Tag Archives: Jason Kenney

Roundup: The Energy East distraction

Posted on by

After wide reporting that Jason Kenney’s poll numbers have been tanking and that he’s currently tied with the provincial NDP, it was predetermined that Kenney was going to have to start coming up with something new to blame the federal government about in order to whip his voter base into a new round of irrational anger. He also, apparently needed to provide some cover to his friend Erin O’Toole after O’Toole’s meeting with the Quebec premier, and so Kenney’s distraction of choice was going to be Energy East, and blaming the federal government for its demise. Of course, that’s not true at all, and energy economist Andrew Leach has the receipts.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole hears the siren song of cheap outrage

Posted on by

He’s barely a week into the job as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, and Erin O’Toole is already starting to beak off about official residences, and my head is on the verge of exploding. When asked about the CBC story that Stornoway – the official residence of the Leader of the Opposition – is due to get $170,000 in needed repairs before O’Toole and family move in, O’Toole started going off about how he only wanted the very minimum of work done and that he doesn’t even want furniture in his kids’ bedrooms because he wants to use the furniture that their grandfather built in Nova Scotia, and I was both outraged and exasperated.

Let me be clear – the National Capital Commission needs to put work into upkeep of these heritage residences or else they will start to degrade. Everyone was so afraid of necessary upkeep at 24 Sussex for so long that it has literally become a crumbling shitpile, and nobody can decide what to do with it now. Stornoway managed to avoid that fate because when Preston Manning refused to move in, the NCC was able to do the heavy-duty renovations that the residence needed to bring it back up to spec, but 24 Sussex has never had that opportunity, and look where it got us. Nevertheless, this persistent politicization of official residences and casting them as “personal benefits” for political leaders is outrageous to the point of being offensive. These are not personal benefits – they are official residences who belong to the Queen in Right of Canada. And you can bet that a lot of journalists and Liberal partisans on Twitter dug up everything O’Toole said about 24 Sussex and the renovations to Harrington Lake to paint him a hypocrite, but dear sweet Rhea, mother of Zeus, this is such self-defeating behaviour. Stop it.

I will also add lay a certain amount of blame for this on the media, because the impulse is always to write these stories as cheap outrage. The CBC headline is quintessential cheap outrage: “Stornoway getting $170K in taxpayer-funded repairs before Erin O’Toole moves in.” This is the kind of thing that gets Canadians’ hairshirt parsimony and tall poppy syndrome riled up, and suddenly it’s a scandal – no matter how reasonable the costs, or necessary the work. And that’s exactly why 24 Sussex is a crumbling shitpile, and why our government aircraft are so old that they have to constantly refuel, and why the avionics on some of them are so old that they are banned from several major airports. It’s embarrassing, but cheap outrage is like crack to so many journalists’ brains that they can’t help themselves, and we collectively set ourselves back another decade on doing what needs to be done. We need to do better, and stop going for the cheap dopamine hits that these stories give because it’s self-destructive.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A curious case for declaratory legislation

Posted on by

A curious story showed up on the CBC website yesterday, wherein justice minister David Lametti stated that if it looked like pandemic delays were going to cause criminal trials to essentially “age out” of the court system as a result of the Jordan decision – meaning that once they reach a certain point, they are deemed to be stayed because they took too long and have become unconstitutional – that he would introduce legislation to “clarify” how the Supreme Court’s Jordan decision was to be clarified. It’s curious because it seems to be a bit of a made-up issue – the Jordan decision already stated that the 30-month timeline allowed for exceptional circumstances, and we can all agree that a global pandemic is by definition an exceptional circumstance. This isn’t to say that declaratory legislation isn’t a valid exercise, because it can be – but it just seems wholly unnecessary in this case, when there are other ways that the government could be better dealing with the criminal justice system and juries than worrying about the Jordan timelines.

In any event, here is defence lawyer Michael Spratt with some thoughts on the story:

Continue reading →

Roundup: An apology on the second attempt

Posted on by

It was prime minister Justin Trudeau’s first presser since the WE Imbroglio blew up over the revelations of his family being paid speakers for the charity, and there was a definite note of contrition this time. After hinting that the government would extend the wage subsidy until December with details coming later in the week, a mention of his call earlier in the morning with Donald Trump that touched on tariffs, Black Lives Matter, and China, and a promise on further updates on the Safe Restart Plan with the provinces to come later in the week, Trudeau turned to his mea culpa on the Imbroglio. “I made a mistake in not recusing myself from discussions, and I’m sincerely sorry about not having done that,” Trudeau said. He praised how the government got creative with designing programmes during the pandemic, and how they had worked with a range of partners to make it happen, but he was sorry that he didn’t remove himself from the discussions with WE, and that he was frustrated that youth would have to wait longer to do their party to serve because of the mistakes he made. (I would argue that WE’s plans raised a lot of red flags too, for what it’s worth). When asked if he would appear before committee to discuss what happened, Trudeau was non-committal, but in a hung parliament, he doesn’t have the votes to shield himself this time.

