Tag Archives: Jason Kenney

Roundup: Cluelessly demanding reforms

Posted on by

Over the long weekend, Independent Senator Tony Dean posted an op-ed over on iPolitics to decry the supposed partisan attempts to block reform in the Senate – but it’s a dog’s breakfast that betrays a complete lack of understanding about the institution. It’s indicative of the attitude of a cohort of the new senators who think that they know best, despite not having a working knowledge of Parliament as a whole, or the Senate in particular, and yet they feel as though they know definitively how it needs to change. And more dangerously, Dean brings up that recent poll to show how Canadians apparently love the “new” Senate as a means of bashing Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives, who have no intention to continue the new appointment process – in effect campaigning for the Liberals, which should be uncomfortable for “independent” senators.

The core of Dean’s argument is that the Senate needs a business committee in order to get things done – which is both wrong, and wrong-headed. He complains that individual senators can delay bills, which he fails to grasp is the whole point. The Senate does not exist to rubber-stamp government bills, and yet Dean seems to miss that point. It’s not just that the Conservatives are partisan and therefore Bad – it’s because the Senate has a constitutional role to fill, and a business committee won’t stop delays. All it does is institute time allocation on all legislation before the Chamber – and it’s ironic that he’s pushing for that notion because in the very same piece he complains that the Conservatives were draconian about time allocation when they were in charge. He complains that there is no “TV Guide” for the Senate because debates aren’t organised, which is another wrong notion because the whole point about the way in which the Chamber has operated, where there are days between speeches between proponents and critics on bills is because it allows for thoughtful responses rather than the canned speechifying that happens in the House of Commons. And “organising” debates for the sake of TV is just time allocation in disguise. Which he fails to grasp.

Pointing to the programming motions on the assisted dying or cannabis legislation are not necessarily good examples of programmed debate in the Senate, because those were extraordinary bills, which the majority of Senate business is not. Dean was also known for insisting that the Conservatives would refuse to let those bills go to a vote when the Conservatives were proposing timetables for negotiation (and we all know that neither the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Peter Harder, nor the Independent Senators Group, seem to believe in negotiation or horse-trading to get things done in the Senate, because they mistakenly believe it to be “partisan,” which it’s not – it’s how stuff gets done). A business committee is a bad move for the Senate, and Dean needs to get a clue about that. It won’t stop the Conservatives from being partisan, and simply time allocating all business could set a bad precedent for when the Conservatives get back into power – which they will one day – and the impulse to return to some of the “draconian” measures of the Harper era come back, and suddenly they may feel differently about time allocating everything. But this cohort of new senators doesn’t get that because they’re not familiar with how parliament works, and they need to get on that because change for the sake of change may sound like a good idea in the moment, but can have lasting, damaging consequences for the institution as a whole.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney changes his tone

Posted on by

In the wake of Jason Kenney’s win in the Alberta election, he took to the microphones yesterday to try and sound statesmanlike, immediately ratcheting down his rhetoric on a number of files including his “turn off the taps” pledge (which never made any business sense) and his demand that the Trans Mountain Expansion construction get underway – acknowledging realities that he never did on the campaign trail. Of course, he still plans to kill the province’s carbon tax (and lift their emissions cap) which sets up for constitutional battles that they are doomed to lose. As for Rachel Notley, she becomes yet another woman first minister who has failed to win a second election, keeping that established pattern going. And I would encourage you all to read Jen Gerson’s roundup of the whole election, and the lessons in the end – that you can’t hope to paint your opponents as bigots and win, and that you can’t run a campaign about lashing out against the world without consequences.

This having been said, a narrative started emerging over social media as soon as it became clear that Kenney was winning last night, which was conservatives across the country were insisting that the NDP’s campaign as solely “nasty” and full of “personal attacks” which was why they lost. Kenney himself, during his press conference yesterday, insisted that he had a “positive campaign” that the media somehow missed. I’m not sure what part of lies and snake oil promises are “positive,” nor am I convinced that pointing out racism, misogyny and homophobia/transphobia is a “personal attack.” In fact, it seems to point to this aggrieved sense that I’ve seen where the Conservatives in Ottawa will go to bat for avowed racists because their racism was being pointed out – that being called a racist is somehow worse than the actual racism being espoused. That’s a fairly troubling mindset, and yet we’re no doubt going to be seeing a lot more of it as Justin Trudeau makes a concerted effort to point out the winking and nudging to white nationalists that Andrew Scheer has engaged in.

