Tag Archives: Jason Kenney

Roundup: Open letters and complications

Posted on by

Alberta premier Jason Kenney took the next step in his performance art when it comes to demanding the approval of the Teck Frontier mine, and released an open letter to Justin Trudeau, which reiterated his points for the approval of the project. Of course, he didn’t actually tell the truth with all of those points, which is kind of awkward. (And hey, CBC, you could have done more than just retype Kenney’s letter and actually include some of the pushback, like Andrew Leach’s fact-checking).

Leach also has some problems with the lack of a viable reclamation plan for the project’s end-pit lakes, which is kind of a big deal, because it does seem like they’re trying to handwave away the problem, and hope that maybe in the future they’ll have a magic new technology that will solve the problem. That’s not a good thing. (Thread here).

Meanwhile, the federal decision on the Teck Frontier mine may be complicated as at least one affected First Nation says their concerns aren’t being addressed by the province, which is kind of a big deal. In fact, he said that the federal government has been doing their part, but the province under Kenney’s government has pretty much walked away after the previous government was doing the work with them – hence why they’re calling for the project to only be conditionally approved, with the condition being that the province be given a deadline to complete their talks with the First Nation and addressing their concerns about the impacts that the project (if it goes ahead, which it likely won’t anytime soon) would have on their local environment. It would seem to me that it’s a problem that Kenney keeps insisting they have full Indigenous sign-off on the project if in fact they actually don’t – but the truth hasn’t stopped him at any point thus far.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney’s Washington mistruths

Posted on by

Apparently the lure of trying to wade into American politics was too strong for Jason Kenney to resist over the weekend, and he joined Doug Ford in taking swipes at Democratic Party hopefuls over the Keystone XL issue, before telling a Washington audience that Justin Trudeau’s former principal secretary, Gerald Butts, had conspired with the Obama administration to kill the Keystone XL pipeline – which is funny, because it was during the Harper government, and Trudeau has been on the record of being fully supportive of Keystone XL the whole time. Kenney’s Mini-Me, Scott Moe, insisted that this fable was “absolutely correct,” which is a lie in and of itself. And of course, people brought their receipts.

Of course, Kenney has nothing to fall on but lies about the state of the oil industry in order to keep the attention off of himself and his government’s failings in trying to manage the shifting economy – and his convenient target is always Justin Trudeau, whom he needs to keep his voters angry at as a means of distraction. That said, his audience laps it up, and that has pretty much eliminated any sense of shame that Kenney had left. There was a piece in this weekend’s tablet edition of Maclean’s that interviewed so-called “Wexit” supporters, and they all repeated the same memes and lies that Kenney and company peddle, along with a healthy amount of self-delusion, that Kenney also stokes by way of his rank dishonesty. He is continuing to play with fire, as he feels he’s clever enough to put it out and be declared a hero before it gets too big, and trying to do it from Washington is not only a sign of hubris, but possibly of his own desperation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Escalating costs for compliance

Posted on by

The over-the-top rhetoric over energy projects in this country hasn’t been limited to the Teck Frontier mine decision. No, we got a new round of it yesterday when Bill Morneau disclosed that the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline costs have increased to $12.6 billion, in part because of environmental changes and accommodations for local First Nations. Predictably, both the Conservatives and project opponents lost their minds – the Conservatives melting down that this was somehow because of this government’s delays (erm, you know there were court processes in between, right?), apparently oblivious to the fact that this was the cost of compliance to get it built; the opponents because of the increased price tag over a project that they are certain will increase carbon emissions (even though it is more likely to decrease them as those contents would simply flow by rail otherwise). Jason Kenney, of course, takes the cake for his own outsized rhetoric on the matter.

From Washington DC, Kenney and his Mini-Me, Scott Moe, were both being remarked upon for how toned down their rhetoric has been of late (which I contend has to do with Trudeau and Freeland calling their bluff on their “equalization” bullshit), but they certainly kept up it up around Teck Frontier, and Alberta’s environment minister was thundering about the news reports of a possible federal “compensation package” if the approval was not granted – which was, of course, full of lies about the merits of the Teck proposal. And the notion that the federal government simply needs to “get out of the way” pretends that the biggest woes are the price of oil, and the fact that the US shale boom has hobbled the viability of the oilsands.

