Tag Archives: Andrew Leslie

Roundup: The damage control campaign

Posted on by

The fallout from Wednesday’s Brownface/Blackface allegations were met with yet another instance, this time video that seems to be from the 1990s of a third incident, which Trudeau hadn’t mentioned (later saying that he hadn’t remembered it) – and, plot twist, Andrew Scheer a short while later admitted that the party had been sent the tape and they turned it over to Global News days ago, who set about trying to verify its authenticity. It wasn’t until mid-afternoon in a Winnipeg park that Trudeau held another media availability, looking extra contrite, and more forceful in his language in insisting that yes, it was actually racist, and he was owning up to it and didn’t want to be definitive as to how many times because there may be other incidents he couldn’t remember, and why he couldn’t remember them was likely because he grew up in a very privileged position and he has come to realise that it left him with an enormous blind spot when it comes to these kinds of things – something that I don’t think we’ve ever really a political leader admit to.

Later in the day, Trudeau’s rally in Saskatoon was changed into a town hall – likely because it’s an environment that he seems to do better in, and because it would allow him to get some of the airing of the grievances right off the start – ripping off the Band-Aid, as it were. The issue was only raised a couple of times off the start – once by someone who wanted an estimate of how many times he’d done it, another who insisted that he shouldn’t dwell on the past, but much of the event was on Indigenous issues, and Trudeau seemed much more his usual self.

Singh, meanwhile, held a small event in Hamilton to highlight how his plans around things like dental and pharmacare will help small businesses, but mostly answered more questions about the Trudeau Blackface revelations and suggested that it’s a pattern of behaviour with Trudeau. (Singh also launched into a whole rant about how great protectionism was during the media availability, for the record).

Andrew Scheer was in Saint-Hyacinth, Quebec, to lay out a policy around increasing the age credit for seniors, before suggesting that he didn’t accept Trudeau’s apology because “he lied” during it (not recalling the third video), and suggested that Canadians heed Singh’s words (because remember, a stronger NDP is a boon to Conservative fortunes).

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1174722497687638016

Continue reading →

QP: Torquing the Leslie issue

Posted on by

Despite it being a Monday, many of the seats in the Commons were vacant, and neither the PM nor the leader of the opposition were present. Candice Bergen led off, and tried to make hay of Andrew Leslie being a character witness at the Mark Norman trial. David Lametti assured her that the department of Justice has cooperated and released all documents. Bergen disputed this, and repeated the demand to turn over documents, and Lametti repeated that all obligations were being upheld. Bergen trie a third time, got the same response, and then Alain Rayes took over in French to ask the same question,impressing upon the Chamber that this had to do with Davie Shipyard. Carla Qualtrough stood up to list the contracts that Davie was getting, and when Rayes tried again, Lametti gave the French assurances of cooperation. Jagmeet Singh led off for the NDP, and he demanded an end to fossil fuel subsidies, fo which Jonathan Wilkinson repeated that they were phasing them out by 2025 and would meet their international obligations. Singh repeated the question in French, and read the French version of his response. Singh wants more action on climate change, got more bland assurances from Wilkinson. In English, Singh demanded a return to 30-year mortgages, and Kirsty stood up to praise the national housing strategy. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performative outrage and scapegoating

Posted on by

A couple of headlines this weekend made me roll my eyes, and they’re on a related subject. The first was Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe lamenting that federal-provincial legal battles are the “new normal” in Canadian intergovernmental affairs. The problem? That pretty much 99 percent of these cases are frivolous and examples of provincial governments throwing tantrums – and this is not just the various court references about the carbon price backstop, but also BC’s initial challenge to say that they have the power to regulate what goes through a federally-regulated pipeline. They’re futile bids that are the equivalent of shaking one’s fist at the clouds in order to performatively look like they’re being tough, and all it does is waste time, resources, and throw uncertainty into the business climate. If anything, being performative for populist reasons is the “new normal” and the courts are just pawns in the whole affair, which is really unfortunate.