And now the hot takes – because everyone’s got one. Colby Cosh points out that this really wasn’t the Lougheed vs Klein fight that some people portrayed, and that the broader climate fight is in the works. Stephen Maher advises that Trudeau abandon his “sunny ways” (more than he already has) and start bare-knuckle brawling, adding that if Kenney lets his social conservatives loose, that could work to Trudeau’s advantage. Andrew Coyne notes Kenney’s adoption of a statesman-like tone in victory following “campaign exuberance,” and that Trudeau would be in a tough spot to not approve Trans Mountain if Kenney repeals the province’s environmental plan. David Moscrop wonders if the trends in Alberta are changing and whether its conservatism will hold for Kenney’s benefit. Tristin Hopper makes the salient point that the increasingly uncompromising nature of the environmental movement hardened Albertans against the NDP.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Drawing the wrong lessons

Posted on by

At the time I’m writing this, it’s not looking too good for Rachel Notley and her NDP in the Alberta election (and sorry I couldn’t stay up late to track results, but StatsCan waits for no journalist). With that in mind, I wanted to just post a couple of thoughts about what this could bode – not just the immediate nonsense of Jason Kenney theatrically tabling a bill to repeal the province’s carbon tax (and immediately subjecting him to the federal backstop), or his threat to “turn off the taps” to BC when it comes to oil — something a court would strike down immediately because it’s utterly unconstitutional. Rather, I suspect that this will provide additional encouragement to Andrew Scheer to emulate Kenney’s tactics — fomenting anger, and selling people a steady diet of lies and snake oil, and hoping that he can find someone to blame when he’s unable to deliver on any of it should he get into power. Scheer’s problem will be that he doesn’t have another level of government he can cast too much blame upon, but that won’t dissuade him from the other tactics.

I also suspect that we’re going to get a renewed round of wailing and gnashing of teeth from “progressives” about how they couldn’t coalesce their votes around Notley and the NDP, and there will be all manner of blame being cast at the Alberta Party and the Alberta Liberals for splitting their vote (which is nonsense, of course, but we’ll hear it anyway).

Meanwhile, my column offers my personal loathing and dread about the way the election happened, and the problem with stoking anger and promising magic wands and snake oil.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A trio of justice issues

Posted on by

There were three major law-related stories in the news yesterday, starting with the announcement that Supreme Court of Canada Justice Clement Gascon has opted to retire early, citing “personal and family reasons.” This was quickly followed by Justin Trudeau announcing that a replacement process would be launched, and would again be headed by Kim Campbell, while the Conservatives followed a few hours later with a demand that this process not go ahead until the leak from the previous process was investigated (though the Privacy Commissioner is already on that case). The thing to remember of course is that there is something of a deadline here, being the election, and it’s more than possible that the Conservatives want this delayed so that they have the possibility of naming the next judge if they should happen to form government in October. For what it’s worth.

The second story was that of the carbon tax reference at the Ontario Court of Appeal, which was live-streamed for the first time in its history. The province’s argument apparently is that if the federal government is allowed to impose a carbon tax, that they’ll start intruding into other areas of provincial jurisdiction, which is…dubious. And it sounds like the judges weren’t having much of that line of reasoning either.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1117808109802663938

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1117809485395816451

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1117811576940060673

The third law story of the day was the revelation that the directive around civil litigation involving Indigenous people that Jody Wilson-Raybould instituted as one of her last acts as justice minister has been fiercely contested within the department because it many cases, it amounts to litigating badly and not actually getting the courts to resolve the legal questions that are at issue, which they argue doesn’t actually help reconciliation because you’re not dealing with underlying issues that require resolution. The piece also noted the frequent and direct political interference that Wilson-Raybould exerted on civil litigation (which she can do as Attorney General, unlike the arm’s length nature of criminal prosecutions), sometimes undermining the arguments that Crown attorneys were trying to advance in the middle of cases. It’s fascinating reading and yet more insight into what was going on with Wilson-Raybould in the lead up to her being shuffled.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Missing the mark on encouraging participation

