Tag Archives: Ed Fast

Roundup: The NDP call for more Biden policies

Posted on by

I am once again forced to wonder what exactly is the point of the federal NDP if the only thing they will ever call for are just the policies of the American Democrats, no matter how inappropriate for the Canadian context, or how lazy it is to just regurgitate the American talking points without any critical conception of how Canada is a different country and is not just America divided by ten (well, probably nine now given how fast our population is rising compared to theirs).

Case in point once again—as part of their pre-budget demands, the NDP want the Canadian government to copy Joe Biden’s proposed tax increases on corporations and billionaires, because of course they do. This after years of calling for “windfall” taxes on oil companies and grocery chains, and higher wealth taxes. There are a few problems with this, however, the first being that just because Joe Biden proposes something, it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen—especially if it’s a tax increase after all of the time and energy since the 1980s on tax cuts in that country. Biden doesn’t control Congress, and I have serious doubts he could get the increases passed. And while I would agree that every billionaire is a policy failure, we have so few in Canada—even fewer who file their income taxes here than who are Canadian citizens—that even if we did increase the taxes on them, it would amount to very little. The same with the demands on wealth taxes—we don’t have nearly as many as the Americans, and it wouldn’t really dent our fiscal situation federally. Windfall taxes also come with side-effects, particularly for something like the oil and gas industry, where if we impose these windfall taxes when oil prices are high, it would likely come with an expectation of greater bailouts when those prices crash.

I get that every Canadian political party likes to play fanboy/girl to American politicians, and invite them to their conventions (though the Conservatives lately have eschewed public association with most Republicans, but will instead associate themselves with disastrous UK Conservatives like Boris Johnson), and get organizing lessons from them, but come on. Some actual local policy development that reflects the Canadian economy and polity might be a good idea for a change.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles and drones stuck communications infrastructure in north-eastern Ukraine, knocking out television and radio signals in five towns. Ukrainian officials say that two of Russia’s border regions are now “active combat zones” thanks to incursions, primarily by rebel Russian forces located in Ukraine. Ukrainians living in occupied regions of the country are being coerced to vote for Putin in Russia’s elections this week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The call is coming from inside the caucus room

Posted on by

The hits just keep coming for Andrew Scheer, as one of his MPs came out vocally against his leadership yesterday. In the wake of the fairly low-key announcement of his Shadow Cabinet, it was quickly noticed that Ed Fast was not on said list, and Fast himself said that he was asked to be part of it and he declined, saying that Scheer should be surrounded by people loyal to his leadership, while Fast has concerns about it. Up until this moment, Scheer’s loyalists were dismissing those vocally and publicly calling for Scheer to step down as being Toronto elites and sore losers that go back to leadership rivals. Fast’s public denouncement puts a lie to this narrative.

Let’s face it – public dissent in caucus is rare because we have virtually eliminated all of the incentives for it. Our bastardized leadership selection process has leaders claiming a “democratic legitimacy” that they use to intimidate MPs into not challenging them, because it goes against the “will of the grassroots” (and to hell with that MP’s voters, apparently). We gave party leaders the power to sign off on nomination forms with the purest of intentions and it quickly got perverted into a tool of blackmail and iron-fisted discipline. Pretty much the only time MPs will speak out is if they have nothing to lose, and Fast is in that position – he could retire tomorrow and be all the better for it. And it’s when the dissent goes public that leaders really need to worry because that means that it’s happening by those inside the caucus room who aren’t saying anything out loud. Provincially, we’ve seen instances of it taking only one or two MLAs coming out publicly for leaders to see the writing on the wall and resign. The caucus may be bigger in Ottawa, but the sentiment is increasingly out in the open – that can’t be sustainable.

Scheer later went to the annual UCP convention in Calgary, where he was predictably given a fairly warm welcome– but he shouldn’t rest on this applause because he doesn’t need to win Alberta – he already has their votes, and they’re not enough to carry the country, no matter how much they increase their vote share. He needs seats in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, and he is having a hard time cracking those areas, in particular because of his social conservatism and the UCP convention isn’t going to be the place to go to get honest feedback about that problem. It’s a bubble, and a trap that becomes too easy to feel that there is nothing wrong if he stays in it too long.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A bad term-limit promise

Posted on by

Senator John Wallace announced yesterday that he’s keeping his pledge to Stephen Harper and resigning after eight years in the chamber despite the fact that he won’t have reached the mandatory age of 75. Of the other cohort of Senators that Harper appointed in late 2008, only Pamela Wallin has indicated that she plans to also end her term after 8 years – but not including the time she was suspended, so she’s got a couple of years left to go. Other senators from that cohort have either said that their pledge was conditional on Harper’s reform plans, which went down in flames after the Supreme Court of Canada shot them down spectacularly, or that they still have things left to accomplish, which is fair. But you know there is a whole crowd of people waiting for them to fail to live up to this “promise.”

Here’s the thing – it was a bad promise that Harper never should have extracted because short term limits are antithetical to the design of our senate, and that a mandatory retirement age of 75 is actually part of its structural guarantees. By having security of tenure, senators are able to exercise institutional independence, and by ensuring that they have employment until age 75, there is not the temptation for them to try to curry favour with the government in order to try and win some kind of post-Senate appointment (be it a diplomatic posting, or heading and administrative tribunal or commission). The lack of term limits like Harper was proposing were part of what is supposed to keep senators more independent and less beholden to the party leaders than MPs are. But it’s not like Harper was trying to undermine the Senate’s ability to be independent – oh, wait. He spent his nine years in power doing exactly that. So no, I will not be joining in the chorus demanding these senators resign, and in fact, I think Wallace is making a mistake in doing so.

Meanwhile, the Senate has grave concerns about bill S-3 on gender inequities in registering First Nations identity with the government, which the minister herself has acknowledged has problems but she wants them to pass it anyway because there’s a court deadline which she said they couldn’t extend, but now it looks like they’re going to. Also, this was a government bill introduced in the Senate so you can’t even claim that it goes against the will of the Commons. Once again, the Senate is doing its job, and oh, look – Andrew Coyne is furiously clutching his pearls over it, while National Post reporter’s description of the current state of the Senate is that they’re moving away from rubber-stamping bills which was never their role in the first place. Honestly, my head is about to explode about this. Again.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/808862320478875651

Continue reading →

Roundup: Harper’s restive senators

Posted on by

There is unrest in the Conservative Senate caucus, as they feel increasingly sandbagged and abandoned by their own party in the wake of the spending scandals of those four embattled Senators, three of which are Harper’s appointees. And while they may feel like there should at least be some mention to the Senate made in the Throne Speech – such a promise for new accountability measures or promises for reform measures in line with what the Supreme Court rules after their reference case – it’s unlikely to happen since the government has deliberately put distance between itself and the Senate as a whole. It’s not the wisest move ever made either, considering that their decision to keep the Leader of the Government in the Senate out of cabinet will come back to haunt them the moment they want to introduce a government bill in the Senate, as they are wont to do, only to find that there is no minister to shepherd it through. Oops. But it doesn’t help that Conservative senators are hearing tales about how when Claude Carignan was sworn into the Privy Council as part of his new job as Senate leader, that Harper simply told him “Good luck with that.” And Harper may soon find that there could be nothing more dangerous to his own government and agenda than a Senate caucus who that is tired of being pushed around and ignored, and indeed being dumped upon by their own party and the public at large, and they may decide to start flexing their muscles, to show that they do have a job to do – as with the “union transparency” bill that they gutted and sent back to the Commons.

Continue reading →