Tag Archives: Julie Payette

Roundup: Harder’s charm offensive

Posted on by

There’s a charm offensive in the works, led by the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, and his staff, to try and showcase how they’re transforming the Senate. In a profile piece of the “Government Representative Office” for the Hill Times, the three members of the office gave lovely little explanations of their duties, and how they’re doing things differently, like Senator Mitchell talking about how he doesn’t have a caucus to whip, so he’s focused on counting votes for upcoming bills, and arranging briefings and such. Bless.

What didn’t get answered in the piece is just why Harder needs his $1.5 million budget, since he isn’t managing a caucus, he isn’t doing his job of negotiating with other caucus groups for the passage of bills, he isn’t doing any heavy lifting in terms of sponsoring bills on behalf of the government, and as we saw during one of his melodramatic moments in the spring, doesn’t appear to be counting votes either. So why he needs that big of a budget, and that many staff, remains a mystery that has gone unsolved. Harder also remained evasive as to just how often he meets with Cabinet, which continues to be problematic because he’s supposed to be the link between the Chamber and the Cabinet, where Senators can find accountability for the actions of the government (which is why he’s supposed to be a full-blown Cabinet minister and not just a member of Privy Council). They did say that he wasn’t at the recent Cabinet retreat, which raises yet more questions, especially when it comes to how he plans to get their priorities through the Chamber as the Order Paper in the Senate is full, and he’s been in no mood to negotiate timelines (which I know for a fact that other caucus groups are willing to do).

Part of the problem with this charm offensive is that it’s preying on the lack of knowledge that members of the media have with how the Senate works, so they don’t know how things have and have not changed – and for the most part, the only thing that has changed are the fact that Harder and company insist on renaming everything and not doing the jobs they’re supposed to be doing, shifting that burden to the other players in Senate leadership. My other worry is that this is the first stage in the push to start making changes like the demand for a business committee, which would have a hugely detrimental effect on the Chamber and its operations. And I would caution any journalists reading to beware of what Harder plans to propose, and how he plans to charm other journalists into writing feel-good stories about his planned rule changes without understanding how they will damage the Senate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A quixotic UN quest

Posted on by

It’s time for the United Nations General Assembly, and while prime minister Justin Trudeau won’t be making an address at the Assembly this year, he did give a speech yesterday about Nelson Mandela, and how other should follow his legacy, and later in the day, announced a $20 million contribution to a global infrastructure hub.

The other thing that everyone is talking about is Canada’s (possibly quixotic) quest for that temporary Security Council seat in 2020, which means a lot of schmoozing and diplomatic niceties during the General Assembly – and it’s going to be an uphill battle, for which Canada has so far…deployed a logo. Add to that, the government hasn’t really articulated why exactly this is important to our foreign policy other than to stick it to the Harper years when they decided that they wouldn’t bother going for the seat again in a fit of pique.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044218706937696257

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044218710519623685

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044218714202214400

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044284604310478848

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044287893554946048

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044288949806481408

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044291455454404608

Meanwhile, this session of the General Assembly will see the adoption of the Global Compact on Refugees, which Canada had a hand in crafting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Leniency for chronic offenders

Posted on by

There was an interesting piece about document security lapses within the federal government, which is something that speaks to me as someone who spent time doing records management within a federal department back during my early days in Ottawa as I was building up my freelance career (before I started on the Hill). The report cited 3075 lapses in the past year at Public Services and Procurement, with six employees being cited as chronic offenders.

During my time doing this kind of document work, there were a rash of news stories about secret documents being left unattended, or being thrown out and found on street corners, and much of it boils down to a culture within the public service of not caring about document security – in part because people aren’t trained to care about it. It was also because, in my department’s experience, every time they would train an admin assistant in document management, she would go on mat leave, then her replacement wouldn’t be trained to the same level, and she would go on mat leave or another assignment, and her replacement not trained, and on it went. So records went unattended, and people in the department stopped properly dealing with their records, including those who were supposed to be kept secret. And you’d see people in the Tim Horton’s downstairs from the office with Protected of Secret file folders on them, despite the fact that they weren’t supposed to leave the office area. And nobody seemed to care about that fact – all of which reinforced the notion that there isn’t a culture of responsibility around these kinds of things.