Posted on by

The House of Commons’ status of women committee tabled a report this week that is about getting more women into politics? The problem? That all of its recommendations are focused on what the government can do, when it’s not their job. Rather, it’s the job of political parties, and only some of them take it seriously. Add to that, the one recommendation that people tend to focus on — that the federal government give some manner of financial compensation to parties who recruit more women candidates — is bad policy because it simply rewards parties for putting women candidates in unwinnable ridings and lets them claim their percentages. The Conservatives had their own dissenting report as well, which focused on their notion of women running on “merit” rather than quotas (because there’s apparently no tokenism in their party), and wanted more focus on women who bully and discourage other women in politics. (The NDP’s own dissent focused on some of the language of the recommendations, and more funding for women’s groups, childcare, and so on).

And I have to stress that this is a party issue, not a government issue. Parties are the ones who set the rules for their nomination contests, and are responsible for recruiting their own candidates, and even more to the point, these should be grassroots efforts rather than coming on high from party headquarters. That means mobilising party members at the ground level to find and recruit more women, and to convince them to run. The Liberals have had success with this — they instituted a programme of getting people to find women in their communities and then asking them several times to run, because they know the research that shows that while a man would likely accept on the first request, women can take something like seven times being asked before they will accept to run. Overcoming that socialised reluctance is a big part of it, and where the focus needs to lie — on top of the parties making their nomination rules more clear (and less reliant on the “unwritten rules” as have been spoken of), and ensuring that things like childcare are being taken care of so that women can do things like door-knock and and canvas. None of this is something that the government can take care of, but the party grassroots needs to be aware of and work toward implementing.

It’s not just rules — it’s an ecosystem. Part of that is civics education, because we don’t teach students about things like nomination races and why they matter, and how to get involved. That’s one of the most fundamental parts of our system, and we don’t teach it. How do we expect more young women to get involved if we don’t tell them how? This is where the focus needs to lie if we’re to make any lasting change.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An important first report

Posted on by

While everyone was focused on Jane Philpott’s attempt to claim that the provisions in the garbage Reform Act weren’t met as it regards her expulsion from caucus, a much more important event was taking place, which was the release of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians’ first public report. This is the first time that Canada has seen any kind of public oversight into our national security and intelligence services, and it was important to see. One of the things that they focused in on was the oversight of military intelligence operations, for which the military thanked them for their suggestions on improving governance, but balked at the proposal for a legislative framework.

Nevertheless, the expert in this stuff is Stephanie Carvin, so I will turn over the reactions to her (full thread starts here):

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115716056247676929

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115717071185301504

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115717072657502210

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115678714291871746

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115683292928299008

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115688317452935168

Continue reading →

Roundup: And now the lawsuits

Posted on by

Because we can’t go a single day without yet more nonsense in the interminable Double-Hyphen Affair fallout, we had news yesterday that Andrew Scheer is being personally sued by prime minister Justin Trudeau for libel following press releases in which he intimated that Trudeau committed a crime and is attempting to cover it up. Scheer says bring it on, and make it fast. And then come the narratives – Conservatives say that the prime minister is trying to intimidate them, or bully them into silence, but at least with the lawsuit he’ll have to testify under oath. The Liberals are saying that this is just calling out Scheer’s lies and shows that they have consequences, and it demonstrates that Trudeau is willing to testify under oath as a result. And the pundit class wonders why they would want to continue to drag this out for months, if not years, as this drags on in the court system. (And for those of you who recall, Stephen Harper once planned to sue Stéphane Dion for libel over allegations made in the Chuck Cadman Affair, but he eventually dropped it after Dion was no longer Liberal leader). So, something for everyone, really.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1114959070136537088

Meanwhile, Wilson-Raybould says that all of the anonymous leaks are “trampling over” the confidences around the discussions she may or may not have had with the prime minister. Err, except her own side has been leaking stuff too, even if she insists it’s not her doing it. She also says that she has no desire to help Andrew Scheer win the next election, and doesn’t see herself as a floor-crosser but will operate as an independent Liberal for the time being.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All about Erskine-Smith