The second headline was a Calgary professor who says that the anger in Alberta is being dismissed as “alienation” when it’s “abuse” by the federal government toward the western provinces – which is patently absurd. Most of Alberta’s problems are related to the collapse in the world price of oil (which has to do with a global supply glut), and the fact that the province has long refused to adequately diversify their economy (because oil money is so addictive). But when things like pipeline projects are being made to respect the constitutional obligations to properly consult Indigenous peoples – as opposed to simply bulldozing over their rights as what used to be the case – that’s “abuse”? Really? That the imposition of a federal carbon price that oil companies have been asking for as part of a market-based solution for the serious climate crisis this planet is facing is “abuse”? Seriously? No, it’s not abuse. The province has obligations to live up to, and scapegoating Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau for the problems stemming from the world price of oil is populist bilge, and professors who rationalize it are part of the problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A victory for carbon prices

Posted on by

In a 3-2 decision, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has ruled that the federal carbon price backstop is not only constitutional, but it also qualifies as a regulatory charge and not a tax, which means that the way it’s being applied is also constitutional. Predictably, Scott Moe has vowed to take this to the Supreme Court of Canada (and a 3-2 decision made this a certainty if the political element wasn’t there already), while Catherine McKenna, predictably, called it a victory for the planet.

In terms of analysis, here is the long thread from economist Andrew Leach’s reading fo the decision, and his commentary on what the dissenting judges got wrong is particularly illuminating. As well, economist Lindsay Tedds’ wheelhouse is the whole difference between taxes and regulatory charges, so she has some comments here. I would note that the majority decision is going to be some of the precedent that Ontario’s Court of Appeal will look at as they’re drafting their own ruling on the Ontario reference, and if New Brunswick, Alberta, and Manitoba proceed with their own challenges, it will help to inform them as well. But with it headed to the Supreme Court of Canada – as Ontario’s will inevitably as well, and everyone knows it – it may not make any more sense for those other provinces to carry on their own challenges as it’s unlikely that they’ll make any more novel arguments, and it would seem to be swifter for all involved to let the SCC process happen sooner than later (though it certainly won’t happen before the next election, and there is a hope among opponents that a Conservative win will render the whole issue moot if they scrap the federal law beforehand).

Jason Markusoff notes that while the court victory is a modest win for the Liberals, the continued carbon tax crusading by Kenney and Ford isn’t winning them much applause from the blue-chip Toronto corporations that they’re looking to attract with their “open for business” shtick. (Here’s a hint: Stop creating uncertainty by cancelling established environmental plans and creating political risk by cancelling projects and immunizing yourselves from litigation). Andrew Coyne, meanwhile, asserts that the ruling is a victory for common sense – as well as the planet.

Continue reading →

Roundup: PEI’s alarming adventures

Posted on by

Yesterday, the lieutenant governor of PEI gave the nod to PC leader Dennis King to attempt to form a government, and the whole thing is going to make my head explode because dear sweet Rhea, mother of Zeus, nobody has a clue what they’re doing. Not one of them. It’s alarming. (Side note: While the media have been saying that there would be a PC minority government, or that King was premier-designate, none of that became fact until today, and media outlets not only jumped the gun, but were attempting to short-circuit the process, which is a very bad thing).

Where to begin? How about the fact that the lieutenant governor, Antoinette Perry, was giving a media statement about her decision? Because no, she absolutely should not. And King? He says that he’s thinking about naming members of other parties to Cabinet, before preparing his Speech from the Throne and first budget “in consultation” with said parties. Again, this is utter insanity. Unless you have a formal coalition, you can’t have members of other parties in Cabinet because of Cabinet solidarity. Otherwise, they would just be de facto floor-crossers, which again, if that’s what you want then just go ahead and poach them, but be honest about it. As for King saying that he hopes that by “consulting” on the Throne Speech and budget that the opposition won’t oppose them for the sake of opposing them, well, he seems to be missing the whole point of the opposition, particularly with the budget. The opposition’s job is to argue why the government doesn’t deserve Supply to carry out their programme – they are supposed to be making that case. Having all parties vote for it defeats the purpose of why we have an opposition.

And then there’s Green leader Peter Bevan-Baker, who may or may not actually be leader of the opposition, given that he’s talking about some kind of supply-and-confidence agreement with the government rather than being the opposition. And you can’t be both Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition while signing a supply and confidence agreement to prop up said government. It doesn’t work like that, because it blunts your ability to hold them to account because you need the threat of being able to remove confidence to do so. And it’s astounding that he doesn’t seem to get that basic constitutional role or function. I know that people somehow think that “cooperation” or “collaborative” governments should be the way things work, but they’re wrong, because that does away with accountability, which is at least as important. When everyone is accountable for decisions, then nobody is accountable, and that will be the death knell of our political system. It would be great if Bevan-Baker understood that simple bit of civic literacy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Divorcing commentary from policy

Posted on by

So, it’s now official that Kevin O’Leary is throwing his hat in the race (though, it should be said, he still hasn’t filed his paperwork and paid his entry fees). And already, he’s making outrageous statements like how all of his previous commentary doesn’t count because it was just commentary and not policy that he’ll be judged on (not sure it works that way). But he keeps saying “That was good television but it’s not policy.”