Which brings me back to the article. With those chronic offenders, they are being treated leniently, despite the fact that they are supposed to be subjected to tough sanctions, including demotion or termination. But as with so many things in the public service, where there are so few instances where there are consequences for transgressions, it seems to reinforce the notion that document security doesn’t need to be taken seriously, and then we get more security and privacy breaches. If there were actual consequences, that might start making an effort at reducing the number of breaches.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Her Excellency’s many issues

Posted on by

The floodgates have opened, and stories about the difficult first year that Her Excellency Julie Payette has been having as Governor General have been fast and furious. From concerns that she’s still living at Rideau Gate rather than Rideau Hall despite there being renovated living quarters now available, to concerns about her not telling her security detail where she’s at, the concerns on the ground that she’s breaking convention by not visiting every province in her first year, were all warm-ups for this wide-ranging piece in the National Post that compiles a lot of the things we’ve been hearing unofficially in Ottawa, about what a struggle the year has been. While some of it is growing pains, and some of it are potentially unfair comparisons to having previously appointed Governors General who were superhuman in their ability to take on a volume of work (and in the case of someone like Adrienne Clarkson, write all of her own speeches for 500+ engagements in a year), I was particularly disturbed by the fact that the Liberal Research Bureau was doing the background checks and vetting for the appointment when Trudeau should have kept the Vice-Regal Appointments Committee in operation (and the only reason anyone can think as to why he disbanded it was that it was Harper’s creation and it was simply an act of pettiness). The fact that they didn’t properly prepare her for the role is also a big red flag as to the seriousness with which they undertook the process and the decision. I hope that these are just growing pains and that they’ll sort themselves out, but given how badly this government has managed its appointment processes so far, it really leaves one questioning some of the competence of the senior ranks of this government.

If there’s a silver lining to all of this, I would say that I hope it means that it might encourage some of these charities and organisations that the GG used to be the patron of might look instead to members of the royal family. This could very well be a golden opportunity to start re-forging some links with our monarchy, and getting more royals on our shores to have a lot more face-time and remining both royals and Canadians that we have bonds that need to be strengthened, lest they atrophy. It’s also a particularly good time given the addition of Megan, Duchess of Sussex, to the family, and the fact that she spent that much time in Toronto gives her that connection already, and we should be capitalising on it (not to mention the fact that Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, has Canadian ancestors including a pre-Confederation Prime Ministers, and we should be milking that connection for all it’s worth too).

Meanwhile, here’s a look at Payette finally getting to Humbolt, Saskatchewan, six months later, and the fact that she’s been reluctant to visit other sites of tragedies, like Fredericton after the recent shootings there.

Special note: If you’re concerned about the tornado that hit this area, they were to the west of Ottawa, and across the river in Gatineau, and nowhere near the Parliamentary precinct. I wasn’t affected, and my power didn’t go out (hence why you’re getting this morning’s roundup).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Triumphalism after a defection

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer took the occasion of caucus day yesterday to give another lap of triumphalism in order to crow about Leona Alleslav’s defection to his party, calling her a symbol of “misplaced trust” by Canadians in Justin Trudeau. And, feeling his oats, he told Trudeau to “bring it on” when it comes to defending a carbon tax in the next election. Now, cheerleading films aside, Scheer may want to be very cautious about his plan to go full-bore on the carbon tax attack, given that those provinces who have decided to fight the plan and have the federal government impose their backstop price instead may find that instead of their citizens benefitting from lower income taxes or provincial rebates, they’ll instead be getting their rebate cheques from the federal government, which is a pretty visceral thing for most people. Add to that, a study coming out next week says that it’s likely that people will be getting more back in those rebate cheques than they paid into carbon taxes because of dividends from industrial emitters being returned to individuals, which could be a blow to the message that Scheer is trying to send about affordability.

