Tag Archives: Jason Kenney

Roundup: Trudeau’s first minority steps

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau met with the press yesterday and offered a few bits of post-election news – namely that he was not going to seek any kind of formal or informal coalition (not that he would need to, given how the seat maths work out), that the new Cabinet would be sworn in on November 20th, and that yes, the Trans Mountain pipeline is going ahead, no matter how much huffing and puffing certain opposition parties may try to engage in (for all the good it will do because it’s not something that would come before Parliament in any meaningful capacity in any case). Not that there should have been any doubt – he has expended so much political capital on the project that not doing so would make no sense. The November 20th date is later than he took to decide on a Cabinet after the last election, and Trudeau remarked that he has a lot of reflection to do with the loss of all of his Alberta and Saskatchewan seats, and that is no doubt part of the task ahead.

To that end, Trudeau didn’t give any indication whether he would appoint a senator or two to Cabinet to fill those geographic holes (and I will be writing more on this in an upcoming column) – but did say he was going to introduce changes to the Parliament of Canada Act to make the “independent” Senate more permanently so (not that he can legislate the new appointment process, but rather it deals operationally with salaries for caucus leaders). The “facilitator” of the Independent Senators Group is already decrying that any plan to put senators in Cabinet would be somehow “counterproductive” to the whole independent Senate project, which is of course ignorant of history and Parliament itself. I do find myself troubled that Trudeau singled out the mayors of Calgary and Edmonton as people he would be consulting with as part of his “reflection” on how to rebuild trust with Alberta and in terms of how to somehow include them in his Cabinet-making process, because they have agendas of their own, and it would seem to just exacerbate the whole urban-rural divide that the election results are so indicative of.

Trudeau has some options for getting that Alberta and Saskatchewan representation in Cabinet, from Senators, to floor-crossers, of simply appointing non-Parliamentarians to the role (which is permissible, but goes somewhat against the convention that they seek seats as soon as possible). Here’s Philippe Lagassé explaining some of the options and dynamics:

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187081027254194183

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187081821948915717

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187083301086990336

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187084679859638272

Continue reading →

Roundup: Demands from the losing side

Posted on by

It took absolutely no time for the premiers – particularly the western ones – to start laying down markers now that Justin Trudeau had walked away wounded but still standing from Monday’s election. While Blaine Higgs of New Brunswick struck a more conciliatory tone and decided to back down from his carbon price rhetoric, and Doug Ford even striking a more workable tone (though no word yet if he’s going to abandon his fight against the carbon price), it was up to Scott Moe and Jason Kenney to try and flex their muscles and start howling about the prospects of separation because they lost at politics when it came to fighting the aforementioned carbon price.

To that end, Moe presented a letter with a list of three demands for a “new deal” for the province in the federation – scrapping the federal carbon price, reforming equalization to be “fair,” and new pipeline projects – plural. This after the same chuckleheads that put billboards across Alberta and Saskatchewan demanding that the Liberals in those provinces be voted out to “send a message” only to realize that they no longer had any representation in Cabinet. Oops. As for Moe’s demands, the carbon price is not going anywhere – if anything, this election was a confirmation that the country was in favour of carbon pricing, if you look at the seats won by parties who support it. Moe has already tried to propose a reform to equalization that was not actually equalization, but some per capita funding allocation that, again, had nothing to do with what equalization is or represents. As for pipelines, there are several already in process, Trans Mountain chief among them, but if you look at the market, there is no actual future demand for expanded capacity once the current projects are online. We are in an era of a global supply glut and we can expect demand to start diminishing as more low-carbon measures increasingly come online both in Canada and abroad. Not to mention, all of Moe’s demands involve the other provinces in some capacity, and are not things the federal government can do unilaterally (and in fact, his demand to scrap the carbon price is an implicit demand that he doesn’t think provinces should have a level playing field when it comes to carbon pricing, which is the whole point of the pan-Canadian framework). And with all of these demands, Moe claims he’s offering a “fire extinguisher” to the “prairie fire” of regional alienation. Not likely.

And then there was Jason Kenney, not only creating a panel to consult with Albertans about ways to secure our role and fairness in Canadian federation,” before he presented his own laundry lists of demands, such as the “national energy corridor,” Trans Mountain (already in progress), killing Bill C-69 (because the previous system of constant litigation was apparently better), exempting the mortgage stress test for Alberta (which isn’t the government’s call and is really dumb), but he’s threatening a (non-binding) referendum on equalization over this (which will accomplish exactly nothing). And while he started his press conference with the veneer of being statesmanlike, it quickly degenerated to this kind of raving that showcases that Kenney’s real goal, which is simply about stoking more anger at Trudeau because that suits his political purposes.