Posted on by

As was not a surprise, the Ethics committee met on the matter of hearing from Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, and the Liberals on the committee voted it down. The lead for the Liberals was Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who is a more maverick Liberal in the ranks, and yet he said this motion was premature, said it was better to wait for Wilson-Raybould’s submissions to the justice committee, and stated bluntly that they weren’t the best committee to deal with legal issues. Oh, and he also stated that he got zero input from PMO, and he’s one of the more believable Liberals on that front, so it muffles some of the inevitable cries of “Cover up!” – especially as he says he’s of the opinion that the PM should give the blanket waiver of confidences so that the two resigned ministers can say their piece, because this whole affair is damaging the Liberal brand. So, frank speaking, but that won’t change the narrative any, unfortunately.

In the fallout from Monday’s leaks, the Canadian and Manitoba Bar Associations have put out statements condemning them, as did several MPs including Erskine-Smith. (It also emerged that Justice Joyal withdrew his name after Trudeau rejected it, for what it’s worth). Trudeau himself wouldn’t answer any questions on the leak, even to say that he would investigate where it came from (which should be a bare minimum considering the seriousness of it).

Meanwhile, the Star decided to host competing op-eds about whether dissident Liberals should be allowed to remain in caucus, with Sheila Copps saying no, and Erskine-Smith saying yes. Copps did raise a few interesting points about things that Wilson-Raybould has omitted from her repeated statements, but Erskine-Smith did have the better articulation of what it means to be an MP. Neil Macdonald also has little time or sympathy for the drip-drip-drip approach and wonders why journalists are going along with it, but does offer some historical perspective on MPs who work against their leaders and walk-outs. Susan Delacourt praises Erskine-Smith for his handling of the situation, and the frankness that PMO should be employing. Chris Selley rightly points out that the attempt to drag Justice Joyal into this Affair as a new low, while John Ibbitson says it’s a sign that those inhabiting the PMO have little regard for the rule of law. Paul Wells brings some more righteous fire to this whole debate, torching the cries to purge the party, the leaks of confidential information, and the underlying accusations of system-rigging.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1110628732882972672

Continue reading →

Roundup: A ham-fisted attempt at undermining

Posted on by

Another day of developments in the interminable Double-Hyphen Affair fallout, and it’s beyond ridiculous. And yet here we are. To start the day, Justin Trudeau said that he had a “next steps” conversation with Jody Wilson-Raybould last Monday – you know, when Michael Wernick resigned and Anne McLellan was named a special advisor – and it was a “cordial” talk, and both she and Jane Philpott still want to run for the Liberals, and he’s looking forward to that. Oh, and he’s not going to extend any further waiver on confidences because the one he extended already covered the issue at hand, thank you very much. And he’s right about that part – we’re moving beyond SNC-Lavalin issues now into this intrigue about why Wilson-Raybould (and now Jane Philpott) resigned and the handling of the controversy rather than the actual issue of pressure, which has been aired and it’s up to peoples’ judgments as to where the line of inappropriate is. And yeah, this does actually matter if we’re paying attention to things. Also around this time, the CEO of SNC-Lavalin issued a correction that said that yeah, the whole job losses thing was discussed as part of a conversation about the public interest, and so on.

And then came the day’s “bombshell.” Two competing outlets each had a story about how Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould had clashed over the last Supreme Court of Canada appointment, and she has wanted a more conservative judge from Manitoba which Trudeau balked at, and not only that, but she wanted to immediately elevate him to Chief Justice. That both outlets got the same story looks a lot like PMO engineered a leak, but did it in such a ham-fisted way that they neglected to mention that said judge also pulled out of the competition because his wife had breast cancer. Oops. And it’s pretty obvious that this was a way to try and draw attention to the fact that Wilson-Raybould was a pretty bad minister (the Canadian Press version of the story pointing out the clashes she had with caucus over her conservative positions on bills like assisted dying and genetic privacy – for which we should also remember that Trudeau stuck his neck out for her). Because as we’ve seen throughout this whole Affair that Trudeau or his staff haven’t been able to point to her record because she remained in the post for three years and Trudeau insists that she would still be in the position if Brison hadn’t resigned (which could also mean that they considered it a manageable situation). But if this PMO could be any more inept at handling this situation and stepping on yet more rakes, you’d almost feel embarrassed for them if this didn’t make it look like they were trying to politicise Supreme Court appointments. Cripes.