In amidst this, Scheer has been trying to press the case for Energy East, demanding that Trudeau bring Trans Canada back to the table in order to discuss reviving the project. The problem, of course, is that there is no economic case for Energy East. At one point, it was seen as a viable route to tidewater with no others in the works, but that changed with the approval of Trans Mountain (err, temporarily delayed right now), and Keystone XL, which Trans Canada also is the proponent of, and there wasn’t enough product to fill both KXL and Energy East, so they focused on the more viable project – KXL. Scheer has also tried to insinuate that Energy East would displace Saudi oil in Eastern Canada, but that’s also not true, given that the whole point was for it to be a pipeline to tidewater. Saudi oil is cheaper to import than for Alberta oil to ship by pipeline, not to mention that there are no upgraders or refineries in the East capable of handling heavy crude from Alberta (again, unlike KXL, where those kinds of refineries line the Gulf coast). The Irvings themselves said that Energy East wouldn’t stop the flow of Saudi oil to Canada, but Scheer is trying to play the economic nationalism card, and is stretching the truth along the way.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert warns Scheer that if he plans to make immigration an issue over the coming year, he may want to pay attention to what’s going on in Quebec, where it’s turning out to be something of a poisoned chalice for the CAQ in the provincial election.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trans Mountain tantrums

Posted on by

The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (temporarily, at least) – both because of an inadequately scoped NEB report around marine protection and because the government didn’t properly consult with Indigenous communities – caused no shortage of meltdowns and tantrums over all forms of media – with a dash of triumphalism from the environmentalists and some of those Indigenous communities. All of it, from both sides, is pretty much overreaction, but some of the reactions were ludicrous.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1035264446376108034

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1035267000610824192

The one reaction that was probably most ridiculous and unhelpful was that of Alberta premier Rachel Notley, who in a fit of pique, declared that she was pulling out of the federal climate framework until the pipeline was built, and made a list of nonsensical demands that will do absolutely nothing to get said pipeline built. Appealing it to the SCC? On what grounds (and delaying things another 18 months)? Recalling Parliament? To do what? Hold an angry take-note debate? Yes, this is the federal government’s mess, but none of this actually solves it. What will solve it is to follow the roadmap in the FCA judgment, which means reassessing the marine risks and doing proper consultations with those First Nations on their substantive issues. I get that Notley has to make a show of this, but none of this tantrum is constructive in the slightest, and worse yet, it likely undermines her own environmental agenda.

Meanwhile, Jason Markusoff notes that while the government owns this failure, it’s not as though the opposition has offered a solution that would have worked either. Trevor Tombe walks through the decision and what can be done to fix the problems identified therein, but notes there are costs to delays. Tyler Dawson looks at how the populist outrage over this move can start another round of Western alienation (in which, the actual facts of what’s going on won’t matter, because populism).

Continue reading →

Roundup: NAFTA theatrics

Posted on by

Yesterday was big for NAFTA news, as the Americans and Mexicans resolved their bilateral differences, particularly around autos, and made progress on getting concessions on the American demands for a sunset clause. But, true to form, US President Donald Trump started spouting a bunch of nonsense about how Canada was on the sidelines, and if we didn’t accept a deal by Friday, he’d slap tariffs on our autos, and so on. The problem there – that he has no congressional authority to conclude a bilateral agreement without us (and indeed, outgoing Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto kept saying that they were waiting for Canada to rejoin negotiations), so it’s a lot of bluster. Nevertheless, Chrystia Freeland cut short her diplomatic trip to Europe and is headed for Washington today, and trilateral talks will resume, and there’s likely to be a heavy focus on dairy as Trump has become fixated on it. This all having been said, have the Conservatives been pleased by the progress made? Funny you should ask.

