Tag Archives: Jane Philpott

Roundup: Preparing for the backbench rebellion

Posted on by

In advance of Liberal caucus tomorrow, media is rife with attempts to figure out just how many MPs will be pushing for Trudeau to go, and it sounds like between twenty to forty, but nobody knows anything for sure, and much like the past two caucus retreats where the backbenchers were restive, it could all fizzle out by the end, because Trudeau apparently has some kind of magic he can weave when he’s in the room. This could also just be a means of applying pressure to force the PMO to start showing that they are committed to a change of direction or just showing that they are capable of change, but so far Trudeau’s response has been to double-down and stare down his naysayers, but you have to admit, that even twenty backbenchers being ready to push you out is a bad sign, and forty is an indication that you’re not able to read the room.

This of course has led to future leadership speculation, and jumping right into things was former BC Liberal premier Christy Clark, who says she’s taking French classes, but I find this whole thing a bit of a laughable charade. While I know of several federal Liberals who will vouch for her Liberal-status, she also previously mused about running for the leadership of the Conservatives save for her lack of French skills, and was also organizing with the “Centre Ice conservatives,” now the upstart wannabe party that Dominic Cardy is leading. On top of that, Clark’s record as premier is pretty problematic, so I would have some very big questions about just what kind of reception she thinks she’s going to get outside of the few Liberal insiders who knew her ack in the day.

And then there’s Mark Carney, who told Nathaniel Erskine-Smith on his podcast over the weekend that he’s planning to run for a seat at some point, but won’t say where and when, and is vague about a lot of it other than saying that this is because he owes Canada “a lot.” Of course, none of this changes the fact that as a former central bank governor, he should stay the hell out of electoral politics for the rest of his life, because of what it does to his successors and the institution. Central banks need to be scrupulously politically neutral because what they say needs to be believed if they are to control inflation.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian attacks killed three people in Zaporizhzhia, and three in the Donetsk region. A Ukrainian drone attack damaged two distilleries in Russia, just south of Moscow. And this is what is known so far about North Korean troops joining the Russian invasion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford’s $600 million choices

Posted on by

You might be excused if you were given the impression that things are going so well in Ontario right now that the government is spending its precious time and resources on the pressing need of…getting beer and wine into corner stores. Well, Doug Ford has decided that, in any case, and that he’s willing to pay out hundreds of millions in order to compensate the Beer Store—a conglomerate owned by the major breweries—for breaking their monopoly even earlier than he had planned to, to the tune of $225 million, with a possible $375 million in additional fees being rebated, meaning that this move could cost the treasury as much as $600 million.

So, to recap—that’s $225 million, but probably really $600 million, that could have gone toward something like keeping rural emergency rooms from having to close on weekends because they lack sufficient staff; it could have gone toward reforming how primary-care physicians are compensated so that they aren’t fleeing the field; it could have gone toward fixing the shortfalls in the early learning and child care programme that this government has caused by under-investment; or shoring up shelters housing asylum seekers; or really, any number of things that will actually have a meaningful impact on the lives of people in this province. But no, it’s going to pay these conglomerates.

Priorities.

Ukraine Dispatch:

While visiting Kharkiv, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that Ukraine now has “combat control” over the region after nearly two weeks of Russians trying to make advances.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1793904060535636362

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau takes a knee

Posted on by

The day began with a federal response to the death of an Indigenous woman in New Brunswick at the hands of police during what was described as a “wellness check.” Mark Miller, the Indigenous Services minister, very bluntly stated that he was “pissed” and outraged and wanted answers as to what happened. He also demanded answers on the video of RCMP in Nunavut using a truck door to knock down an intoxicated man, calling it out as “disgraceful” and “dehumanizing.” And while the prime minister later said that he would be speaking to Cabinet and the RCMP Commissioner about these incidents, Miller was correct in pointing out that there continues to be this pattern of behaviour. (Commissioner Lucki put out a statement later in the day that was long on platitudes).

