Tag Archives: François Legault

Roundup: Demanding LNG with someone else’s money

Posted on by

While the federal Conservatives continue to promote the fantasy notion that Canada can somehow supply Europe and Japan with LNG to displace Russian supply—something that was never going to happen because of the timelines for projects to be built and that they need to be in operation to make their money back—under the notion that Ottawa needs to “get out of the way,” again ignoring that there has been no market case for it, Jason Kenney is going one step further and demanding that the federal government to build LNG export infrastructure. Which is odd because the Conservatives howled with outrage when the federal government nationalized the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline in order to sufficiently de-risk it for it to complete construction. If there’s no market case, why not get the federal government to do it?

But let’s also remember that the proposed Kitimat LNG facility on the West Coast, fully permitted and approved, is not being built, because there is no market case. Hence why Andrew Leach is calling out Kenney’s nonsense below, particularly the fact that Kenney is calling on the federal government to spend their money rather than Kenney spending his province’s own money. You know, like he did with Keystone XL, and whoops, lost billions because he made a bad bet and the American administration didn’t restore its permits. Funny that.

 

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 217:

UN human rights investigators have found that Russia has been violating international law when it comes to the treatment of prisoners of war during the invasion of Ukraine, which shouldn’t surprise anyone at this point. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has also asked for Canadian help in ridding his country of mines left behind by Russian forces. Meanwhile, there are reports that Russian conscription officers are at borders trying to intercept would-be conscripts from fleeing the country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s day of reckoning

Posted on by

Regardless of the outcome of today’s caucus vote, Erin O’Toole is finished as leader—the only question is how long he lingers. Thanks to the (garbage) Reform Act, what should have been an exercise in reading the room has come down to weaponization, threats, and now a legalistic battle of wills where anything less than fifty-percent-plus-one will mean O’Toole will try to lord over the caucus until an eventual grassroots leadership review, which may or may not be sooner than the current date scheduled (pretty much acceding to what Senator Denise Batters sidelined for calling for). But the fact that we’ve even reached this point, months in the making, where more than a third of his caucus is alienated, means he’s unable to lead the party no matter what, and frankly, the (garbage) Reform Act is just making this situation worse than it needed to be.

O’Toole apparently spent the day working the phones, and apparently has been saying that he’s willing to change his policies if he survives—but isn’t that part of the problem that got him here? That he keeps changing his positions depending on the audience he’s in front of? I’m not sure how he thinks this promise helps him. Also, “coincidentally” an Astroturf grassroots group calling itself the “Majority Committee” launched itself yesterday morning, conveniently parroting the exact same lines O’Toole used in his challenge letter to his caucus, so that doesn’t look staged at all. Meanwhile, his former allies are lining up against him, a number of former MPs have added their names to an open letter calling for him to step down, so any illusion that continuing on as leader after this is really just delusion.

https://twitter.com/BobBenzen/status/1488633402400071682

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne argues that it’s not O’Toole that needs to be ousted, but rather the unhinged yahoos in the caucus that are causing the party its biggest headaches. (I don’t disagree, but appealing to the yahoos is part of O’Toole’s problem). Althia Raj correctly notes that whatever the outcome of tomorrow’s vote, it’s untenable for O’Toole to stay. Matt Gurney (by video) wonders if this winds up leading to the break-up of the party.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1488522864269705222

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1488526887408353282

Continue reading →

Roundup: Comms fails and hashtag trends

Posted on by

There was a lot of discussion about government communications this weekend, and a lot to ponder on about it. First of all, there was this thread, which is long but worthwhile to read, because it gives a lot of context and examples of what it is we talk about with regard to these kinds of communications issues.

