Tag Archives: Danielle Smith

Roundup: Caretaker doesn’t apply

Posted on by

Sometimes, the pundit class in this country boggles me. Case in point—the National Post’s John Ivison wrote yesterday that the announcement about moving ahead with high-speed rail was “ignoring the caretaker convention,” (and because this is Ivison, the words “in this country” are used loosely as he is currently filing from Costa Rica). I get that Ivison wants to dump on Trudeau for making a big, flashy announcement as he’s on his way out the door, but the thing is, the caretaker convention doesn’t apply. The only time that the convention does apply is when Parliament is dissolved for an election (and Philippe Lagassé can explain this all to you here).

Part of the problem is that legacy media in this country does not know how to deal with the current political situation, where Trudeau has signalled his intention to resign, but remains in power until his successor is chosen. This is perfectly legitimate in a Westminster system like ours, especially as Trudeau won a series of confidence votes before Parliament rose for the winter break, and before his advice to the Governor General to prorogue. Since then, virtually every single pundit and editorial writer has been wringing their hands, writing things like “lame-duck,” or “leaderless,” or “vacuum,” when none of this is actually true, and it breaks their brains that the government is capable of operating and responding to Trump and his predations without Parliament currently sitting, as though Parliament would have anything in particular to do in this current situation other than take-note debates or unanimous consent motions. Trudeau is personally able to exercise the full suite of his powers as prime minister right up until the moment he does officially resign and turn the keys over to his successor. This is neither illegitimate nor illegal, and the long-time observers of our political scene should know that.

What is particularly galling is that long-time Ottawa columnists don’t understand these very basics. Ivison used to be the Post’s Ottawa bureau chief, for fuck’s sake. He should have a basic understanding of the difference between prorogation and dissolution, and when the caretaker convention should apply. He’s been writing about Canadian politics since the birth of the Post, and was writing about UK politics before that. This is basic civics. And it’s not just him, even though he is today’s object lesson. We have a real problem when the people we are supposed to turn to for help in putting the news into context can’t be arsed to get the basic facts right, so long as they get to grind their ideological axes.

Ukraine Dispatch

Tens of thousands of people in Odesa remain without power after successive Russian attacks, while Russia claims to have taken back a “huge” chunk of Kursk region in Russia. The EU has been coming up with a plan to manufacture and send more arms to Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Baylis brings back boneheaded ideas

Posted on by

Yesterday, no-hope Liberal leadership candidate Frank Baylis offered his ideas about how to make politics better, and…*sighs, pinches bridge of nose* It’s so bad, you guys. Back when he was an MP, Baylis had proposed a motion to change the Standing Orders to do a bunch of dumb things that he felt would improve things for MPs, but then didn’t show up for the debate on his own motion, so it died on the Order Paper, fortunately. But I see that he’s back at it again.

I cannot stress enough how stupid of an idea term limits are in a system like ours, because you actually need to have institutional memory in politics, and you can’t build that up in ten-year increments. You just can’t. That’s one of the reasons why the Senate tends to be more valuable in that capacity (which has been curtailed thanks to Trudeau kicking Liberal senators from his own caucus and only appointing independents), but you need experienced MPs in your caucus. Term limits make that impossible, especially for ten years. Canada already has a problem with a higher-than-normal rate of turnover for MPs as compared to other similar democracies, and making the churn worse doesn’t help. Baylis kept justifying this by saying “I’m a professional engineer” when questioned about this on Power & Politics, which doesn’t actually give him any special insight.

His idea of letting the Speaker choose who gets to speak and not party leaders is partially sound, but only in particular circumstances. I get that he wants to eliminate speaking lists, which I do agree with, particularly for Question Period, but it’s not as much of a problem as the rules around speaking times, and how we structure debates. Of course, he then screws up that decent idea with the boneheaded notion of petitions to trigger debates. Parliament is not supposed to be about empty take-note debates. Debates should have a purpose—speaking to motions or legislation that actually do something, rather than speaking for speaking’s sake. That’s all that this idea does.