Or there’s already the bald-faced wrong numbers he’s pushing, whether it’s around the country’s fiscal situation, certain programmes like defence spending, or even growth figures.

https://twitter.com/cfhorgan/status/821802645514027009

And while that’s all well and good, Chris Selley makes some very good points about the places where O’Leary diverges from the party’s base, whether it’s on CBC, peacekeeping or not being concerned about terrorism. That could make him a tough sell with them, particularly on issues that they’ve been vocal about for the past couple of decades.

But despite that, I have to say that it’s not only his name recognition that gives him and advantage in this race, but the fact that he’s going to appeal to a particular demographic in the party that fetishizes businessmen in politics (as though the skillsets were remotely similar, which they’re not), and particularly brash businessmen are swelling everyone’s trousers of late, especially when they boast about things like the “language of jobs” or being able to “read a balance sheet” (which O’Leary has yet to provide concrete evidence that he can, given that he apparently couldn’t read the actual context of that fiscal projection that got him so alarmed that he just had to join the race).

https://twitter.com/lazin_ryder/status/821863599245115395

He’s also been playing his cards right, as Adam Daifallah points out here, whether it’s with the “phony war” by staying relevant while “thinking about” his decision, his social media execution, his upstaging the French debate and lowering those expectations for himself. And more than anything, the race, with its 14 candidates, most of them dull and beige, has been a bit of a snooze (Kellie Leitch’s constant nonsense aside), and O’Leary is going to shake that up. The other candidates have been telegraphing that they’re afraid of him for a while (hello Lisa Raitt’s “Stop Kevin O’Leary” website), and that means something. We’ll see just how much it means sooner than later.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/821728909280550912

Continue reading →

Roundup: Oversight and transparency

Posted on by

Oh, look – it’s the first Senate bat-signal of the year, this time with an interview with Senator Beth Marhsall on CBC Radio’s The House. The treatment of the interview does raise some of the usual problems when it comes to reporting what’s going on in the Senate – namely, that journalists who don’t follow the institution, or who haven’t actually given a critical reading of the Auditor General’s report mischaracterise it as showing “widespread abuse” when it certainly was not, and a good number of the report’s findings were in fact suspect because they were value judgements of individual auditors, many of whom were perfectly defensible. Marshall, however, thinks that the AG’s suggestion of an independent oversight body is a-okay, despite the fact that it’s a massive affront to parliamentary supremacy. The Senate is a legislative body and not a government department – it has to be able to run its own affairs, otherwise out whole exercise of Responsible Government is for naught, and we should hand power back to the Queen to exercise on our behalf. I can understand why Marshall might think this way – she is, after all, a former provincial Auditor General and would err on the side of the auditor’s recommendations regardless, but the fact that no reporter has ever pushed back against this notion and said “Whoa, parliamentary supremacy is a thing, no?” troubles me greatly. I still think that if an oversight body is to be created that it should follow the Lords model, as proposed by Senator McCoy, whereby you have a body of five, three of whom are Senators, and the other two being outsiders, for example with an auditor and a former judge. You get oversight and dispute resolution, but it also remains in control of the Senate, which is necessary for the exercise of parliamentary supremacy. Marshall’s other “fix” is the need to televise the Senate for transparency’s sake. While it’s a constant complaint, and yes, cameras will be coming within a year or two, the notion that it’s going to be a fix to any perceived woes is farcical. Why? With few exceptions, people don’t tune into the Commons outside of Question Period, despite our demands that we want to see our MPs on camera to know they’re doing their jobs. Cameras, meanwhile, have largely been blamed for why QP has become such a sideshow – they know they’re performing, and most of the flow of questions these days is atrocious because they’re simply trying to get news clips. I’m not sure how cameras will improve the “transparency” of the Senate any more than making the audio stream publicly available did, never mind that committees have been televised for decades. If people really wanted to find out what Senators do, there are more than enough opportunities – but they don’t care. It’s easier to listen to the received wisdom that they’re just napping on the public dime, and the people who could be changing that perception – journalists – are more than content to feed the established narrative instead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Waiting for details on Tuesday