Another example of poor government communications were the proliferation of Cabinet ministers, and others from across party lines, and several who weren’t in Canada, posing with signs that said #StandWithUkraine.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1485251476687663109

They all looked ridiculous and like hollow performance, it was a combination of trying to appease the Ukrainian-Canadian lobby here in Canada (which largely advocates for the Conservatives, for what it’s worth), but part of a movement to try and get the hashtag trending over the weekend, because apparently international relations and diplomacy is really turning into a junior high exercise of being mean to one another over Twitter. (Meanwhile, haven’t politicians learned not to pose with signs like that, because they just get photoshopped?)

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1485254090229747713

Continue reading →

Roundup: The desperate flailing of provincial governments

Posted on by

We are at a stage of the pandemic when we are seeing a number of provincial governments reach the stage of just flailing. Saskatchewan is a basket case where the premier, who has COVID (and found this out after giving a maskless press conference) refuses to institute lockdown measures so that businesses forced to close because their staff are all sick can’t access federal benefits. In Quebec, that’s François Legault spit-balling major policy with no clue about implementation, and trying to distract from the fact that his polling numbers are plummeting as a result of the latest round of curfews that have been ineffective at curbing spread, as the province’s death rate continues to be the highest in the country (in part because of the horrific first wave continues to skew numbers)—and it’s an election year. It’s also an election year in Ontario, much sooner than in Quebec, and lo, we’ve seen a spate of resignations, many of the MPPs not even bothering to wait for the spring election. Case in point was Doug Ford’s long-term care minister, who resigned abruptly, and plans to resign his seat next month. And because Ford is flailing (on top of being an incompetent murderclown), the portfolio has been handed to Paul Calandra. No, seriously. Paul gods damned Calandra, who was the clownish apologist for Stephen Harper’s government, whose job was to stand up and obfuscate. And he’s now in charge of reforming Ontario’s long-term care system.

Meanwhile, Ford has sent his MPPs to use misleading charts to “prove” that Ontario is doing pretty well, which it’s not. But lying to cover up their incompetence is how his government operates, and they’re only going to get worse, the more desperate they get as the election looms ever closer.

https://twitter.com/HNHughson/status/1482041262639353859

https://twitter.com/HNHughson/status/1482053619700666370

Continue reading →

Roundup: A late start isn’t an extra week off

Posted on by

I’m not sure whether it’s because it’s a very, very slow news season, or if the basic knowledge of how Parliament works is that lacking, but we got a lot of really bad headlines yesterday about how the Senate plans to take an “extra week off.” Which is not actually true, and distorts the situation. And in some cases, it’s being spun this way by certain media suspects completely out of bad faith, because anytime they can badmouth the Senate they’ll grab the opportunity and run.

To clarify: The Senate does not have a fixed sitting schedule the way the House of Commons does, and in no way are they bound to match the sitting schedule, because they do different work, and the timelines are different. The Senate frequently doesn’t convene at the same time as the House of Commons after the winter or summer break because they simply don’t have enough work on their Order Paper to justify it. They passed all of the bills that the Commons sent to them before they adjourned for the break, so coming back at the same time makes no sense—especially when they are competing for IT resources and interpreters with the Commons in the current hybrid context (which has, frankly, screwed the Senate over, but they’ve also allowed it to happen). More to the point, there are many years where the Senate will sit for weeks after the Commons rises for its break, and they will have break weeks out of sync with the Commons every now and again because their workloads are different. But this isn’t communicated effectively, either by the Senate itself, or by the media reporting on it—and it most especially isn’t communicated or even mentioned by the bad faith actors whose only agenda is to paint the Senate in a bad light. It’s disappointing, but not unexpected.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A plan to tax the unvaxxed

Posted on by

By all accounts, it sounded like Quebec premier François Legault was spit-balling policy when, at the press conference to announce the province’s new chief public health officer, he proposed that the province impose additional costs on the unvaccinated in the form of some kind of surtax that would be “significant,” meaning more than $100. There were no details, which is kind of a big deal, but you immediately had other political leaders worried about “slippery slopes,” as though we don’t have other sin taxes on things like alcohol and cigarettes which impose their own significant public health burdens, as well as concerns that this will further disenfranchise those who are already marginalised. And fair enough.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1481062196314624000

