The talk of the week will fall into two categories – climate change, and refugees, but for today, climate change is going to be the big topic of discussion, given Alberta unveiling their momentous climate change plans yesterday, followed by the First Ministers Meeting on the subject today. Alberta’s plan is ambitious and courageous – carbon pricing that matches BC’s by 2018, phasing out coal-fired electricity (the vast majority of the province’s grid) by 2030, absolute emissions caps on the oilsands that are a little higher than where they stand today – and lo and behold, the energy sector didn’t freak out, but rather embraced the changes (given that they’ve been demanding a price on carbon for years anyway). In fact, there was commentary that these kinds of changes may be necessary in order to allow them to grow (though if the idea is the gradual phase-out of fossil fuels entirely, I guess we’ll see how that goes). And with this new plan in place, Alberta premier Rachel Notley can come to that First Ministers meeting later today and have something to put on the table, which may indeed help to put pressure on other lagging provinces to start making changes they may be hesitating to do. Jason Markusoff has more on the Alberta plan, and the questions that it raises.
Tag Archives: Election 2015
Roundup: A muzzle or a distasteful incident
The neutrality of the civil service has been an issue lately, with the distasteful episode of the cheering (and booing) at Global Affairs last Friday on the one hand, and to a certain extent, the “un-muzzling” of scientists on the other. Michael Petrou explores the former issue here, while Paul Booth offers some advice for the “un-muzzled” here, noting that there is a balance to be struck between talking about one’s research while at the same time maintaining their role of civil servants where they are not supposed to be critical of the government of the day if they want to keep their jobs, because they have a role to play. At the heart of both is that they ultimately serve the Queen and not the government of the day, no matter how much their advice or carrying out of government policy is criticised. While ink has been spilled on the cheering as being proof that the Conservatives were right to be suspicious of “official Ottawa,” one has to note a few different thing, including simple demographics – polling data repeatedly shows, time and time again, that education levels will affect political preferences, with the Conservatives scoring best among those who only have high school diplomas, while those who have attained increasing levels of higher education increasingly support Liberals. The vast majority of the civil service is university-educated, so their sympathy with the Liberals should not be a surprise. Should they have cheered Trudeau? Probably not. I will note that for context, the one clip I saw of the cheering happened after Trudeau said that he would be taking their advice unlike the previous government, while the booing of that journalist’s questions were both to the fact that they crashed a private event, and that it was a question for which an answer had already been given earlier in the day. Not that this should excuse what happened, because they should have known better, and I know plenty of other civil servants who were also critical of what happened there. But on the other hand, we should also note that they are human, and that the Conservatives exacerbated any distrust of the civil service with excessive dickish behaviour (such as Diane Finley walking into a department she was taking over and telling the staff that they were all Liberals and that she would clean up the joint). We should hope that this kind of incident doesn’t happen again, and it may very well not. I’m also not sure how helpful it is to light our hair on fire about it either, but I could very well be wrong about that.
Roundup: Mandate letters a good step
Within a few days, we’re going to see another first on the federal scene – the mandate letter sent to every cabinet minister are going to be made public. We’ve seen this in a few provinces before, but not federally, and when Trudeau talks about this being a step in open, transparent and accountable government, he’s right. These letters, personalised to each minister, lay out responsibilities and expectations, and perhaps even timelines, when it comes to what they have on their plate. So why make them public? Because it’s a way of showing what was expected of them so that they can be held to account based on those particular metrics. It also gives the civil service an idea of where the government is going so that they can tailor their efforts accordingly. It does set the more open and transparent tone that Trudeau has been looking to set for his government, and changes the kinds of black boxes that we’re normally used to seeing. Not that there aren’t reasons for some of those closed-doors – cabinet meetings in particular, the caucus room as well – because there do need to be spaces for closed-door discussions in order for consensus to be achieved or for positions to be hashed out without fear of the press making a big deal about divisions that may or may not exist. But even with cabinet secrecy being a good and important thing, I’m having a hard time seeing how mandate letters could be justified under that rubric. It’s not about the discussion leading up to a decision – it’s about setting the government’s direction, and that is something that should generally be out in the open. It’s a move we should applaud, and hopefully it will continue to be an indication of the direction this government is taking in terms of its commitment to actual transparency.