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield makes note of the fact that all reason has gone out of the “debate” over the approval of the Teck Frontier mine. As if to illustrate the point, Matt Gurney repeats a bunch of the well-worn justifications for approving the project under the notion that Alberta needs jobs and not bailouts, without seeming to recognize that it’s not currently economically viable, while ignoring that delays to TMX were not because of government action but Indigenous court challenges under their constitutional rights, or that there is a reason why the Conservatives ensured there was Cabinet sign-off on these decisions. Chantal Hébert points out that the Liberals will lose whichever way they decide on this project.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland on tour

Posted on by

For the past two days, Chrystia Freeland has been in Alberta to talk to the mayors of Edmonton and Calgary, as well as premier Jason Kenney, and she is continuing her tour there today, heading to the north of the province, where she grew up. There have been a couple of themes emerging from her tour from those she’s visited – from the mayors, it’s a sense that it’s great that she’s there to listen and hear their concerns, and from Kenney, it’s a bit of a sense of impatience that there haven’t been enough “concrete” actions yet.

I was struck after the meeting with Edmonton’s mayor on Monday about the talk of his trepidation that Kenney’s “Fair Deal” plans would make it harder for cities to deal with the federal government to address their priorities, and that he was looking for some particular assurances – and indeed, we’ve heard for the past couple of years that cities were frustrated that federal dollars weren’t flowing because the provinces were holding things up in what appeared to be some partisan pique (given that most of those provinces now have conservative governments). The federal government has been looking at more ways to deal with cities directly, and this appears to be more confirmation of the need to do just that.

This having been said, I am curious as to when Freeland is going to start further calling Kenney’s bluffs with regard to his “demands” and his threats around them. Justin Trudeau fairly effectively cut the legs out from under Scott Moe’s equalization fairy tales, and one imagines that it’s a matter of time before Freeland starts to – very diplomatically – do much the same with Kenney and some of his utter nonsense. Those “concrete actions” Kenney wants – retroactive fiscal stabilization funds, unrealistic demands related to the former Bills C-48 and C-69 (which are now law) – will eventually need to come to a head and Kenney will huff and puff and claim separatist sentiments will explode, but he doesn’t have too much room to manoeuvre himself – his cuts have proven very unpopular, and the patience of his constituents is going to run out, no matter how much he tries to distract them by fomenting anger at Ottawa. Freeland knows this, and I’ll be curious to see how she manages it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Competing economic illiteracy

Posted on by

As someone who covers a fair bit of economic stories, the absolute inability of this government to come up with a definition of “middle class” is exhausting – and those of you who read me regularly will know that I will instead use Middle Class™ as a means of showcasing that it’s a meaningless branding exercise. And lo and behold, when challenged to offer up a definition during one of his year-ender interviews, Justin Trudeau said that “Canadians know who’s in the middle class and know what their families are facing and we focus more on the actual issues.” And I died a little bit inside. For a government that keeps insisting they’re all about data, and evidence-based policy, their refusal to offer a meaningful measure of what their core narrative is all about is entirely about branding. By not offering a definition, they don’t have to exclude anyone – because everyone believes they’re middle class (whether they had ponies or not). And more to the point, by not offering a metric, they can’t measure whether they’ve succeeded for failed – it’s only about feelings, which makes their talk of data and evidence all the more hollow.

And then there’s Pierre Poilievre, who, when challenged about the definition of a recession, makes up a bullshit response and thinks it makes him clever. It’s as economically illiterate as the Liberals’ Middle Class™ prevarication, but the fact that the Conservatives keep cheerleading a “made-in-Canada recession” that no economist sees on the horizon, and which they can’t even fit into the actual definition of what a recession is (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth) sets a dangerous path of spooking markets. It’s all so stupid, and reckless, but the party’s current path of pathological dishonesty makes them blind to the danger of it all.