The concerns about whether this somehow contravenes the Canada Health Act seem to be overblown, as it’s not charging for healthcare services, but other concerns about just how this might be implemented remain, as professors like Jennifer Robson articulate below.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland has a KGB file

Posted on by

I think it goes a little unappreciated at times as to just what a force of nature Chrystia Freeland can be. This weekend, we learned about her KGB file – wherein she was code-named “Frida” – from the time she was a university student on an exchange programme in Soviet Ukraine. She was ostensibly there to learn the language, but she was already fluent (she spoke it at home growing up, and still speaks it at home with her children), and instead spent much of her time organising local dissidents, and acting as a fixer for foreign journalists (which set up her later career). And along the way, she knew how to evade Soviet surveillance and send letters through the Canadian embassy in Moscow where the diplomatic pouches couldn’t be searched. The KGB was apparently not only worried about her, but impressed by her talents and felt she could have made a great spy.

Having read this, I was reminded of a debate that took place in the House of Commons in the waning days of the Harper government, when then-parliamentary secretary James Bezan was trying to minimise Freeland’s connection with Ukraine, and tried to make it sound as though Freeland was inventing it. (Remember that the Conservatives very much try to play up their connections with the Ukrainian diaspora community across the prairies, because they have votes there). Never mind that Freeland’s mother helped write Ukraine’s first post-Soviet constitution, but we have learned more about Freeland’s own activities in organising movements that helped bring down the Soviet presence in that country.

The fact that our deputy prime minister has this history is pretty interesting stuff, and all the more interesting as she is very likely to be the next prime minister of this country. Add to that, the fact that she is currently a persona non grata in Russia and the subject of sanctions by that country makes it all the more fascinating that she could soon be in charge of this country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stripping the riding associations

Posted on by

In the wake of the election, we are starting to see a few post-mortem thoughts bubbling up, and this one caught my eye over the Twitter Machine on what went on in the NDP campaign:

https://twitter.com/JessaMcLeanNDP/status/1440366348341694465

This is troubling in several respects – it gives some context as to why the NDP couldn’t get the ground game in ridings where they thought they had a chance to pick up seats, and it explains why their campaign spent as much as it did. This shouldn’t be a surprise for the party however – they are a very centralised organisation, and 2011 was ample demonstration that they have very few grassroots organisations in whole swaths of the county. That’s why when the “Orange Wave” happened, you had a tonne of candidates who had never even visited their ridings – the riding organisations were pretty much just on paper, much like the candidates. A proper riding organisation would have held a nomination race for someone from the area, not a McGill student who signed up on a form and spent the race working Mulcair’s riding in Montreal. They didn’t nurture those grassroots, as shallow as they were, and lo, they lost most of their Quebec seats in 2015, and all but one of them in 2019, nor did they regain any in this election.

Ground game matters, especially in an election where getting out the vote is crucial. Grassroots organisations matter. They may have them in a few of their stronghold ridings, but it really doesn’t look like they have it very well developed in large parts of the country, especially in places where they think they have a chance at winning. But if they’re simply stripping their riding associations of resources – and from the sounds of it, carrying on with the centralised nominations – then that’s a sign of an unhealthy political culture, and not a surprise that they aren’t getting the traction that they’re hoping for.

Good reads:

  • Several of the tight races may not have definitive conclusions until the end of the week. In one of them, ousted Liberal candidate Kevin Vuong remains in the lead.
  • The defeat of fisheries minister Bernadette Jordan has both sides of the Indigenous fishing dispute saying that this points to the need for a resolution to the situation.
  • The Star profiles ten of the new MPs that won races on Monday.
  • Here are a few thoughts from Liberals and academics as to where Trudeau goes now that he’s returned another hung parliament.
  • George Chahal has won a riding in Calgary, which essentially makes him a shoo-in for a Cabinet position.
  • It sounds like Erin O’Toole will encourage caucus to vote for the (garbage) Reform Act provisions that allow a leadership review to be triggered.
  • O’Toole has also triggered a campaign review to see where they went wrong.
  • Jagmeet Singh thinks his leadership is secure, and wants to press Trudeau on wealth taxes in exchange for his support.
  • François Legault doesn’t regret his endorsements in the federal election, even though they amounted to little change.
  • Kevin Carmichaels gets some economic reaction to the election results, and posits that there is now more political certainty for the markets to react to.
  • Chantal Hébert makes her observations about the election results, including that Trudeau will start entering the “legacy phase” of his time in office.
  • Robert Hiltz remains unimpressed by what was on offer in the election, and in the results.
  • My column looks at why the election was not an unnecessary effort, and what some of the underlying narratives that didn’t get explored were.

Odds and ends:

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

Roundup: A costing document with too-rosy projections

Posted on by

The NDP released their platform costing document at 4:30 PM on a Saturday – the second day of advanced polls – a time of day where most of the population will have tuned out already. This was a choice, much like the Conservatives releasing theirs right before the debates – so that attention would be elsewhere. Why? Because as much as they might dress it up, there’s not a lot in there that is credible.

There is some $215 billion in proposed new spending, some of which is difficult to see is feasible, such as their plans for a basic income for the disabled – they have no costing details for it from the PBO, and that is largely intersecting with provincial benefits programmes, and one economist who looked at the number said it’s way too low. Their revenue projections in particular are very, very rosy, and an expert I reached out to said it’s impossible to get that money, especially in the first two years, because of the amount of administration necessary to capture it. So that blows their projections out of the water. But wait, they will say – we got the PBO to cost it and got his stamp of approval! But he was working with their inputs and assumptions, and implementation matters (which is why he shouldn’t be costing platforms in the first place, because implementation involves political decisions). If they tell him that revenues can start in the next year, he has to operate on that assumption, even though it’s not possible, so they get figures that won’t bear out in reality, but they can wave them around and say they have a stamp of approval. It’s a problem, and it’s another example of how parties play games with promises that they don’t spell out how they’ll implement, which increasingly means that those promises are hollow (and yes, all parties are guilty of this).

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1436825763806957574

Meanwhile, on the subject of the Conservatives’ “carbon savings plan” and the points they claim you’ll accumulate in lieu of a tax rebate, here’s energy economist Andrew Leach on how impossible that will be to implement. It’s a long thread, but a worthwhile one, because once again, implementation matters. And this is clearly a plan that there is no intention to actually implement (especially considering that their costing document claimed its costs would be negligible – another fiction).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Let’s just ignore the toxic spring

Posted on by

We are coming out of the first week of the campaign, and we still see a bunch of pundits and talking heads questioning why the Liberals called it in the first place, and I have to wonder just how much they paid attention to what went on during the last session of Parliament. It was a toxic environment – the most toxic I have seen in over a decade. Non-money bills didn’t advance for months because of procedural warfare, and at least one pandemic support bill was months late in being able to deliver for people who needed it. Committees were holding witch-hunts and the civil service was busy sending millions of pages to committees on wild goose chases. But did anyone bother to explain this? Not really, because then it would become a “process story,” which we are supposed to be allergic to. Putting the events of the spring into context, along with some of the considerations about timing (there are municipal elections in Quebec and Alberta in October) should be part of the media’s job, so that we’re not just being stenographers to what the parties are telling us (so we can then both-sides it). But that might be too much effort.

Of course, this is Justin Trudeau, and while he was perfectly happy to point out the obstruction on the days leading up to dissolution, once the campaign started, he was all about his upbeat, positive narratives, and talking about people being given a say in the “most important election since 1945,” because that’s his campaign persona and style – upbeat, upbeat, upbeat. Happy-clappy at all times. That doesn’t mean that those of us who follow Parliament can’t look past it and point out what was going on.

Continue reading →