help where they could – it was the subject of China’s hostage diplomacy that dominated, as reporter after reporter kept asking him over, and over, and over again about that letter signed by prominent Canadians to essentially capitulate to the Chinese and end the extradition of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in exchange for the release of the Two Michaels. In language that was almost uncharacteristically blunt for Trudeau, he said that he deeply disagreed with the letter-writers, citing that giving in now would send the message to everyone that they could simply kidnap Canadians in order to get diplomatic concessions going forward, and it would endanger the safety of those Canadians going forward.

But back to that Canada Service Grant announcement, because what wasn’t announced during the presser and only came out later was the fact that they have turned over the administration of this grant to WE Charities, which is…problematic, not only because of the personal connection that Trudeau and his wife has with the group. We don’t know what kind of cut WE is getting for doing the work, and the fact that one of their main sources of income – their big stadium events – is off the table for the sake of the pandemic, this almost has the feel of Trudeau doing them a favour because they’ve lost that revenue, which is poor optics. Trust this government to step on a rake and evaporate good will that they’ve accumulated by making this kind of dumb move. It happens over and over again (and yet nobody seems to lose their job over it).

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1276314924793450497

Continue reading →

Roundup: Manufacturing an “attendance” record

Posted on by

The big headline that everyone was talking about yesterday was a load of manufactured bullshit, which shouldn’t really surprise anyone, but it was what everyone was throwing around nevertheless. The Globe and Mail crunched the numbers from the Zoom log-ins from the special COVID-19 committee that has been sitting in lieu of regular House of Commons sittings, and found that lo, the Conservatives had the worst “attendance record.” Which is kind of hilarious because it completely misunderstands how this whole farcical process works. Oh, but the Conservatives must be hypocrites, because they’re demanding full sittings! Well, no – you’ve just found some numbers that you’re applying disingenuously in order to make them look like hypocrites. It’s exactly the kind of stunt that causes people – and small-conservatives especially – to distrust the mainstream media, because it looks an awful lot like they’re not being given a fair shake. Of course, Andrew Scheer didn’t do himself any favours when he called it “Liberal spin” rather than pointing out that this was a false construction, but his inability to do anything other than meathead partisan talking points was and still is his downfall.

Why this is such bad-faith “reporting” is because it ignores the fact that there is a set speaking list every day. If you’re an MP – particularly a Conservative MP in a rural riding where you have spotty Internet to begin with – what incentive is there for you to log into Zoom and watch it that way when you have no chance to participate when you can simply follow the proceedings on CPAC and get a better experience because the translation tends to work better? It also operates on the assumption that all 338 MPs are in the House of Commons at all times when Parliament is sitting regularly, which isn’t the case – the only time all MPs are in the Chamber are during Question Period and for votes, and no, despite the sales job that the government has been trying to foist onto the public, this committee is not Question Period. Trying to hand out attendance awards for participating in a Zoom call on steroids is a waste of everyone’s time and resources, and is a distraction from the actual issues related to the calls to have proper in-person sittings – or it would be if the majority of media outlets could actually report critically on it rather than swallowing the government’s lines.

Speaking of outrage clicks, the CBC has again been misrepresenting some Senate matters, like how the Selection Committee works, as part of their story wherein Senator Dalphond is calling for committee chairs and deputy chairs to rescind their “bonuses” in the current session because of many haven’t sat because of the pandemic. But it occurs to me that it’s unlikely that chairs have even been getting their stipends because most committees haven’t even been constituted yet, which makes this look even more like this is part of Dalphond’s particular vendetta against Senator Yuen Pau Woo, and Woo’s insistence on chairing the Selection Committee, and he’s trying to use a larger point about chairs’ salaries (using false comparisons with the House of Lords as ammunition) in order to provide cover from making this look personal. I am becoming extremely concerned about Dalphond’s behaviour here – though my disappointment with how the CBC covers the Senate is pretty much standard. Cheap outrage clicks on the backs of misrepresenting the Senate is par for the course for how journalism runs in this town. (I wrote more on the backstory here).

Continue reading →