Trudeau was up next with his daily presser, making some fairly vague mention of those police incidents before moving onto the day’s announcement – a $600 disability payment for those who qualify under the federal disability tax credit (because, again, most disability supports fall under provincial jurisdiction), as well as announcing an accessibility stream for employers to tap into. He also announced that he has put $14 billion on the table for provinces as part of their safe restart plans, to assist with more personal protective equipment for front-line workers and businesses, as well as for child care, support for municipalities, and made mention of the attempts to get that sick pay into place using federal dollars. (That isn’t going well either, as premiers like Doug Ford say that they don’t want the sick leave, but want even more money than what’s on offer – with no strings attached, obviously). During the Q&A, he was asked repeatedly about what he would do about police violence and systemic racism, but he would only offer his usual generalities and no specifics. He also again committed to collecting race-based disaggregated data, but put in a few digs about the quality of data that some of the provinces are providing because that’s who we are relying on to collect it. (Ontario’s health minister says she’s working on it).

Later in the day, as a number of Black Lives Matters protest marches took place peacefully all across the country, Trudeau showed up at the Ottawa protest and took a knee on a couple of occasions while holding a Black Lives Matter t-shirt, flanked by minister Ahmed Hussen and MP Anju Dhillon. (Catherine McKenna was also in the crowd but not with Trudeau). While Hussen said the image of the head of government taking a knee and clapping when people say “Black lives matter” is powerful, it does raise questions about just what is being said. Taking a knee was a form of protest about the government (of the United States, granted), but if Trudeau takes a knee, who is he protesting? Himself? I would charitably say that this is Trudeau showing solidarity, but it does open himself up to criticisms about doing this for the sake of appearance over substance.

Senate selection committee

I did want to mention the CBC story about senators getting pay increases for sitting on the Selection Committee when it’s only met twice. It’s yet another story in the vein of never-ending stories about how the Senate is full of grasping drains on the public purse, but as so many of these stories go, it ignores the mechanics of the situation. Selection committee meetings are meant to formalize the work that caucuses do internally to allocate committee seats – they don’t make those determinations in committee meetings. They do the work beforehand in whatever assignment process the caucus uses, and it can be a fair amount of work and one could make the argument that any kind of work like that deserves additional compensation. But it is work done that even if the actual committee meets very infrequently, that is the tip of the iceberg of work. The only thing that is particularly unusual in this circumstance is that ISG leader Senator Yuen Pau Woo named himself to the Selection Committee. Normally, it was the caucus whips who were on the committee because they usually did the bulk of the work of allocation committee assignments (and arranging for alternates if a senator couldn’t be present for their scheduled committee meeting for whatever the reason). Considering that Woo has been agitating for changes to the Parliament of Canada Act because as a caucus leader who is not leader of either the government or the opposition, he doesn’t get an additional stipend, so perhaps this was his way of trying to earn himself some additional compensation. This being said, Senator Pierre Dalphond, who recently defected from the ISG to the Progressives, took the opportunity to unload on Woo for this in a press release, which makes me wonder just what happened between the two that has apparently caused this drama.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Civil liberties or delegated taxation authority

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau was in Prime Minister Dad mode during yesterday’s presser, telling people to stay home and that “enough is enough,” you’re not invincible, and you’re only putting others’ lives at risk. In terms of announcements, he talked about Parliament passing the emergency fiscal measures, that Farm Credit Canada was opening up funds, that flights were secured for a few countries that have secured their airspace, and that more funds were made available for vaccine and drug testing for COVID-19. He also spoke about his planned call with premiers to better coordinate emergency powers, and clarified that the Emergencies Act was largely about the federal government assuming the powers that provinces or municipalities haven’t enacted – in other words, it’s those levels of government that can suspend civil liberties in this time, and he’s trying to get premiers on the same page.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1242111081667080192

https://twitter.com/jm_mcgrath/status/1242115177702666242

For the bulk of the day, all anyone could talk about however was the Emergencies Act, and every journalist in town wanted to know why it hadn’t been invoked yet, and when they would do so. Trudeau, and later Freeland, kept making the point that it was a tool of last resort that would only be used when all other tools have been exhausted, but that doesn’t seem to have deterred anyone – lest of all New Brunswick premier Blaine Higgs, who said that he wanted the federal government to invoke it, either because he’s too reluctant to use the significant powers he has at his disposal provincially and would rather Ottawa do it for him, or because he can’t seem to deal with his fellow premiers to coordinate anything. And while everyone was practically begging the government to start taking away civil liberties, they also lost their minds when it was leaked that the government planned a significant overreach in their fiscal aid legislation that would have essentially given them delegated authority over taxation for up to December 2021 – which is clearly unconstitutional, but hey, they mean well, right? They backed down, but cripes the lack of competence in this government sometimes… (Look for more on this in my column, later today).