It’s worth noting that Manitoba premier Brian Pallister is having none of this talk (possibly because he sees where the wind is blowing, and Paul Wells has called him “Canada’s tallest weather vane).

But in all of this bluster, we’re getting all of these hyped up warnings about “Wexit,” which is the moronic label that some swivel-eyed loons have started applying to the notion of Alberta separation, which is the dumbest political movement going. But I do worry that Moe and Kenney are playing with fire, because they’re goading the nebulous populism that is building to such a force that will be hard for the either of them or the federal Conservatives to contain. Stop adding fuel to the fire. It will blow up in your faces.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hand-waving through a plan doomed to fail

Posted on by

It’s the final debate day of the election, so expect a couple of brief photo-ops, then a quiet day as the leaders do their final prep. Yesterday, Andrew Scheer went to the Roxham Road irregular border crossing in Quebec to pledge that he would end said border crossings – and then hand-waved through just how he planned to do so, given that the Safe Third Country Agreement is a treaty with the Americans and we can’t do anything without negotiating with them, and they are not exactly big on taking in asylum claimants right now and would be happy to see them wind up in Canada. And their “other options,” such as trying to declare the entire border an “official point of entry” for the purposes of the agreement won’t work, and will simply drive more asylum seekers to more remote crossing points where there are fewer controls, and more likelihood of death or injury. In other words, he was misleading about his plans to address the issue, and more than that, he invoked the spectre of MS-13 (which is an American border issue, not a Canadian one), gave the false notion that these crossings somehow let migrants “jump the queue” unfairly (there is no queue for refugees, and they don’t impact those we are bringing in from refugee camps), made the ludicrous promise to move more citizenship judges to the border to process claims faster (proximity has nothing to do with it, and trying to speed up claims has failed in the past because we still need to have procedural fairness and adherence to Charter rights). Immigration and refugee experts have thus proclaimed that Scheer’s pledge today is doomed to failure. On a related note, Scheer keeps saying his full platform will be out in “plenty of time” for people to make an informed decision, but advance polls have already opened on university campuses, and for everyone else tomorrow, so that’s not exactly time for people to start making informed decisions – and leaving Scheer open to the criticism that he plans to replicate the Doug Ford tactic of not releasing a platform and preferring to coast in on anger instead. And while we’re on the subject of Scheer’s dishonesty, he claimed that Elections Canada gave the okay for his campaign director, Hamish Marshall’s ad company to also be producing election ads for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers – but Elections Canada said that’s not true. So chalk that up to yet another lie on the tally.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1181961842291281923

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1181961052390600707

Justin Trudeau was in Markham, promising that the first thing he would do if re-elected would be to cut taxes for the middle class, which was essentially just a reannouncement of their basic personal amount cut. When answering questions, he offered some clarity to the situation around the spat between the Canadian Forces and provincial healthcare systems, which stems from the Canadian Forces being billed for higher rates than they would be normally for those services.

Jagmeet Singh, meanwhile, was in Montreal to address CUPE convention, with promise to fight privatization, in the hopes of winning back the labour vote.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Judicial review and missing nuance

Posted on by

There was a development regarding a First Nations court challenge, which I’ll discuss in a moment, but first up, the campaign news. Jagmeet Singh was in Saskatoon to essentially re-announce his plans to “immediately” implement dental care – again, omitting that it’s provincial jurisdiction and he has no way of forcing provinces to do the heavy lifting – before he headed to Thunder Bay.

Justin Trudeau didn’t announce anything but met with voters at a restaurant in Quebec City, followed by a media availability where he assured everyone that his views have evolved from when, in 2011, he said he was personally against abortion but was pro-choice. He says he’s now totally pro-choice because his previous stance didn’t really make any sense – something he probably felt he needed to make clear when it was remarked that his position and Scheer’s were very similar in personally opposing abortion. Later on, he was at a tree planting with a candidate in Saint-Anaclet, Quebec, where he addressed the lawsuit issue (and again, more on that in a moment).

