Tag Archives: Jason Kenney

Roundup: Concern for Syria without a plan

Posted on by

John Baird says that there’s mounting evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Syria – not that anyone is actually talking about what kind of response is being warranted. Meanwhile, we should be expecting the first 200 “urgent” Syrian refugee cases to start arriving in the coming months, with 1300 expected by the end of next year.

The NDP have filed a formal request to recall the Industry Committee to hold hearings into the upcoming wireless spectrum auction. Of course, they’ll have to hurry before the official prorogation order happens, at which time the committees pretty much cease to exist and will need to be reconstituted in the next session.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO and parliamentary fixes

Posted on by

In this week’s Maclean’s, Aaron Wherry talks to Kevin Page about his new job at the University of Ottawa. In a separate but related piece, he talks to parliamentary scholar Donald Savoie about the PBO, and Savoie says some very cogent things about the office – that it is unnecessary because it allows MPs to fob off their homework onto someone else who can be seen as more “pure,” but it simply creates a new unaccountable personality that caters to the media rather than forcing parties to do the serious work of scrutiny and policy that they should be doing. Savoie’s solution is that parliament work to fix its own mess around the estimates process than work to fix the Parliamentary Budget Office, and it’s a position that I think is eminently more sensible if we want responsible government or the Westminster system to mean anything.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The premiers demand thus

Posted on by

And that was the premiers’ meeting. Aside from the opposition to the Canada Jobs Grant programme as it is currently structured, they wanted disaster mitigation to stand apart from their infrastructure demands, which of course they want federal funds for both. They also agreed to work together on the issue of cyberbullying, and on some healthcare initiatives related to things like home care, diagnostic imaging, and brand-name pharmaceuticals. John Geddes has a brief rundown of the meeting as a whole, and notes how curiously late the infrastructure working group comes after the federal budget. Andrew Coyne looks at all of the things that these premiers could accomplish that are in their own jurisdiction, and yet they choose to spend their time ganging up on the federal government instead, demanding cash.

Continue reading →

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 →