Meanwhile, here’s John Michael McGrath explaining why the federal government doesn’t need to invoke the Act, while Justin Ling notes that measures that trample civil liberties generally make problems worse instead of better. Adnan Khan ponders individual liberties versus authoritarianism in a time of crisis. In this thread, Philippe Lagassé explains more about the Act.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Protests and impossible demands

Posted on by

The protests in support of the hereditary chiefs who are against the BC Coastal GasLink pipeline continue to disrupt the rail corridors in central Canada, though that may soon come to an end as the OPP has stated that the situation has become “dire” and threatened enforcement of court injunctions soon enough. Rail service has been cancelled for both freight and passengers, which is going to cause some economic disruption, especially as other sympathetic protesters have been attempting to blockade ports on both coasts. The federal government maintains that they are very concerned about what is happening, but state that these remain areas of provincial jurisdiction, and that’s something that we can’t simply handwave away.

And this is something that should be remarked upon a little more – the demands that the federal government get involved with the Coastal GasLink situation are essentially saying that the government should ignore the constitution, or that when a group feels aggrieved by the provincial government that they can then turn around and demand that the federal government do something, like asking your mother for permission after your father says no. Meanwhile, some of the protesters – like those staging a “sit-in” in the Department of Justice building, are making novel demands of the minister that are outside of his powers, and which don’t respond to how government operates in Canada – particularly given that the RCMP operates at arm’s length and doesn’t take orders from the justice minister or any Cabinet minister. In this case, they are enforcing a court order, which again, the government can’t simply step in and make disappear. We have a rule of law. And yes, the situation is complicated by the fact that there aren’t treaties in this area of BC, which means there is uncertainty as to the rights and title question (which have been under negotiation for years, if not decades), but the justice minister can’t wave a magic wand. Real life doesn’t work like that, and for this group to declare that if he doesn’t wave a magic wand by today that “reconciliation is dead,” well, it’s more than a little precious.

Meanwhile, these protests are giving rise to other voices who want to exploit the situation, like Conservative leadership hopeful who says that if he was prime minister, he would do something about it. He won’t say what – but by gum he’d do something! Jason Kenney, meanwhile, is trying to build the case that this is somehow a “dress rehearsal” for future pipeline protests, and calling these actions “ecocolonial” (whatever that means). Meanwhile, his environment minister is slagging the First Nation chief who has raised concerns about Teck Frontier and the lack of engagement by the provincial government, saying that it’s just about money and the government has to worry about taxpayers. Of course, unless Kenney and company don’t tone it down, things are bound to get worse because of the underlying complexity, so perhaps people need to take a deep breath.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit Scheer

Posted on by

The news that blew up all of our days was that of Andrew Scheer’s sudden resignation as leader, despite having stated for nearly two months that he planned to stay on and fight the next election. As this news broke, so did the news that party funds were being used to finance his children’s private school education, and throughout the day there was a lot of back-and-forth as to just who in the party knew about it, and it sounds increasingly like Stephen Harper, the Conservative Fund’s chair, was mighty upset when he learned about it. Oops. Nevertheless, Scheer went before the House of Commons and talked about how this was all about needing to spend more time with his family, and he spun a tale about how he realized he barely knew his teenaged son, and Justin Trudeau and others were very gracious and classy, and offered more humanity to Scheer than he managed to in his time as leader. The caucus also voted to let Scheer stay on as interim leader until his replacement is chosen, but considering how well that went for the NDP, with the embittered Thomas Mulcair poisoning the well, well, you’d think they would know better.

While the group calling itself Conservative Victory that were organizing to pressure Scheer to resign has declared victory, we now begin with all of the breathless speculation as to who will run to replace Scheer, and you can bet that most of the usual names – Raitt, Ambrose, Kenney – won’t. The Star runs through the probable names and their chances of actually running.