First of all, the language in both is that it includes Trudeau’s name and the word “failure,” which is their narrative-building exercise (and Hamish Marshall can give them a cookie for sticking to it). But more importantly, as Kevin Carmichael notes, the Conservatives have been backing the government’s strategy to date on this. Of course, Andrew Scheer made a big deal during his big speech on Friday to insist that the Conservatives were going to be the adults in the room on foreign policy (which is risible considering the bulk of their record), but it also defies the reality of the situation. Even John Baird called bullshit on this line of reasoning – there was no reason for Canada to be part of those particular discussions, and this hasn’t really put us in a weakened position, and for all of the Conservatives’ sniggering about the labour chapter that Freeland has been advocating, wages were a big part of this deal that was struck with Mexico. (It’s also adorable that Erin O’Toole tries to make out that the Liberal strategy is all about domestic political posturing, which is exactly what he’s engaging in with his press release).

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1034187012415340544

In the meantime, industry players in Canada are looking for more details, while Philippe Couillard is vowing not to accept any compromises that will affect Supply Management, so that could be fun while the Quebec election rolls along.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1034216416512172033

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about Scheer’s assertions

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer went to Calgary yesterday to talk to that city’s Chamber of Commerce and said a few things that I feel should probably stand a bit of questioning. Like the fact that he thinks it’s a “red flag” to use taxpayer funds to backstop the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. And it’s fair that there’s scepticism about governments essentially subsidizing private business, but it’s his assertion that “governments investing tax dollars in energy projects is not the optimal solution.” Sure, it’s not optimal, but it’s complete and total historical revisionism to suggestion that this is somehow new or novel. Given the ways that governments, both federal and provincial, have de facto subsidized the development of the oilsands with generous royalty breaks and other tax incentives has been sinking a hell of a lot of taxpayer dollars into energy projects. And yes, there was a whole national crisis that had a hand in bringing down a federal government around the government sinking money into a cross-country pipeline.

But the other statement that Scheer makes that I find a bit puzzling is this continued insistence that somehow provinces were forced to “take matters into their own hands” over the Trans Mountain issue because the federal government showed a lack of leadership. And I’m still trying to figure out how this works. For starters, which provinces is he referring to? BC, which took it upon themselves to challenge federal jurisdiction in a naked attempt to appease a coalition partner? Or Alberta, who escalated tactics on the basis of a press release? “They should use all of the tools at their disposal,” Scheer insists of the federal government, and yet I’m not sure what exactly they were supposed to do. They already have jurisdiction – trying to re-assert it would imply that there was a question when there isn’t one, and creating doubt would embolden opponents. There wasn’t anything to challenge in the courts because BC had only put out a press release, and nobody even had a clue about what specific questions BC was raising until they filed their court reference this past week. How would going half-cocked have helped matters? But demanding they “use all the tools” sounds an awful lot like hand-wavey nonsense that serves to only invoke the politician’s syllogism than it does to suggest meaningful action. Kinder Morgan, meanwhile, has used this exercise in threatening to pull out in order to exact political leverage (and the fact that a private company is attempting to blackmail governments is not a good look), but there remain questions outside of all of this as to their own obligations to fulfil the conditions imposed on them by the National Energy Board for continued approval of the project. That can’t be glossed over.

I’m also curious what else he thinks the federal government should have done to silence BC’s objections, considering that he’s also supporting the Saskatchewan government’s attempt to push back against the imposition of the federal carbon backstop price. Is his position that federal governments should bigfoot provinces to get pipelines, but that they don’t dare interfere in areas of shared jurisdiction like the environment? That’s an interesting needle to thread, and somehow, I doubt we’ll see him attempting to do so anytime soon.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Protected nominations and the suffocation of the grassroots

Posted on by

Oh, Liberals. You’ve really gone and done it again, haven’t you? All of your grand talk about respecting parliament, and now you’ve decided that you’re going to go and protect the nominations of your incumbent MPs, so long as they meet a set of criteria that, while better than nothing, is not all that onerous. Never mind that four years ago, it was all about how open nominations were about community leaders devoted to community service, but now? Now it’s about ensuring that your MPs simply have a big enough war chest and participate in a bare minimum of door knocking over the course of a year. You’d think that with this list of requirements, ensuring that there still remains an actual nomination process wouldn’t be too difficult – after all, if the excuse is that they’re so busy in Ottawa that they can’t be also running for their old jobs, then ensuring that they’re still doing the work that would be associated with a nomination process seems like a pointless self-inflicted black eye, no?