Roundup: Unrest in the ranks
There appears to be some unrest in the Conservative ranks, we’re starting to hear – both in the caucus and the party machinery itself. While it’s not unthinkable for a party that has just lost an election, they seem to be doing some questionable things. Things like trying to bar defeated candidates from one last caucus gathering that’ll allow them to vent and hug it out behind closed doors. Denied of that, they’ll likely start talking to the media, their muzzles loosed. It’s started, even with some that were not defeated (but more on that in a moment). Behind the scenes, there’s some rancorous finger-pointing going on with Jenni Byrne in the centre of it all. And while this takes place, Diane Finley stepped forward to make it known that she is officially interested in becoming interim leader, as Rob Nicholson has so far unofficially. What was curious was the way in which Finley went onto Power & Politics to make her case about needing to transition from a more “authoritarian” PMO to a “collaborative” OLO, and basically shrugging off her participation in said authoritarianism. She touts her management experience, but what I heard from civil servants during Finley’s first go-around as minister of Human Resources was that she walked into the building and told everyone that they were all Liberals and she was going to fix the joint up. Collaborative! (She later went to Immigration and broke the system, creating massive backlogs by refusing to make appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board until she had re-jigged the selection process. Management skills!) Word also has it that both Jason Kenney and Kellie Leitch have their leadership teams assembled, so that race could easily kick off right away. Whether they wait to hash out what happened over the election that led to their demise, or they discuss what kind of reorganization the party needs before they get into the leadership process, doesn’t seem to be a concern yet at this point. We’ll see if that’s a problem going forward.
Diane Finley makes it official re: interim leadership bid. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/fO5J2AbOS3
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 23, 2015
Roundup: Campaign autopsies in full swing
Not that we’ve had a day to catch our breaths (more or less), the campaign post-mortems are beginning, especially from the Conservative camp. Things are starting to leak out, such as this gem from the Conservative camp, which tells about their considering and ultimately rejecting the Hail Marry pass of having Harper say that he wouldn’t run after this campaign. It also tells of the Conservatives trying to offer advice to the faltering NDP campaign about how to attack the Liberals, lest the Liberals win out over both of them, and lo and behold, they did. Ron Liepert – a former provincial cabinet minister who turned federal to take out Rob Anders at the nomination race – talks about a campaign where the central party wasn’t respecting the local candidates or listening to their concerns on the ground. Andrew Coyne writes that the party defeated itself with a “deep, unrelenting, almost poisonous cynicism.” Not surprisingly, Conservatives like Michelle Rempel are questioning the tone of the campaign. As for the NDP, they are starting their own process, but some, like now-former MP Craig Scott, are less gracious in defeat.
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/657050622504472576
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/657050927812075520
Roundup: Setting a new tone
The first day “on the job,” as it were, and Justin Trudeau was out to set a different tone from his predecessor from the get-go. While he and his cabinet won’t be sworn in until November 4th, the job of transition started today, but that didn’t stop Trudeau for being at the Metro station in his riding first thing to thank the voters there, and to pose for photos – something that Harper is pretty much loathe to do if it’s not in a controlled space. (One imagines that Trudeau’s RCMP detail is going to start freaking out really shortly). From Montreal, he flew back to Ottawa for a rally with supporters and local winning candidates (who pretty much swept the region here, with Pierre Poilievre’s riding being the sole exception), and then up to Parliament Hill to make some calls with international leaders including President Obama, where talk ranged from the ISIS mission to pipeline projects, with the message to the world being that “Canada is back.” Well, with a number of high-level international conferences coming up, Trudeau has high expectations being placed on him by those other world leaders. There is also a great sense of optimism with the premiers as well, so that looks like it could be a changing tone there as well. From there, Trudeau held a press conference in the National Press Theatre – something Stephen Harper hasn’t done since 2009, when he was trying to strike a deal with Michael Ignatieff not to topple his government over the summer (resulting in that Blue Ribbon panel on EI reform, which ended up collapsing thanks to the antics of Poilievre). He also walked there from the Hill as opposed to taking a motorcade. (Harper will take his motorcade across the street from 24 Sussex to Rideau Hall). Trudeau took questions for about 25 minutes – including follow-ups, and then promised that he would be back for more. It’s a completely different way of running things that most of the younger journalists on the Hill (myself included) aren’t used to. Not only that, but he promised that these would be regular appearances. It’s resetting the tone with the media, and it’s a hopeful signal that the tone really will start to change around here, and maybe we’ll start getting back to the way things used to be, before the dark times.