And, of course, come all of the hot takes. Justin Ling declares this the end of Scheer’s reign of incompetence. Andrew Coyne notes that Scheer’s departure won’t solve the party’s bigger problems. Matt Gurney makes the point that the party really can’t choose a new leader until they learn the lessons from the last election. Susan Delacourt explores the parallels between Scheer’s departure and that of Joe Clark after his election loss in 1979. Paul Wells gives a fair accounting of Scheer’s self-inflicted wounds, and the huge challenge the party faces in trying to find a leader that will unify the party’s various factions. Robert Hiltz gives his not-so-fond farewell to Scheer with his trademarked acerbic style. My own column on Scheer’s demise looks at how he turned politics into a house of lies, and why his successor will need to rectify that mistake.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Holding up a mythical threat

Posted on by

The first day of the new Cabinet, and Justin Trudeau, along with Chrystia Freeland and Jim Carr, had their first meeting as a group with Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi, who held up the now-former Bill C-69 as the source of much of the anger in Alberta, and his demands that it be changed. The problem here – and Nenshi acknowledged – is that the pre-existing system that Stephen Harper’s government put into place in 2012 did not work, and Nenshi could list projects being held up by it, which is all the more reason why his strident condemnation of the new assessment system is all the more baffling. Part of the problem here is that the bill – along with the now-former C-48 – have been used as scapegoats for the frustrated economic ambitions of the province. Never mind that C-48 was largely symbolic – there is no pipeline project that would head for the northwest coast of BC, nor is there going to be, and no, Northern Gateway is not going to make a comeback because the obstacles identified by the Federal Court of Appeal were almost certainly insurmountable. And C-69 is in no way a “no more pipelines” law.

I talked to a lot of environmental lawyers on both sides while C-69 was being debated, and the biggest source of unease on the proponent side was the uncertainty as to whether the legislated timelines would have the problem of issues stopping the clock – thus dragging out those timelines – much of which was alleviated when the draft regulations were released. Again, the talk about the carbon budget in the bill was clarified in the regulations, which also alleviated many of their concerns (and caused some on the environmental side ulcers). So while the government is now talking about tweaks to the regulations, that seems more than entirely appropriate for the reality of the situation, and their refusal to scrap the law is entirely rational and just.

The problem becomes fighting the narrative that has been created around this law, and the fact that it has grown into a mythological terror is what they will have to grapple with – and compounding this is the fact that this government has proven itself time and again to be utterly incompetent at communications. For as much as Catherine McKenna did some good work when she was the minister, she kept repeating the tired slogan of “the environment and the economy go together” and other nonsense talking points (and then insisting that she spoke like a regular person), which did nothing to counter the lies being promulgated by Jason Kenney, Andrew Scheer, and others, about what was actually in the legislation. And you can’t fight lies with canned talking points. I wish this government – and the communications geniuses in the PMO most especially – would get that through their heads, which is why trying to placate the anger when it’s being directed at the mythology and not the reality of this legislation is going to be an uphill battle.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An expedited process

Posted on by

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that of the twelve challengers to the government’s decision to approve the Trans Mountain pipeline a second time, that they would grant leave to hear from six of them, on an expedited basis, and on the very narrow question of whether or not the government has actually complied with the previous FCA ruling, particularly when it comes to the issue of appropriate consultation with Indigenous communities as it pertains to Section 35 of the Constitution. Immediately there was a bunch of wailing and gnashing of teeth that this would be some kind of delay, and others demanded that the government start using magic wands apparently hidden in the text of the constitution (never mind that they don’t actually exist). Worth noting as well – there is no injunction against continued construction, so that will continue to ramp up in the weeks ahead as this expedited hearing gets underway.

This having been all said, there were a number of questions as to why the federal government didn’t file any materials in defence regarding those leave applications in eleven of the twelve files (though, curiously, the Alberta government did even though they’re not the defence). We didn’t get much of an answer – Amarjeet Sohi (who is not the justice minister) saying that they would mount a defence at the right time, but I have to wonder if this was simply about giving the appearance that they weren’t trying to constantly take Indigenous communities to court. Or, they may have simply felt confident that their position was self-evident, that they fulfilled the conditions from the previous FCA ruling and filing something to repeat exactly that wasn’t worth the time or energy because they didn’t think the Court would grant leave on that basis. Either way, it’s not the “rolling over” that certain opposition MPs have railed in the media about because this is a leave application, and not the actual defence.

https://twitter.com/Honickman/status/1169324576960122881

Meanwhile, energy economist Andrew Leach debunks the myths about what is holding back investment in the oilsands, and lays out the four real reasons, which are very different from what industry lobbyists and Jason Kenney are trying to sell to Canadians. Some of the big takeaways are that corporate tax cuts won’t help, and carbon pricing isn’t hurting it, never mind that those are the kinds of things that Kenney is focusing on, and it’s all snake oil – none of it will make investment come flooding back to the sector because the reasons are bigger and more complex.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mild consequences for an outburst