Posted on by

As things are being finalised, the government has said that they will announce the final details for the Syrian refugee plan on Tuesday – including full costs – leaving some to wonder about the government’s communications strategy throughout the whole thing so far. It’s true that in most cases, the ministers ‘ offices still haven’t been staffed yet and it’s making it difficult for them to effectively handle their media requests. It’s also worth asking if it’s entirely fair to criticize them for waiting until there were actual announcements before they went ahead and announced them, instead of giving a bunch of half-answers that could change because things haven’t been finalized. John McCallum did note yesterday that many of the details that have been leaked to the media are outdated, so as to manage the expectations around them. It does seem a bit odd to be demanding answers that don’t exist yet, or that to keep harping on the self-imposed deadline rather than to acknowledge that there is a process being followed – and one that has been relatively transparent in terms of what we’ve come to expect over the past decade, where you have ministers talking almost daily about aspects of what’s going on, where we can see the heads of CSIS and the RCMP meeting with said cabinet ministers and talking to the media about issues related to the refugees (including giving blanket reassurance that no, the security screening is not an issue despite what concern trolls may say), and where we can see the tenders going out as the military looks to rapidly winterize some of their facilities. All of this is being done in the open. Do we have all of the answers right now? No. But we have constant updates as to process and as of Friday, a date when the answers will be given. That’s not something we would have seen from the previous government, so it’s worth giving credit where credit is due.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Laying out their C-51 positions

Posted on by

Not that it was any surprise what they were, but the opposition parties laid out their explicit positions on the new anti-terror bill in advance of the start of debate yesterday – the NDP firmly opposed, the Liberals walking the line by listing the things they support in the bill and the things they don’t, and vowing to make it an election issue if the Conservatives don’t make the necessary amendments. But while it’s certainly within the right of the NDP, as official opposition, to call for the bill’s defeat, if you scratch beneath the surface a little, much of their messaging on it is a mess. At his press conference yesterday, Mulcair was simultaneously saying that they want the bill defeated writ large and voted down at second reading (agreement in principle), while saying that it needs more debate and amendments at committee, and then reiterating that it’s beyond saving, that there were no amendments that could make them live with it. From a procedural standpoint, that’s all over the map. And then there’s the conspiracy theory aspect, where Mulcair is going on about how a government could use CSIS to spy on their political adversaries under these broad definitions, and then to the Francophone media, he goes full-bore on re-fighting 1970, and it’s all October Crisis and the War Measures Act. That, of course, has to do with his Quebec voter base, which is polling its support for stronger anti-terror measures, discomfited by the terror-inspired hit-and-run last October, and probably the Charter of Values xenophobia around Muslims that is still an undercurrent. Suffice to say, the scattershot of arguments against make it hard to follow the plot. For her part, Elizabeth May is going full-on conspiracy theory, insisting the bill will turn CSIS into a “secret police” – err, except that they have no arrest powers, and then tried to say that such a bill would basically turn Rosa Parks into a terrorist in CSIS’ eyes. I’m not sure that’s helpful. Terry Glavin makes the point that while there are alarming things in the bill, hysteria doesn’t really help the debate. As for Peter MacKay, whose use of “cultural” causes with relation to the not-really-would-be-terror-attack in Halifax, when asked what he thought the definition of terrorism was, MacKay told reporters to “look it up.” He’s all class.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wynne questions the prostitution law

Posted on by

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has announced that she has grave concerns about the anti-prostitution bill, which came into effect on Saturday, and that she will ask her Attorney General for a legal opinion on the law so as to be sure that the province is not being asked to uphold an unconstitutional law, given the concerns that were outlined in the Bedford decision by the Supreme Court. It’s a fairly interesting challenge that Wynne is making, having a provincial government coming out against federal legislation in this sense, but as the province has the duty to enforce the Criminal Code, her asking for options so publicly is an interesting case. As Emmett Macfarlane notes, it’s also interesting that she didn’t directly ask the Ontario Court of Appeal for a reference and their opinion on the law, but that could still come once the Attorney General and her office have had time to weigh in. It probably won’t make Wynne any more popular in Harper’s eyes, and will be one more reason for him to avoid meeting with her, but it could also be the first shot in a Supreme Court challenge of the legislation, which could conceivably be much faster-tracked than it would be if we had to wait for a Charter challenge the traditional way, which could conceivably help save lives, going back to the thrust of the Bedford decision in the first place.

https://twitter.com/HisFeministMama/status/541696722196787200

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/541659937022414848

Continue reading →