Finally, Baylis wants a second chamber like they have in Westminster and Canberra, but again, this is ill-thought-out. We already don’t have enough MPs to fully staff all committees (particularly without having parliamentary secretaries as voting members), and to keep debate going in the Chamber, and now you want to add a second chamber? He says this would “speed up decision-making and end legislative gridlock,” but it absolutely wouldn’t because that’s not what those chambers do in the UK or Australia. They are largely used for non-votable debates, and giving speeches or statements. That kind of thing may be of more use in the UK where there are 650 MPs who can’t make members’ statements with much frequency, but it doesn’t affect the pace of legislation at all. It’s so stupid that he didn’t even bother to read up on his own gods damned proposals, but hey, he’s a “businessman” and an “engineer,” so why bother to actually learn how politics works? Honestly.

Meanwhile, speaking of his other no-hope candidate…

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians claim to have repelled an offensive in the Kursk region. Ukraine received some more F-16 fighters from the Netherlands, and Mirage jets from France. Eight Ukrainian children who had been seized from their families were returned home.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carney’s boneheaded “green incentives”

Posted on by

Liberal leadership hopeful Mark Carney revealed his plan to replace the consumer carbon levy yesterday, and it’s a handwavey bunch of “green incentives” for things like improving your home insulation, furnace, appliances, or buying an electric vehicle. This would be offset by maintaining or increasing the industrial carbon pricing system, along with carbon border adjustments. Carney claimed that the current system isn’t working, which is false, because emissions have been driven down, and then shrugs and says it’s “too divisive,” which is the Liberals’ own gods damned faults for being such incompetent communicators about how the levy works, the rebates (remember when they thought that calling them “climate action incentives” was a genius idea?), and how reducing one’s own carbon footprint maximises those rebates. The government was absolutely incapable of communicating any of it, and Pierre Poilievre swooped in and filled the space with lies and disinformation.

I find Carney’s plan absolutely infuriating for a number of reasons. One of them is that this imparts a false narrative that carbon emissions reductions can happen for free for consumers. Even if there is no consumer-facing price, industrial emitters will pass along costs, and people won’t get a rebate for those higher costs, which hurts lower-income households harder. Everyone fawning over Carney’s economic credentials should be smacking themselves upside the head because of this fiction he is trying to perpetrate and just how economically illiterate it actually is.

Meanwhile, how much of an “incentive” can it really be for one-time purchases? You can only really re-insulate your house once, or buy a new furnace once every twenty years. There is no price disincentive to increased carbon use, and there is no ongoing reward for a low-carbon lifestyle, which the rebates provide. Again, very few people actually understand this because the government steadfastly refused to actually communicate how the levy and rebates actually work, how to maximise them, and how it rewards ongoing low-carbon behaviour. They hoped that legacy media and would communicate that (they absolutely will not), and it was basically up to five economists on Twitter, which is useless to ninety-five percent of the population. So now the people who have done the work to reduce their carbon footprint will now be punished, and people will take advantage of those one-time purchases for what? The pat on the back that they can give themselves? Everyone involved here needs to take a long, hard look at some of their life choices, but then again, if they had any modicum of self-reflection, they likely wouldn’t be in politics. What an absolute disaster.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones injured four in Odessa, damaging a hospital and grain warehouse, while a missile attack seriously damaged a historic centre in the same city. Russian forces are also tightening their approach to Pokrovsk, which is a key logistics hub in the region. Ukrainian forces destroyed a Russian command post in the Kursk region, and are also reporting that they haven’t seen any North Korean troops in the area for three weeks. Ukrainian drones also damaged an oil refinery in Russia’s Volgograd region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Gould’s stumble of a first proposal

Posted on by

Liberal leadership candidate Karina Gould made a policy announcement in Ottawa yesterday, and it was…not great. Gould says she’s serious about tackling cost-of-living challenges, so she wants to give a one-year GST cut, and to pay for it by increasing the corporate tax rate for businesses making over $500 million in profit in one year. That sound you’re hearing is every economist in this country crying out in anguish.