Posted on by

It took several days, and the announcement happened fairly late on a Saturday night, but Andrew Scheer decided to strip Michael Cooper of his committee duty – but not deputy critic portfolio – after his committee outburst last week, when he lashed out at a Muslim witness who suggested that conservative commentary was in part responsible for radicalizing some white supremacists, including the shooter of the Quebec City mosque. Cooper’s outburst, you will recall, was to attack the witness and quote from the Christchurch shooter’s manifesto, not only naming him (as the New Zealand government has been reluctant to do) and reading part of that manifesto into the record, so that it will forever be part of the archives of the Parliament of Canada. Scheer said that he was satisfied with Cooper’s apology (which was tepid at best), and that he considered the matter closed now that he removed Cooper from the committee. Funnily enough, Cooper described it as “agreeing” with Scheer that he shouldn’t sit on that committee, which doesn’t sound like it was that punitive (and I’m not sure that removing someone from duties is really that punitive. Putting him on permanent Friday House duty would be more punitive than giving Cooper less work to do).

The witness at the receiving end of Cooper’s outburst, Faisal Khan Suri, says Scheer’s response is not good enough, and says that Cooper should be booted from the caucus. And to that end, Scheer made his big point about showing people the door if they don’t believe in equality (and Cooper reading from a white supremacist manifesto would seem to be a line that was crossed), but well, the matter is “closed.” Not that the Liberals will let them forget it, but this is politics these days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Independence and admissions of political ignorance

Posted on by

Somewhat unexpectedly, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott each announced that they would be running as independents in the next election, eschewing the Green Party (even after Elizabeth May said that she would even step aside as leader if Wilson-Raybould was interested in the job). Both of them made speeches that were variations of the same theme – that they want to “do politics differently,” that they were tired of parties, and wanted “non-partisan” ideas and to do things by “consensus” – all of which betrayed an ongoing naiveté and lack of understanding about Responsible Government and Westminster parliaments. Talking about “cooperation” and “non-partisan” ideas, or “consensus” sounds good, but it doesn’t understand how things actually get done. Partisanship when done properly (as in, not devolved into tribalism) is about having competing ideas – which is a good thing. Add to that, “consensus” may work in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut where you have small assemblies and a cultural predisposition to it, but it’s not the same in the House of Commons with 338 MPs – not to mention that consensus demolishes the ability to hold governments to account. When everyone is responsible, then no one is accountable. And sure, the pair might decry that there is “too much power in the centre,” but I’ve said time and again that the cause and solution of centralised power in our parliament is about the way in which we choose leaders, and done in a way that gives them an imaginary “democratic mandate” that they then abuse. Having more independent MPs won’t change that – assuming that they can get re-elected on their own. (Celina Caesar-Chavannes, incidentally, said that their speeches were “inspiring” and she too is now considering running again as an independent after previously saying she planned to bow out of elected political life).

In hot takes, Andrew MacDougall assesses what kind of stars would need to line up for either Philpott or Wilson-Raybould to win as independents, with Éric Grenier crunching the numbers of past independent MP victories. Chantal Hébert considers the long-game implications for the decision to run as independents, and how it lines them up for future moves or influence if the next election results in a hung parliament. Paul Wells looks to both history and Jerry Macguire to look at the lessons that this whole quixotic independent run amounts to, and how the lessons for other MPs may just be the opposite of what Philpott and Wilson-Raybould intend.

Meanwhile in Alberta, the UCP’s House Leader wants to ban floor-crossing in the legislature, which is complete patent nonsense and an affront to our Westminster system of government. Our system is predicated on how we elect individual MPs/MLAs as individuals, not as party ciphers – no matter what your calculus is in the voting booth. That’s why we don’t elect party lists or the likes. If the UCP can’t understand that, for as much as they like to talk a big game about respecting democracy and traditions, then it shows how craven they really are. All this move does is demonstrate that they view their own party members to be drones for the leader, at which point you may as well replace them all with battle droids and be done with it.

A reminder to Philpott, Wilson-Raybould, and Nixon – all of you may want to read my book in order to get a proper grasp of how Westminster democracies actually work.

Continue reading →