Andrew Scheer was in Etobicoke, where he re-announced the party’s platform as regards gun control and gangs – and much like his foreign aid announcement, this one was also based on a series of lies about bail and sentencing. More to the point, Scheer pledged more mandatory minimum sentences – which the courts keep striking down – and pledging to fight for them in court tooth and nail, so he wants to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to fight for unconstitutional laws for the sake of symbolism, apparently. But this was overshowed by yet more questions about his dual-citizenship, including his need to file US taxes, and being registered for “selective service,” meaning the draft.

But back to the court challenge, which was news that the government had applied to the Federal Court for judicial review of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision that would award compensation to every First Nations child who had been apprehended by child and family services. Immediately there was a hue and cry, and plenty of outrage (some of it performative), and a lot of hot takes from journalists who failed to understand the nuances in legal stories. And while I’m not a lawyer, I have been on the law beat for several years now, and I can say that oftentimes, these kinds of appeals are made on technical grounds because in the law, precise wording matters, particularly when one is concerned about the precedents it sets. Both Seamus O’Regan and Trudeau did address this in the media saying that they agree that the government failed these children and that they are owed compensation, but they need time to determine how to do it right, but they can’t do that during a writ period (which is appropriate, given the Caretaker convention, especially as this is worth billions of dollars). Ah, but these clever reporters said, the documents say that they are opposed to the compensation award. Now, I haven’t had a chance to read the application because it’s not online, but the CBC describes it thusly:

The application says Canada acknowledges the finding of systematic discrimination and does not oppose the general principle of compensating First Nations individuals affected by a discriminatory funding model — but it argues awarding compensation to individuals in this claim is inconsistent with the nature of the complaint, the evidence, past jurisprudence and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Now, there are clues in here as to what the government is arguing, primarily that the Tribunal exceeded its authority to make this kind of compensation order based on the kind of human rights complaint that was brought before it, including exceeding their statutory authority. So that’s not a small thing if that’s the case. And it’s a hell of a lot of nuance in the story that deserves to be explained. Any government is going to be concerned if a Tribunal exceeds its authority to make these kinds of orders, because that will impact future cases with future governments – no matter that they feel this case is deserving of compensation. But this very important detail has been completely glossed over in the search for outrage takes, which means that the reporting is doing a disservice to all parties involved.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No real winner, except TVA itself

Posted on by

The morning was full of Montreal photo-ops in advance of the TVA debate, with Justin Trudeau going to a famous boxing gym, and Jagmeet Singh going to Atwater Market to “pick up snacks” for debate prep – only to be greeted by a racist incident. While Scheer was not to be seen, he dispatched Alain Rayes to make a reannouncement about the red herring of raw sewage that gets dumped into waterways.

And then the TVA debate. If there was a winner of the night, it was the debate format itself, which offered a lot more substantial exchanges between leaders than other formats, and there was significantly less cross-talk or interruption. That said, the night got off to an early start with the three other leaders ganging up on Scheer to demand answers about his personal feelings on abortion, same-sex marriage and medical assistance in dying (one of the few bits of news out of this whole exercise being that Trudeau said they wouldn’t appeal a Quebec court decision that said that the current guidelines are too restrictive – something that Trudeau initially stood behind Jody Wilson-Raybould over). Most of the lines of attack against one another were well-worn, and Scheer kept insisting that his “national energy corridor” project would be a win-win for everyone, while Singh praised himself as the only leader on the stage with an excess of courage. Trudeau held his own and wasn’t the subject of nearly as many attacks as I might have thought, and the host even tossed him something of a gimme toward the end where Trudeau got the chance to declare that he was standing up for SNC-Lavalin jobs, which is a position that gets better play in Quebec, while Scheer in particular was buttonholed as to whether he would have protected those jobs. In terms of the quality of French, Scheer’s was the shakiest, while Singh largely held his own, but as he did in the Maclean’s debate, Singh hewed to well-worn talking points, including the “I was just talking to someone about…” whatever the issue was. The Bloc leader, Yves-François Blanchet was naturally the commanding presence in the French debate, as any Bloc leader tends to be, and Blachet was the first non-Gilles Duceppe Bloc leader on the stage for the first time in about 17 years – and his calm and polished demeanour didn’t even give way to his reputation in the province as being Pauline Marois’ thug from his time in her Cabinet. (More from Paul Wells on the debate here).