A pleasure to thank Montrealers for their support today. I'll be proud to represent Papineau as Prime Minister. pic.twitter.com/qBDGFTyUXA
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) October 20, 2015
Readout of @POTUS' Call with Prime Minister-Designate Justin Trudeau of Canada pic.twitter.com/RodBCJVXU2
— Obama NSC- Archived (@NSC44) October 20, 2015
This is odd. There's a prime minister taking questions in the National Press Theatre with a journalist chairing. pic.twitter.com/lvvF677Tb8
— Terry Milewski (@CBCTerry) October 20, 2015
Roundup: An unprecedented majority
I’m not going to write too much about the election because I already filed a late story, and I’m still processing everything, but I’m not sure that anyone saw this result. A Liberal majority. Harper resigning as leader but intending to stay on as MP for the time being. The NDP decimated, but Mulcair staying on – for now. The Liberals sweeping the entirety of Atlantic Canada and much of Quebec in seats that they hadn’t held in decades. The Bloc had a bit of a resurgence, but not much, and Duceppe didn’t keep his own seat. Liberals elected in Edmonton and Calgary. I will say that we are likely to see an era of fewer constitutional challenges and a greater respect for parliament and its institutions – which hopefully means a restored relationship with the media. Hopefully there will be fewer bills that will be subject to Charter challenges because the new government will have a better respect for civil service advice. The one thing that I do worry about is the fact that there are so many rookie MPs in this new parliament – some 140 or so of the newly elected Liberals don’t have federal experience, and that always leaves openings for the party to start exerting more control than it should. That said, most of these new MPs have impressive résumés going into the job, so that may suit them in good stead, but we’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, the next couple of weeks are going to be a whirlwind of transition, and with any luck, we’ll see Parliament summoned within a few weeks in order to get the ball rolling on the Liberals’ ambitious legislative agenda (along with taking care of things the Conservatives left too long, like the assisted dying legislation). With any luck, it’s going to be a lot of fun…
Without Peter Stoffer, that leaves the "Most Congenial MP" slot *wide open* in next year's Parliamentarian of the Year awards. #elxn42
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 20, 2015
I would have pegged her as a leadership hopeful. Apparently no longer. RT @RosieBarton: Megan Leslie has lost to the Liberals. #elxn42
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 20, 2015
Journal cartoonist Malcolm Mayes has the best take on tonight's election results. #yeg #elxn42 pic.twitter.com/NXCrfCoVsQ
— Edmonton Journal (@edmontonjournal) October 20, 2015
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/656307070224826368
It looks like Louis Plamondon remains Dean of the House. He will preside while they elect a new Speaker. #elxn42
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 20, 2015
Here's the official Conservative Party statement about their upcoming leadership contest. #elxn42 pic.twitter.com/HMiLHzNuMt
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 20, 2015
@jengerson Moral of the story: Be careful what you wish for. You may just get it.
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 20, 2015
https://twitter.com/scottfeschuk/status/656320029911203840
Speech and party spokesperson confirm: NDP Leader Tom Mulcair will not step down. Will continue as leader despite poor results. #elxn42
— Emma Loop (@LoopEmma) October 20, 2015
Roundup: Vote – and then stay involved
This is it – after that interminable election campaign (79 days! Eleven weeks!) it’s finally time to vote. And yes, you totally need to vote because that’s your duty and obligation for living in a democratic society like ours. When you do vote, remember that ours is a system whereby you are electing a person to fill a seat in Parliament, so that is always your primary consideration – party and leader should always be a secondary concern, and while important, the MPs you’re electing is your representative, and not the representative of the party to your riding. And then once the election is over, you get to hold that person to account. Not only that, but if the person or party you support didn’t win in your riding, fret not – your vote wasn’t “wasted,” as some would have you believe, because vote margins matter in the mandate that your local MP received. And so does your ongoing participation. Our system of democracy is not simply voting once every three or four years, but rather, it depends on constant grassroots participation, and that means you need to go out, join a riding association, help your chosen party determine future policy, help decide on who your riding’s next candidate is going to be (even if you have a sitting MP – let them know that they can’t take you for granted), and if things go the way they look determined to today, two of those parties just might be in leadership contests soon, and that means even more of a role for party members (as much as I disagree with membership selection of party leaders). In other words, voting today is just the beginning. But it starts with your casting a ballot, so go out and do that.