It’s just so needlessly dumb, and you would have thought that Gould might have paid attention to what an absolute fiasco the HST “holiday” has been, and how her fellow Cabinet ministers debased themselves to sell it to the public. It’s also giving shades of Stephen Harper circa 2006, and how that government increased income taxes to pay for the first GST cut, and then spent through the surplus they inherited to give a second cut, which permanently hampered the fiscal capacity of the federal government (which was Harper’s plan). And reducing it for one year? So that you face the blowback of the tax going back up? Seriously? I get that Gould is trying to break through the noise around Mark Carney, but come on. There are plenty of economists whom she could consult with, who would gladly give her the time of day and to explain these things to her, but she decided to go with the same kinds of populist stunts that the Conservatives and NDP run on, while ignoring the notion that the Liberals have been the party doing the sensible policies in spite of them being less popular (such as the carbon levy) because it’s the right thing to do. It’s a disappointing first move by Gould out of the gate.

In a related note, Jaime Battiste has dropped out of the race, and will be backing Carney instead. Battiste was a marginal candidate to begin with, so this move isn’t really a surprise, as much as he wanted to be a First Nations candidate in the race, there just wasn’t a viable path forward for it.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone hit an apartment building in Sumy overnight Wednesday, killing at least six people. Aid groups in Ukraine are scrambling to compensate after the Americans suddenly cut funding to their programming.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland’s smaller Cabinet promise

Posted on by

Chrystia Freeland released another policy statement/promise yesterday which says that she will cut the size of Cabinet and the PMO in half—both to make Cabinet more efficient, and to give ministers more control over their files, rather than PMO dictating everything for them. While on the one hand, every incoming prime minister has promised to cut the size of Cabinet and then it starts to grow over time, I also suspect this is a bit of a screw you to Katie Telford, who runs Trudeau’s PMO, and who selects the chief of staff for all ministers with her own loyalists, and who has been a bottleneck for so much of this government’s business as it flows through her office. Caucus has been calling on Trudeau to get rid of Telford for a while now, correctly identifying her as the source of some of their problems (including the fact that she is in the caucus room taking notes, which was never the case under previous leaders), and Freeland appears to be heeding those concerns as endorsements pile up (mostly for Carney).

I do think it’s a fairly bold plan, and it reminds me of Trudeau’s initial attempt to have a “government by Cabinet” in the early days, but all ministers are not created equal, and gradually PMO started to exert more control for many of those ministers who were having trouble managing their files. It also looks like Freeland would be reverting to an older model of having the hard cap of twenty ministers, while additional responsibilities would be filled by ministers of state, which is also essentially how the UK operates, where there is a hard cap on Cabinet, but there are numerous junior ministers. Trudeau did away with this and made everyone a full minister as part of the gender parity promise, given that it would be likely that there would be an imbalance between how many women were in senior versus junior portfolios, and by making everyone a full minister, they also got a full minister’s salary. It seems clear in Freeland’s promise that she feels this was bloating Cabinet, particularly as Trudeau made it the practice that all appointments and Orders in Council needed to be presented to the full Cabinet, which took up a lot of time and focus. Does that mean that a lot will change if junior positions are restored? I guess it will depend on her leadership style if she’s successful, but it is an interesting signal nevertheless.

I will also note that Freeland has been consistently putting out these kinds of statements, unlike Carney. Meanwhile, Ruby Dhalla is turning out to be a clown show of braggadocious claims that the online right is amplifying.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Russians claim to have taken control of Novoielyzavetivka in the Donetsk region, near Pokrovsk. An overnight Ukrainian drone attack hit an oil pumping station and a missile storage facility, while a drone attack has hit Russia’s fourth-largest oil refinery in Kstovo. Ukraine’s corruption watchdog has opened an investigation into the defence minister over a procurement dispute.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1884525942229364847

Continue reading →

Roundup: Piercing Lantsman’s kayfabe

Posted on by

Because everything is so stupid, Conservative Twitter got itself all hot and bothered over the weekend because Nathaniel Erskine-Smith had the temerity to break the kayfabe when the Melissa Lantsman was engaging in performative outrage.