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1179615170944856065

Scheer did try to get one new line of attack in the debate, which was to accuse Trudeau of having two campaign planes – which is actually true in the sense that they have a second, cargo plane that goes in advance to locations with audio-visual equipment to get things set up before the rest of the team and the media arrives. Scheer snidely said this plane was for Trudeau’s “costumes and canoe” (which makes no sense as Trudeau has appeared in a shirt and tie at every single campaign event), and while Trudeau quickly stated that they purchase carbon offsets for both planes, the Conservatives were in full shitpost mode over social media to insist this was climate hypocrisy. [insert wanking motion here]

Continue reading →

Roundup: Duelling policies degenerating to stupidity

Posted on by

It was a day when the competing pledges went a bit…dumb, as the two main parties put out competing policies on the same issue, this time being energy efficiency home renovations. Andrew Scheer was out first in Jonquiere, Quebec, where he fleshed out the previously promised tax credit for said renovations. As a way of reducing GHGs, there is very little bang to be had for the bucks being expended on it, and when pressed by a CBC reporter, Scheer couldn’t give any answers in terms of megatonnes of carbon emissions reductions that need to happen for the Paris targets to be reached (which he still mouths that he’s interested in). Add in the fact that he’s promising to cut the HST on home heating is a signal for people to use more fuel (prices are incentives, remember), so the tax credit pays for people to cut back, which makes no economic sense. (But this is a right-flavoured populist party, so don’t expect market solutions any longer). Above all, the plan is simply to let people who are wealthy enough to own houses and pay for the renovations simply add value to said homes at the taxpayer’s expense, which puts a lie to the narratives about “affordability.”

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1176948777157984256

Shortly thereafter, Justin Trudeau was in Port Coquitlam, BC, to showcase their green energy retrofit programme, which involves interest-free loans, free energy audits, cash incentives and grants, and would also be eligible for renters and landlords as opposed to just landlords. One of the more expensive elements of Trudeau’s pledge was for national flood insurance and enhanced EI benefits for natural disasters, which he says still need to be devised – but flood insurance is going to be costly. The Conservatives then attacked this plan by saying that people can’t necessarily afford the loans…but their plan requires people to pay for the renovations up front in order to get the tax credit, so it makes no sense. It’s starting to feel like we’re living through the stupidest election yet.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1177041128991932417

Jagmeet Singh was in Burnaby to promise that he would bolster the RCMP’s efforts to combat money laundering as a way to make housing more affordable, particularly in British Columbia, plus a 15 percent foreign buyer’s tax on properties.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sweetening the newborn benefits

Posted on by

It was another day of promises to families with young children, of course, and Justin Trudeau was out first this morning from St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, to promise a more comprehensive package of benefits for the families of newborns – additional Canada Child Benefit payments, making maternity benefits actually tax free by removing the taxation at source as opposed to a non-refundable tax credit, and additional weeks of parental leave for adoptive parents. While most of the media stories didn’t really touch on it, the enhanced CCB payouts in the first month of a child’s life is approaching a basic minimum income for parents, as it doesn’t rely on EI benefits (which don’t apply for those who are self-employed or who weren’t working). While there are still a few questions about implementation (explained in this thread by Lindsay Tedds), most seem to agree that the Liberal plan is far more useful to parents than the one the Conservatives announced earlier.

Andrew Scheer was in Winnipeg, where he announced a promise to enhance the Registered Education Savings Plan benefits for those in lower income brackets, but it remains a fact that this is another promise that disproportionately benefits wealthier households, and does nothing for those who can’t afford to contribute to these RESPs. (Here’s a thread from Jennifer Robson on the efficacy of RESPs for low-income Canadians). Scheer also accused Trudeau of stealing his parental benefits idea and that he voted against it before and announced it now – but the Liberal plan is very different from the one Scheer proposed. (Here’s another thread from Robson comparing the Conservative and Liberal promises). Scheer also accused the Liberals of not being transparent about the costs of their promises, but Trudeau had already stated that a PBO-costing of them would becoming out once the whole platform is announced (which may provide a more holistic picture of their promises rather than them coming out piecemeal like the Conservatives are doing).

