Tag Archives: Jason Kenney

Roundup: Heir to the Canadian throne

Posted on by

So there we have it – a future King of Canada has been born, and everyone’s delighted. No, seriously – everyone, though the NDP’s official statement of “warmest congratulations” was pretty lukewarm. And it was even more disappointing that the official Canadian Crown Twitter account was using the #BritishMonarchy hashtag rather than, you know, the Canadian Monarchy, which this baby is also heir to. Also, it seems that royal babies are good for business. Who knew?

Quebec’s attorney general has decided to weigh in on the challenge of the royal succession bill at the Quebec Superior Court, and he too believes that the provinces have a role in making such a change, as the constitution would otherwise indicate. The federal government says it will fight the challenge, since they would rather let political expedience trump the constitution.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Knee-jerk populist stunts

Posted on by

The Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation has decided to lump themselves in with the group of civic illiterates who operate under the mistaken impression that a national referendum is a constitutional amending formula. In this case, they used a giant inflatable Mike Duffy to launch their lobby campaign for a referendum on Senate abolition. In other words, they want to spend a great deal of tax dollars for a useless, non-binding process that is little more than a case of populist knee-jerk reaction to the bad behaviour of a small number of individuals. How exactly this seems to fit in with their mandate of eliminating government waste is a little beyond me, especially considering that the Senate delivers a great deal of value for money – not that knee-jerk populists actually know enough about the institution to realise it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lisa Raitt is on the case

Posted on by

Two days on the job as transport minister, and Lisa Raitt paid her first visit to Lac-Mégantic to assess the scene there for herself, and to promise that yes, the federal government will assist in reconstruction. And while the NDP complained that she didn’t come with numbers in hand, it’s like they don’t understand how federal disaster assistance works – that at the end of the process, they write one big cheque that will cover something on the order of 90 percent of the costs. It just doesn’t happen up front, which is the role of the province and municipality.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit Brent Rathgeber from caucus

Posted on by

In amidst the votes on the Estimates last night, a bombshell was dropped – Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber, lately called something of a maverick because he had become conversant and vocal about civically literate things like the roles of backbenchers, resigned from the Conservative caucus. What precipitated this was his bill on salary disclosures for public servants, which his own caucus gutted in committee. After what seemed to be a fairly brief period of consideration, Rathgeber decided that his party no longer stood for transparency and open government, and that enough was enough. The PM’s comms director tweeted shortly thereafter that Rathgeber should run in a by-election – which is a ridiculous position because a) he didn’t cross the floor, b) this was never an issue when David Emerson, Joe Commuzzi or Wajid Kahn cross the floor to the Conservatives, and c) people elect MPs, not robots to be stamped with the part logo once the votes are counted. As reactions continued to pour in, it does continue the narrative that not all is well in the Conservative party.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A Liberal win in Labrador

Posted on by

The people of Labrador have spoken, and by a rather large margin have decided that Liberal Yvonne Jones should represent them in the House of Commons, rather than forgiving Peter Penashue and giving him another chance. The wisdom on the ground is that this was entirely a local race and had almost nothing to do with the national scene, Justin Trudeau’s leadership and whatnot. Penashue said he accomplished more in two years than any other MP anywhere, which is the kind of hyperbole we’ve come to expect from the guy who apparently did ALL THE THINGS for Labrador, and hence this defeat will be Labrador’s loss. The Conservative Party also issued a graceless statement which nevertheless tried to turn it into some kind of indictment of Trudeau’s leadership, claiming they lost twenty points since his leadership win (though no one has seemed to find any polls which had them over seventy percent), and claiming that majority governments don’t normally win by-elections (which is also not exactly true, considering how many they’ve won to date). Jones’ win means this is the first time that the Liberals have increased their seat count at the ballot box in over a decade (the only other time they’ve increased their count, of course, being when Lise St-Denis defected from the NDP).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Voting down legislative stunts

Posted on by

Not one, but two opposition stunts were voted down in the Commons yesterday. The first was the NDP’s opposition day motion on Senate abolition, which they, the Bloc and Elizabeth May voted in support of, and was defeated 186-101. The other was the Bloc’s motion to repeal the Clarity Act, which only they voted in support of, the NDP “totally not whipped” into voting down, and it went to its defeat 283-5. Bob Rae called out the NDP for their “total incoherence” on their Clarity Act/Unity Bill position, and deemed the party to be an unstable coalition in the wake of their “orange wave” fortunes. And now, with these votes out of the way, one can hope that the opposition parties get back to their actual jobs of holding the government to account rather than to continue with stunts and grudge-matches, but that’s probably asking too much. Sadly.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Supreme Court refines what constitutes hate speech