Meanwhile, the Ethics committee will be meeting today to discuss the Conservatives’ motion to try and hear testimony from Jody Wilson-Raybould at their committee instead, given that they have a Conservative chair. The problem there, however, is that the numbers are really against them – there are six voting Liberals on the committee to two voting Conservatives and one voting NDP MP. And even if the Conservatives could convince maverick MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, a permanent member of that committee, to vote with them, they’re still outnumbered by the rest of the Liberals. Even if by some miracle they agree to hold hearings on the matter, unless Trudeau offers yet another waiver (which he seems not inclined to), then we’re left with more silence from Wilson-Raybould, and we’ll be no better off. And then it’ll be a new round of Andrew Scheer screaming “cover up!” (Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column offers a look at what some of the possible outcomes of the day are.)

In punditry, Andrew Coyne delivers some not undeserved outrage at the tactic to try and take a shot at a sitting judge to try and discredit Wilson-Raybould. He also takes entirely correct umbrage with journalists braying for Wilson-Raybould and Philpott to be kicked out of caucus, and lo, here’s Tasha Kheiriddin doing just that, insisting that Trudeau looks “weak” the longer he keeps them in the fold. Because policing caucus loyalty is something that We The Media apparently excel at.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney’s meaningless proposals

Posted on by

I try not to make too big of a habit of talking Alberta politics here, but Jason Kenney outlined a bunch of policy planks over the weekend, and they’re both bizarre, and a bit concerning. Like, reviving the Firewall Letter concerning.

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1109567125163638784

Equalization reform? You mean, the formula that Kenney was at the Cabinet table for the last time the formula was tweaked? And he knows that including resource revenues in the calculations that Quebec will end up getting more, right?

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1109567402709114880

The Fiscal Stabilization Fund is how Alberta has been getting additional dollars to help with their recent oil recession – never mind that they still have the highest incomes and potential tax base in the country – but “fairness.” Meanwhile, ending federal transfers in favour of letting provinces raise their own revenue goes against the whole notion of federal transfers to ensure equal levels of access across the country. It’s also like saying he wants to let Alberta raise taxes to compensate for federal funds, but he also keeps promising tax breaks, so go figure.

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1109567611132481536

I believe that “Trudeau-Notley” payroll tax hike is the reforms to CPP, so that it ensures greater retirement security because people weren’t saving enough on their own. As for fairness in EI, again, Alberta has the highest incomes in the country, and industries that are far less seasonally dependent than other parts of the country. I’m not sure crying “fairness” will get him much sympathy.

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1109567933762560000

Exempting Alberta from the CMHC stress test in ludicrous, because the whole point of the stress test is to ensure that banks aren’t saddled with bad mortgage debt. You know, like that whole global economic in 2008 was centred around? But sure, Albertans should be allowed to have bad mortgage debt because they need to keep buying suburban McMansions and pissing away oil wealth and should be exempt from consequences when the world price of oil falls again? Okay. As for those “land corridors,” well, Andrew Leach has a whole thread of questions about this particular policy that showcases that this one-line promise ignores the particularities around environmental assessments, Indigenous rights, and compensating property owners along those corridors (since Kenney is all about property rights, after all).

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1109568147672072192

An “economic charter” is likely code for another bully tactic to force pipelines through other provinces, but he’s aware how provincial protectionism works, right? And how this has been an intractable issue in Canada since 1867? How his government did pretty much zero about furthering this when he was in federal Cabinet? All a Charter would do is force political questions onto the courts, which is more abdication of political responsibility in this county. Sorry, but no. As for an Alberta Parole Board, why? To what extent? Pardons are a federal responsibility, and while I’m sure it’s great that you want to make a big show of being tougher on criminals in your province than in others, that opens up Charter of Rights violations.

So, sorry, but no. This is all a bunch of empty noise designed to try and make a show of looking tough against Justin Trudeau as part of the Alberta election campaign, and not one of these is serious in any way. But, I guess better to throw a bunch of useless policy planks into the wind than talk about the world price of oil, or the xenophobes and white supremacist sympathisers who keep resigning in his candidates, or his own leadership campaign questions.

Continue reading →