For Jagmeet Singh, he was in Ottawa to re-announce his party’s promise to build half a million new affordable housing units – but wouldn’t say how they would do it, which is kind of a big deal because the places where affordable housing is most acute are areas with either full employment or labour shortages, which is kind of a big deal if they want to get it built affordably.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cheap outrage over MPs’ spouses

Posted on by

Long-time readers will know that one of my pet peeves is the propensity for my media colleagues to push cheap outrage stories, to trigger the hairshirt parsimony and tall poppy syndrome of the Canadian public, and lo, they did it again with the screaming headline that taxpayers footed the bill for $4.5 million in MP spousal travel over four years. Which is actually not a lot, particularly when you consider that we’re a big country, and that airfare is expensive here because of our duopolistic air carriers and lack of population density.

Of course, when I tweeted this out, I had all kinds of people yelling at me that Bill Morneau’s millionaire wife shouldn’t be eligible for sponsored spousal travel. The problem with this kind of qualifier is that it when you start qualifying who is and isn’t eligible for the benefits based on personal circumstances, you start running into the mentality that plagued the UK for centuries – that MPs were poorly compensated and essentially needed to be independently wealthy before they stood for office. We’ve seen enough people suggest that the Canadian Senate be run this way, with the ludicrous suggestion that it be a volunteer position. I would also add that the divorce rate for MPs is several times above the national average – if we start begrudging their ability to travel with their spouses to Ottawa and back, particularly if the distances are fairly large ones – we’d see even more divorces, or a pervasive belief that people with families shouldn’t run for office. I’m not sure who that would benefit.

Throughout this bit of cheap outrage, Jody Wilson-Raybould’s spousal flights were singled out in a separate piece about cabinet ministers and their spouses’ travel costs. That a Vancouver MP’s costs would be higher should be no surprise, and it could very well be that they are higher because they may have been booked last-minute rather than in advance (given that they are simply treated by the MP and their spouse as points rather than being given a dollar figure as their expenses limit). Suffice to say, these kinds of stories are pretty gross when you stop and think about it, and the performative outrage over taxpayer dollars that are packaged in a way to look big and without sufficient context is one of the biggest problems we have in Canadian politics, and why we make the lives of our MPs so miserable.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney’s McCarthy-esque quest

Posted on by

Over in Alberta, Jason Kenney’s McCarthy-esque Committee on un-Albertan Activities received its terms of reference and will begin taking submissions, and just like the MacKinnon Report, it was gamed to specifically look at anything that was being mean to the oil and gas sector while studiously avoiding any falsehoods used by the oil and gas lobby to state their own case. And it’s all going into feeding their “war room” to “fight back” against those un-Albertan activities. Because this is totally normal for a democratic government in the western world.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Underlying concerns amidst good numbers

Posted on by

It was hard to miss all of the talk about the job numbers yesterday – particularly as pretty much every Liberal minister, MP and candidate started sharing pre-generated memes about how great the economy is doing under this government (with the caveat that there’s still more work to do). This, like news of much higher than expected GDP growth, are good headlines with some underlying weakness being masked, and as economist Trevor Tombe explains, those good numbers are masking some very real problems in Alberta.

The issue of young men in that province is one that I’m not sure enough levels of government are paying sufficient attention to, as the Alberta government seems to think that all that’s needed is for the oil patch to revive and it’s problem solved, but with world oil prices depressed and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, that means the prospect for these young men – many of whom are under-educated because of the lure of high-paying oil patch jobs – are not going to be good in the shorter term. That’s additionally a problem when you have a government that feeds the people a diet of lies and snake oil to keep them angry at imaginary reasons why they’re being kept down (currently Justin Trudeau), because angry young men can be a dangerous thing if allowed to fester. And for the federal government’s part, I wonder just how much their retraining programming is penetrating given that jobs they could be retraining for couldn’t necessarily match the promised paydays of oil jobs in a boom – but that becomes a problem of waiting for the next boom (where the money will get pissed away, like it does every time no matter how often they promise that this time it will be different – really!).

Some of this will come up in the election – not just the lies that Kenney and company are pushing, but the NDP and Greens are trying to make some hay here, as both want to retrain these workers for the “green economy” in some vague way, while the Greens in particular think they could put them to work capping old orphan wells as both an environmental and job-creation measure, but it’s also one that is both expensive, and if the government just starts doing this on its own, it essentially lets the industry off the hook and demonstrates that the “polluter pays” principle is for naught. Add to that, the promises of green jobs retraining falls back to the issue of some of them waiting on the promises of the bigger paydays in a future oil boom, so there is no guarantee that green jobs will be attractive to this cohort. Nevertheless, it’s good that there are at least some ideas, and we should ensure that it’s something that does get discussed during the election.

Continue reading →