Roundup: Proving the SCC’s point

It was only a matter of time after Alberta premier Jason Kenney announced that he was reviving his province’s sham Senate “election” laws that the two so-called “elected” senators from the province started chiming in, and lo, Senator Tannas did just that on the Alberta Primetime politics show on Alberta’s CTV affiliates this week. During the hugely uncritical interview, Tannas proclaimed that getting an “endorsement” from the public gives him the right to speak up “more forcefully,” and that he and fellow “elected” Senator Black are “listened to differently” because they of their special status.

Let me remind you what the Supreme Court of Canada said when it comes to consultative elections – that it would give the Senate a popular mandate, which would change the constitutional architecture of the institution, and you can’t do that without a formal constitutional amendment. In other words, Tannas is proving the Supreme Court’s point – that his “election” (which was a sham, let’s be clear) confers upon him some kind of special authority, which is whole point. Now, Tannas did try to couch some of his criticisms for his nominally appointed colleagues from Alberta because he has to work with them, but amidst the myths about Bills C-48 and C-69 and the complete self-aggrandisement, there was virtually no pushback at Tannas about what the Supreme Court said, or the fact that the process that got him “elected” was a sham worthy of a People’s Republic.

There seems to be almost nobody pushing back against Kenney and his unconstitutional legislation and the sham that these “elections” really are. Why, here’s Don Braid with a lazy garbage take that lauds the farce that Kenney puts on because he’s swallowed the rhetoric about those bills whole, along with the fairytale nonsense about a “Triple E” senate and what it purports to do (never mind that the only thing it would do is create 105 new backbenchers with an overinflated sense of self). Repeat after me: Kenney is only doing this to invent a future grievance, while he lies about those two bills. It would be great if someone could be bothered to call him out on it.

Good reads:

  • We got confirmation that Trump did raise the issue of the detained Canadians with the Chinese president; China retorted that this was naïve lip-service.
  • Senator Harder has been dispatched to Beijing with Mary Ng, ostensibly for a World Economic Forum summit, but also likely to try and engage Chinese officials.
  • Chrystia Freeland is seeking more international cooperation in banning use of Russian-issued passports for Ukrainians in occupied territory.
  • There are questions as two why it’s taking the government so long to implement the changes to the Indian Act to ensure disenfranchised women get their status.
  • The government has not set a date for when they will implement some of the measures in the recently passed gun control legislation.
  • Maclean’s got a look at the government’s internal polls, and while the plastics ban is a winner, people are skeptical about the record jobs numbers.
  • Veterans waiting for benefits are facing wait times double what has been promised, in part because of a lack of staff and budget for the level of demand.
  • Julie Payette continues to refuse to move into Rideau Hall, and is now citing a lack of privacy, and wants the living quarters completely rearranged to suit her privacy.
  • Conservatives in the US are starting to look forward to shaping their party post-Trump, and Canadian Conservatives are paying attention.
  • A Conservative candidate from BC purchased a human skull for her boyfriend’s birthday (but insists it’s from the 1700s with appropriate documentation).
  • Alberta’s budget figures show that Jason Kenney was lying when he said the books were in worse shape than the NDP said they were. (Colour me shocked).
  • Kevin Carmichael makes the case for the G20 to remain a forum for international cooperation as Trump threaten to turn it into a stage for his photo ops.
  • Colby Cosh looks to the shoe-flag debate in the US as an example of how their political culture can differ so much from our own.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.