Posted on by

The Supreme Court handed down its decision on the Whatcott case, which basically refined the definition of what constitutes hate speech in the country. They also said that the “love the sinner, hate the sin” argument is not acceptable either when it comes to hate speech against gays, for what it’s worth. Emmett Macfarlane notes the issues around defining what a ‘”reasonable person” would constitute as hate, as the decision seems to indicate. Charlie Gillis laments the lost opportunity to affirm free speech, no matter the content, because human rights legislation is being abused as a blunt tool in the country. Jonathan Kay sees the decision as privileging anti-Christian censorship because they believe in the fire-and-brimstone retribution for gays, especially because the “love the sinner, hate the sin” argument holds value for Christians.  Andrew Coyne laments that the judgement didn’t spend enough time prefacing the value of free speech. And Bill Whatcott himself? Plans to keep up his anti-gay pamphleting because apparently Christ has nothing better to do than ensure that Whatcott denounces the gays.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The unravelling cases of Senators Wallin and Duffy

Posted on by

In the past couple of days of Senate revelations, we find that Senator Pamela Wallin has an Ontario health card and not a Saskatchewan one, which raises the question about her residency – no matter that she spent 168 days in Saskatchewan last year. Wallin also apparently repaid a substantial amount in expense claims before this whole audit business started, which is also interesting news. Senator Mike Duffy, meanwhile, could actually end up owing $90,000 plus interest on his living expense claims rather than the $42,000 that was cited over the weekend. Oops. Tim Harper looks at the sideshow that is Senator Duffy’s non-apology and smells a deal made to save his job. Senator Cowan says that repayment doesn’t answer the questions – especially not the ones about residency, which means he may not be up to protect Duffy – or Wallin and Patterson’s – seats. And those Senators who’ve been silent on their residency claims are now being called before the Senate Internal Economy committee to explain themselves. Terry Milewski goes through the entire housing claims allegations and fixes an appropriate amount of scorn on the idea that two ticky-boxes are “complex” on the forms.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Knee-jerk populism vs. the Charter

Posted on by

In another stunning bout of knee-jerk populism, Jason Kenney has seized on the story of a Canadian dual-citizen blowing up a bus in Bulgaria, coupled it with a dubious Private Member’s Bill about stripping the citizenship of dual-citizens who engage in acts of war against the country, talked about amending it to include terrorism, and viola – ready for the media. How predictable, and how so very, very flawed. For one, it’ll never stand up to the Charter, because Canadians, no matter where they may have been born, are all equal under the law. Also, it shows contempt for process because he’s trying to hijack a PMB that probably shouldn’t have been voteable in the first place. It’s worse that Kenney wants to try and ram through unconstitutional measures into the PMB process, which would get a mere couple of hours of committee study before heading back to the Chamber for a mere two more hours of debate. Yeah, he may need to rethink this whole proposition.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Succession and Senate consequences

Posted on by

University of Ottawa professor Philippe Lagassé writes the definitive look at the Crown succession bill the government introduced last week, and proves how the government and its arguments are entirely wrong about it. Australian constitutional scholar, and the authority on succession issues, Anne Twomey, writes about the bill and how it de-patriates our constitution back to Britain, as well as is a telltale sign about the lengths the government will go to avoid dealing with the provinces.

Speaking of the lengths that Harper will go to in order to avoid the provinces, regarding last week’s other big news – the Senate reference – Paul Wells notes that Harper’s plan seems to have been to try to destabilise the legislative equilibrium by pushing what small changes he could and take advantage of the resulting free-for-all – which sounds about right. Over in the Globe and Mail, there is a look at what an elected Senate under the current proposal means regarding provincial parties running candidates in a body dominated by federal parties. The result is almost certainly chaos that would be largely unworkable, reduced to issue-by-issue coalitions, grinding the legislative process to a halt. Free-for-all that a PM could try to work some additional executive powers out of in order to “break the logjam”? Don’t discount the possibility.

Continue reading →