On perhaps a related note, Trudeau’s director of communications, Kate Purchase, is leaving to become a senior director at Microsoft, and good luck to her – and she really is one of the nicest staffers and was actually helpful to media in stark contrast to the Harper crew. But I also hope that perhaps this means that her replacement can start ensuring that this government can start communicating its way out of a wet paper bag, because cripes, they have done themselves zero favours over the past four years.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mandate letters and the minister for everything

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day that Justin Trudeau released the mandate letters for his ministers, giving us a glimpse as to what their marching orders will be (which is still a fairly novel transparency and accountability measure in this country, it needs to be said). The National Post counted up some 288 projects listed in those mandates, some of them holdovers from the previous parliament (which isn’t surprising considering that  many of them were fairly ambitious and transformational and were not achievable within four years). But there were also a number of things missing from several of those letters that should have been dealt with – particularly on the justice file.

As with the previous parliament, each of the letters has an identical preamble, advising the ministers to “govern in a positive, open and collaborative way,” because it’s a hung parliament and all of that. In terms of specific points in the letters, there are issues like discussions with province over pharmacare, shortening wait times for airport screenings, tax cuts for green tech companies, reforming the medical assistance in dying laws, advancing international efforts to ban “killer robots,” procuring new fighter jets and modernizing NORAD. One of the more alarming mentions was in Bill Morneau’s letter, advising him to review and possibly modify the financial stress test applied to mortgages, which is a Very Bad Thing, and means that the real estate lobby is winning its air war over the good common sense of the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. (Seriously – there is no excuse for encouraging bad debt).

And then there is Chrystia Freeland’s letter, which is expansive and makes her in essence a “minister of everything” who is assigned to basically work with a number of other ministers to advance their priorities, whether it’s carbon pricing, getting resources to market, breaking down internal trade barriers, facilitating pharmacare talks, working on pan-Canadian childcare, gun control, regional economic development agencies, and advancing reconciliation. This leaves questions as to what exactly Trudeau will be doing while Freeland does all the work – leaving her to either take the fall while Trudeau gets to take the credit. This having been said, it’s just as likely that she wanted a full plate of projects rather than simply spending her weeks heading to provincial capitals to meet with premiers once the New NAFTA is ratified, but she certainly has her work cut out for her, ensuring that enough of these promises are fulfilled before the inevitable early election call that comes in a hung parliament.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A promise weaselled out on

Posted on by

A very important bill has been introduced in the Senate, that has been attempted on more than a few occasions now, and it’s a sign of a promise that the Liberals weaselled out on in the past. The bill? To restore Parliament’s ability to control government borrowing by way of votes – you know, like Parliament is supposed to do as part of their job of holding government to account by means of controlling the public purse. You see, back in the Harper era, they hid the change in one of their massive omnibus budget bills that stripped Parliament of the ability to vote on new borrowing, and instead turned it over to Cabinet. Senators caught it too late, and the bill passed, and whoops, no more ability for Parliament to hold government to account for it any longer. Senator Wilfred Moore introduced a bill to revert this practice on a couple of occasions, and Senator Joseph Day carried on with it in the previous Parliament, and has just reintroduced it in this one.

https://twitter.com/SenDayNB/status/1204502292076154880

The Liberals were all in favour of this back when they were in opposition, and made a big show about promising to restore this to Parliament – and then they weaselled out on it. What they did instead was introduced a debt ceiling of $1.168 trillion, after which Parliament would need to vote to extend it, and said that Cabinet only needed to report to Parliament every three years about the money it has borrowed, starting in 2020. Let me reiterate – they weaselled out of this promise, and at least there are senators who are alive to why this is important for Parliament.

These are principles that go back to Runnymede, and the Magna Carta in 1215, and made more explicit in 1688 when the king wasn’t able to borrow money without Parliament’s consent. The Conservatives broke this important principle of Parliament for their convenience. That the Liberals have refused to act on their promise to restore it is a black mark against them.

Continue reading →

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: 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 →