Context: This was an event Erskine-Smith held in his riding for Mark Carney, and Lantsman stood outside to say ludicrously stupid things, and Erskine-Smith, who was standing right there, made a good-natured objection, and did so in a way where Lantsman broke—her performative outrage cracked, she smiled and basically admitted it was all bullshit, and then tried to carry on to finish the performance, got her talking points backwards, but she finished the scene. Conservatives, however, were incensed that the fakery was exposed, so they edited the clip, invented the charge that Erskine-Smith was a creep because he touched her shoulder and shook her hand—the most regular things in politics—and *gasp!* suggested they get a drink like a good-natured colleague would. This would not stand.

What’s particularly hilarious about this is that this is just more Conservative cry-bullying (which I have been on the receiving end of), where they pretend to be the wronged party in order to have someone “cancelled,” while they bemoan and wail about so-called “cancel culture” (which has never actually cancelled anyone, especially in a country where the National Post gives them column inches the very next day). Meanwhile, if they think that women like Lantsman are that fragile, perhaps they should start insisting that women not be accompanied outdoors without a male relative escorting them, or that they should start wearing burkas so as not to attract unwanted attention—you know, like the Taliban would say.

It’s all so fake, and this is what they want our political discourse to be.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine downed 50 out of 72 Russian drones launched overnight Saturday. President Zelenskyy replaced the commander of the eastern forces for the third time in a year, as Russia continues to encroach on strategic settlements.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Such concern about drugs

Posted on by

Another day, and other leak that claimed that Trump wasn’t really serious about the tariffs, but that this was just him trying to get an early start on New NAFTA re-negotiations rather than waiting for 2026, and trying to bring more auto manufacturing back to the US-side of the border. But when asked about this during his media availability, Trump insisted that no, he was very serious about the “millions” of people who had come illegally through Canada (it’s certainly not in the millions), and the scourge of fentanyl. He even went on this extended tirade about how mothers never recover when they lose their sons to drugs, and so on. But then he also issued a pardon to Ross Ulbricht, a crypto drug dealer. So yeah, he’s really concerned about the scourge.

Meanwhile, Danielle Smith spent the day in full-on appeasement mode, insisting that we need to find a diplomatic solution rather than stand up to Trump’s bullying. Oh, and she also tried to blame this situation on Trudeau, because of course she did. What I find particularly irksome, however, are the whitebread pundits who also try to keep blaming Trudeau for Smith not falling into line, because he should somehow debase himself in order to get her on-side when it’s clear that she has no interest (and absolutely no incentive) to do so. Her political brand and that of her party right now is about hating Trudeau. Nothing he can or will do will get her on-side, particularly when her ideology is more in line with Trump’s than it is to stand up for Canada.

Back home, Pierre Poilievre is demanding Parliament be summoned because we’re in an “emergency,” erm, except there is nothing for Parliament to do. Cabinet has all of the powers they need in the current situation, and they continue to function. The only reason for the House of Commons to sit would be to have a take-note debate to read prepared speeches that would be used for clips. But more likely, Poilievre wants to try and force an election right now, because that suits his political interests rather than the country’s as a whole (because once there is dissolution, government goes into caretaker mode and really can’t respond to Trump). In fact, Trudeau has a lot more latitude right now because he’s on his way out and doesn’t need to worry about re-election. We’re not leaderless, there is no “vacuum,” and it would be great if the media stopped repeating this nonsense, just because Cabinet hasn’t been lighting their hair on fire on a daily basis.

Ukraine Dispatch

Continue reading →

Roundup: Day one depravity

Posted on by

Yesterday was inauguration day in the US, and it was pretty much as horrible as you can imagine, with the pardoning of insurrectionists, and the executive order that made a full-on assault on the rights of trans people (which is always the first target of authoritarian regimes, followed by the rest of the queer communities). Oh, and Elon Musk threw a Nazi salute. So yeah, it was pretty much everything you thought it would be.