During the Q&A, he said that he pointed out to Trump about the disruptions to the aluminium supply chains and hoped that they wouldn’t see tariffs that would only slow down the economic recovery; he also mentioned that there were ongoing discussions around the border, but the rest of the time was spent reiterating, over and over, that he didn’t have the details on what his family members had been paid by WE and that he should have, and that he did seem to have some reflection that he needed to be careful on this file because of his past activity with the charity but that he didn’t go far enough and should have removed himself entirely from the conversation. Later in the day, Bill Morneau sent out his own apology for his own failure to recuse himself given his daughters’ activities with WE.

For what it’s worth, there seems to be some kind of learning curve because it only took the second try for Trudeau to give an apology rather than stick to talking points aimed at deflection until the conclusion of the Ethics Commissioner’s report, at which point there would be either an apology or admission of some kind of wrongdoing and a promise to do better next time. This time, we managed to skip weeks of such failed damage control, so that’s something, I guess.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt finds herself wanting when it comes to Trudeau’s explanation for how the whole thing went down, and hopes that he’s saving it for his discussion with the Ethics Commissioner. Matt Gurney gives credit where credit is due for Trudeau learning enough to make a rapid admission and apology rather than dragging things out for months. Paul Wells is unimpressed with the apology and wants a full accounting of what happened, particularly as it is increasingly evident that things were wrong with the WE contract outside of the apparent conflict of interest, and how those decisions were made need to be aired.

Good reads:

  • Ruh-roh! It looks like the federal government wasn’t enforcing the rules around temporary foreign workers, which allowed outbreaks to occur on farms.
  • Here is some number-crunching on the PM’s daily pressers in the first phase of the pandemic and lockdown, including on his choice of verbs and phrases.
  • The RCMP have charged a Quebec man with calling for Justin Trudeau’s death and the eradication of Muslims.
  • Former Liberal MPs who lost their seats in the last election are waiting to hear about nomination contests so they can be ready to run again.
  • Leona Alleslev has resigned as deputy leader of the Conservatives to more vocally back Peter MacKay, who says that no promises were made for her support.
  • Maclean’s has a profile of Conservative leadership candidate Leslyn Lewis.
  • Jason Kenney is accusing the federal government of preventing Apple from fixing the province’s contact tracing app, which requires iPhones to be unlocked to work.
  • Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at the options for calling prime minister Trudeau to committee to testify on the WE Imbroglio.
  • Heather Scoffield is frustrated by the vague answers being given on the extension and amendments to the wage subsidy programme.
  • Colby Cosh recounts how Alberta has abolished its last vestiges of prohibition, by allowing liquor sales in Mormon-centric towns that were still “dry.”

Odds and ends:

For the CBA’s National Magazine, I wrote about Friday’s Supreme Court decision on genetic privacy, and what the broader implications of the ruling are.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

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: Trudeau slows to a summer pace

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau was back at Rideau Cottage yesterday morning, for what he promised would be the last “daily” briefing, though they haven’t been daily for a few weeks now. And there really wasn’t anything new to announce – yet another reminder that the Canadian Emergency Business Account and commercial rent subsidies were good things, that there were still hotspots of pandemic around the country, but that we are making progress – but are not out of the woods yet – and oh, yeah, the New NAFTA comes into force on Wednesday. During the Q&A, Trudeau stated that American chest-thumping over tariffs only hurts them because they need Canadian aluminium as they can’t produce enough of their own. When asked about the Human Rights Watch report on Canadian foreign fighters being held prisoner in Syria, Trudeau insisted that they are preoccupied with the safety of diplomatic personnel in the region, and we don’t have any in Syria, which makes the complicated situation even more complex because most of these prisoners are facing charges. (Not everyone buys this argument). And when asked yet again about We Charities being given that contract, Trudeau again insisted that the advice of the public service was that only they could deliver on the scale that was required, and that some 25,000 students hand applied over the past few days, to prove the point.

A short while later, Dr. Theresa Tam gave her last regular update as well, as those pressers also take on a less daily pace, as well as unveiled new federal modelling numbers, which show that the pandemic is largely under control, but with the warning that people need to keep up good habits around distancing and hygiene, lest flare-ups start happening.