Roundup: Endorsing a unicorn
It was newspaper endorsement time yesterday, and it was a pretty baffling scene all around. Postmedia’s papers had a centrally-dictated series of endorsements for Harper – in spite of all of his myriad of woes and abuses – because economy. Never mind that I’ve written pieces talking to economics professors who’ve said that the Liberals are probably the better party when it comes to the markets because of the lacklustre performance of the Conservatives and their willingness to engage in protectionist behaviours and shut down foreign acquisitions and the like while preferring regulation to carbon pricing – but the management decision of the chain is this reflexive nonsense that the Conservatives are best for the economy. As if that weren’t enough, we got a baffling incompetent endorsement from the Globe and Mail that the Conservatives deserve re-election, but not Harper, so by all means elect them but he should step down immediately after. Because that will totally happen. It’s as incompetent as the time that there was an endorsement for a minority government – because Canadians can totally choose that option on their ballots. What’s also mystifying about the Globe endorsement is that it seems to be endorsing the Progressive Conservative party of yore rather than the modern party, which is neither progressive nor even really conservative, but rather is more of a right-flavoured populist party. It is also wholly the creation of Harper and shaped to his vision. He has so marginalised and pushed out the majority of leadership contenders that it becomes an exercise in futility to promote the party minus him because he is the glue holding the party together. And does the Globe have a successor in mind that they would prefer? Would they prefer an equally divisive figure like Jason Kenney instead? It’s sad that instead of engaging in a reasoned analysis, we got that instead. Way to go. Elsewhere, former Globe and Mail editor William Thorsell pens the editorial he would have written if he were still in the business, and Robert Hiltz offers some thoughts on the endorsement game.
Roundup: Setting the ballot question
Last night, the At Issue panel pondered the kind of existential question of the past eleven weeks – what is the “ballot question” in the election. With so many weeks and so many events that have come up along the way – Mike Duffy, Syrian refugees, the niqab debate, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and as of yesterday, the poor judgement of Justin Trudeau’s now-former campaign co-chair. Oh, and I guess the economy, but that’s always been a bit of a backdrop that’s built on a bunch of ridiculous and false premises (no, the Prime Minister can’t really control the economy, or create jobs out of a hat). And while the At Issue panel pretty much all chose “change” as the ballot question, I almost think it may have been something more specific – something that the Conservatives themselves telegraphed from the very beginning of the election, when they started running those ridiculous ads with the “interview committee.” That question was “is Justin ready?” Coming into the Liberal leadership, he became Teflon to a certain extent – none of the attacks would stick to him, and his only wounds were the self-inflicted kind. So how did the Conservatives play it? Trying to question his readiness, and their tag line was “I’m not saying no forever, but not now.” And then the government decided to drop an eleven-week campaign instead of the usual five, the intention being to give Trudeau plenty of rope with which to hang himself. They drove expectations so low as to question his ability to even put on pants before a debate. And then Trudeau turned around and performed well in debates, and gained confidence on the campaign trail. Instead of tripping him up, those eleven weeks galvanised him, and people started to see that. He wasn’t making stupid blunders, and he stopped shooting himself in the foot. The NDP, by contrast, started to look increasingly craven as their promises outstripped reality (witness the “Swiss cheese” of their platform costing), and Harper looked increasingly tired and worn out, unable to come up with answers to issues of the day, his ministers (like Chris Alexander) imploding under scrutiny, and by this late point in the campaign, there is a sense of desperation, Harper now trying to insist a campaign branded around him is not really about him, while he associates himself with the Ford brothers, and is visiting ridings he already holds in the sense that he looks like he’s trying to save the furniture. And yet, he placed the very ballot question in people’s minds from the start. Trudeau answered it, in defiance of the rules of never repeating your attacker’s lines, and said yes, he’s ready. And increasingly, it looks like the voters believe that. Does that discount Mulcair? To a certain extent, but he was never the credible threat to Harper, nor was he ever intended to be. (Remember, the plan was for the Conservatives and NDP to wipe the Liberals off the face of the map and become the two party state that they both dream of – something which didn’t end up happening). Harper put the wheels in motion, and it looks like his creation has gotten away from him.