What didn’t happen on day one was the tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Instead, word came out early in the morning that Trump wouldn’t sign them on day one, and he would instead order an investigation into trade imbalances, and so on. So that was a reprieve, or a stay of execution, right? Danielle Smith certainly thought so, and started taking credit for it. Her followers and media apologists quickly amplified that self-praise. And then, after a few hours, Trump said that yes, the tariffs would be coming as of February 1st. Oops.

That was day one, and we can only imagine what worse predations are to come. There will be a number of demands for retaliation, but the government is keeping their powder dry for the moment, as is probably best. This may yet come to nothing, because Trump believes he’s an ace negotiator and these are his usual tactics to extract some kind of “win” from us, because that’s who he is. It may yet come to naught, but it could still be a kneecapping of our economy. It’s still too early to say, but nobody should be doing victory laps right now—especially those who tried to obey in advance.

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3lg7y2jnygs2t

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine’s state investigation bureau has detained two generals and a colonel accused of negligence in failing to adequately defend the Kharkiv region last year.

Continue reading →

Roundup post: Expediting a dubious legal challenge

Posted on by

On Saturday, the Federal Court ruled that they would hear an expedited case on the legal challenge of the granting of prorogation, citing the “critical” nature of the Trump tariff threats, and that this somehow requires the legislative branch of Parliament to be operating when in fact it does not.

Part of the problem is that the UK Supreme Court did overturn a prorogation when Boris Johnson requested it in the lead-up to Brexit, which led a bunch of bad actors in this country to decide they could use that precedent to challenge its use here, never mind that prorogations function slightly different in the UK (there, it tends to be an annual affair, separating shorter legislative sessions, which is not how it has operated here in many decades). There should be no reason why that precedent should apply in Canada at all, let alone in this particular circumstance, but we are dealing with people grasping at legal straws because they want to be able to run to the courts when they lose at politics, which is a Very Bad Thing for democracy and our entire constitutional order.

More to the point, nothing was happening in Parliament before the prorogation because of the filibuster, and everyone was threatening non-confidence when it did resume in January, so an election wouldn’t provide Parliament any ability to “meaningfully debate” the Trump tariffs then either. These arguments are specious, and I trust the judge will throw them out of court once the hearings happen, but unfortunately, these are not normal times, and we could be in for a very bad result if government lawyers can’t argue their case well enough.

Ukraine Dispatch

An overnight missile and drone strike killed six, including three in Kyiv. Russia claims to have captured two more settlements between Pokrovsk and Kurakhove. Ukrainian forces claim a pair of attacks on oil depots in Russia’s Kaluga and Tula regions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre’s revisionist history on energy exports

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre held a media availability in Vancouver yesterday to promise that he would undo the changes to the capital gains taxes, spinning some bullshit provided to him by Jack Mintz about how this kills tens of thousands of jobs, when in reality it only provides a loophole for self-incorporated wealthy individuals to pay less tax—a fact that the Liberals were too incompetent to properly communicate. But this wasn’t the biggest whopper of the event. When asked by the media about where he stands on potential export taxes on oil exports as retaliation from Trump, Poilievre claimed that the Liberals blocked pipelines and LNG terminals, forcing Canadians to export more to the US, which gives Trump more leverage. Absolutely nothing about his is true. None of it. And with receipts, here’s Andrew Leach.

There’s more. In fact, another whole thread here about the history of Northern Gateway that Poilievre has memory-holed in order to create a false version of history to blame Trudeau rather than note the lack of action under the Harper government. (First tweet below)

And then Danielle Smith tried to start chiming in about an Alberta-first “Team Canada” approach grounded entirely in fantasy.

And just because…

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine downed 34 out of 55 Russian drones overnight Thursday, but debris damaged energy infrastructure in Poltava region. There was a further drone attack on Kyiv as UK prime minister Keir Starmer was visiting. Ukrainian forces have begun using remote-controlled ground assault vehicles. Ukraine attacked a major Russian gunpowder factory in the Tambov region.

Continue reading →