Meanwhile, in Alberta, Jason Kenney and his finance minister unveiled their economic recovery plan, and it was complete with mistruths, and tired magical thinking that tax cuts will automatically create jobs (when these rapid cuts will only benefit existing players rather than attract future ones), or that hectoring tech firms for not upping sticks to relocate to the “cheap rents” of Calgary and lower taxes as being “irresponsible.” So yeah, good luck with that. Meanwhile, here’s Andrew Leach with a bit of a fact check.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More questions about the WE contract

Posted on by

It was another campaign stop – err, media availability field trip for prime minister Justin Trudeau, where he headed to a local brewery that has converted part of their production line to produce hand sanitizer to both highlight that the country is now nearly self-sufficient in the production of personal protective equipment, but also to once again highlight how great the wage subsidy is, and please, for the love of the gods, would employers take advantage of it (and get people off of CERB). He mentioned Thursday’s teleconference with the premiers and the $14 billion that the federal government has put on the table, but the fact that they haven’t apparently taken him up on it would seem to me that this is a bit of public diplomacy on Trudeau’s part to try to get the premiers to take it with the strings attached. From there, he said that the Canadian Forces personnel would start withdrawing from some of the long-term care facilities in Quebec where the Red Cross could step in, but also that the Forces were going to stabilize four more residences. And finally, he gave a shout out to Pride, which is no longer happening in Toronto this weekend because of the pandemic, but it is still nice to have a prime minister that acknowledges it.

During the Q&A, Trudeau said that changes to the wage subsidy were on the way so as not to be a disincentive for companies growing beyond the qualifying criteria – but we’ll see what “soon” means. He stated that they did have a plan in the works to help the Royal Canadian Legion branches that are in danger of closing because of the pandemic, and when asked about the anti-racism statement that all of the First Ministers put out earlier in the week, Trudeau said that they didn’t come to an agreement on systemic racism, but that reporters would have to ask the premiers which ones they were. (Spoiler: It’s Quebec). And then there were the questions about the service grant contract being given to WE Charities. Trudeau said that it was about creating opportunities, and that they needed to have a partner with established networks, and very clearly annunciated that it was the civil service that recommended WE as the only organization capable of delivering those networks on the scale being asked. He also said that while they were covering WE’s costs, the organization wouldn’t be profiting. It’s still pretty dubious, and here’s Alex Usher laying out some of the questions that remain outstanding on this whole affair.

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: Referenda as a subversion of parliamentary democracy

Posted on by

Over in Alberta, a new bill has been tabled that amends the province’s enabling legislation to run referenda, and upon reading what’s in the bill, the NDP critic immediately sounded the alarm on what’s in the bill – that it gives the premier sole power to determine whether or not these referenda are binding, the timing, and the wording of the referendum question, and more to the point, it allows for third parties to spend as much as $500,000 in advertising – and they won’t be audited if they spend under $350,000. (Remember that in the province, during a general election, third parties can only spend $150,000 on advertising). And when said critic labelled the bill as “undemocratic,” she has been ridiculed by the premier, justice minister, and any number of halfwits over social media who insist that there is nothing more democratic than a referendum.

They’re wrong. Referenda are actually deeply undemocratic.

Why? Because anytime there is more than two simple alternatives being put to the public – and alternatives are never simple or binary – then there isn’t actually a clear question being put forward, or a clear choice involved. And at the end of the process, the government then gets to interpret those unclear results as they see fit, which is actually a means by which the premier (or equivalent – this is the case with any referendum) simply uses those results to strengthen their own control. They use the façade of putting the decision to the people to tighten their own grip on power, and democracy as a whole suffers, especially because it reduces the role and function of Parliament (or provincial legislature in this case). I would recommend that people read The Will of the People: A Modern Myth by Andrew Weale, which, while predicated on the Brexit referendum, lays out why these exercises diminish Parliament. It’s important that people understand what exactly Kenney is doing by bringing this forward.

More to the point, the reason why Kenney is bringing this bill forward is advancing the agenda of his “Fair Deal Panel,” which aims to hold referenda on things like equalization (which can’t actually do anything), opting out of the Canada Pension Plan in favour of a provincial model (which should raise alarm bells considering how the province’s existing pension plan has made a series of bad decisions), or any other number of the Panel’s recommendations for opting out of federal institutions in favour of more costly provincial ones out of spite, or as a make-work project. It’s deeply cynical, and as we’ve established, actually undemocratic wearing the guise of populist democracy, and Kenney is going to do untold damage to the province with these tools at his disposal, but people won’t care because they’ve been fooled by his rhetoric. It’s all deeply concerning, but unless the province’s opposition can up their game and actually make cogent arguments to the public, then Kenney will continue to steamroll over them.

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 →