I’m not going to re-litigate this too much, but I wrote about why protected nominations are a Bad Thing in Maclean’s last year, but it really boils down to one basic concept – accountability. The biggest reason to ensure that there are open nominations is to ensure that a riding can hold their incumbent to account without needing to vote for another party to do so. Protecting nominations removes more power from the grassroots party members and enshrines it in the leader’s office, which is exactly the opposite of what should be happening. (And yes, Trudeau has centralized a hell of a lot of power, especially after pushing through the changes to the party’s constitution). And by imposing those thresholds to ensure that the nomination is protected, it creates incentive for the incumbent MP to treat that riding association like a personal re-election machine, rather than a body that holds that MP to account at the riding level.

To be clear, this isn’t just a Liberal problem. The Conservatives also set a fairly high bar to challenge incumbent nominations, some of which we’ve seen in recent weeks, but that’s been accompanied by rumblings that some of these challenges have been stickhandled out of the leader’s office, which is even more distressing for grassroots democracy. The erosion of grassroots democracy is a very real crisis in our political system, but most people don’t understand what these changes mean, more content to chide the Liberals for broken promises about open nominations than be alarmed at what the bigger picture result is. It’s a pretty serious problem, and it’s bigger than just a broken promise.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Turning down the committee

Posted on by

It was pretty much as expected. The Commons ethics committee met yesterday and the opposition MPs assembled pleaded with the Liberal majority on the committee to think of the children – err, I mean, think about the meaning of holding the government to account when it came to the demand to call for the PM to appear to answer questions about the Ethics Commissioner’s findings regarding his vacation to the Aga Khan’s island. I will grant that the Liberals could have insisted that they go in camera for this, but didn’t. Rather, they simply said that, having read the report, and taking into account that the PM had apologised, answered questions in the media, and would be answering questions in QP on this topic, that it was enough. And so the motion was defeated 6-3, which surprised no one.

From the arguments presented, there is a little more that we could dig into. For example, Nathan Cullen said he wanted the PM’s suggestions on how to improve the rules – but if he cared about those, he would have taken the many suggestions that Mary Dawson has been making over the past decade and implemented those, but he, nor his party, nor any parliamentarian, has been keen to do that. And his worrying that the PM is ultimately accountable to parliament is true, but that ultimately means that if Cullen is so concerned, he can move a motion of non-confidence in the PM on the NDP’s next Supply Day and try to convince the Liberal ranks of the merits of his argument. As for the Conservatives, they seemed far more interested in seeing some grovelling the PM, and demanding that he repay the full cost of the trip (which would include the Challenger and security costs), never mind that during the Harper era, his “reimbursement” for his own private trips was supposed to be at economy fares, but nobody could find fares as low as the ones he was repaying (and there were several incidents of party stalwarts getting subsidized airfare improperly). And that whole incident nearly six years ago when they wanted Harper to appear to answer questions on the ClusterDuff Affair? Well, that was then and this is now, and Trudeau promised to be more open and transparent. (Err, remember when Stephen Harper rode into office on the white horse of accountability and transparency? Yeah, me neither).

And while opposition staffers chirp at my on the Twitter Machine about how it’s the role of MPs to hold the government to account – true – and that a committee setting is less theatrical than QP – not true – I will reiterate that the point of this exercise is not actually about accountability, but rather about gathering media clips under the protection of parliamentary privilege. If you think there would be sober questions asked, and that this would be a serious exercise in accountability, then you’re sorely mistaken. It remains a political calculus, and Trudeau has determined that it’s not worth it to spend an hour having the most torqued accusations hurled at him in the hopes that something sticks, and hoping for that “gold” clip that they can share around social media. If we’re going to lament the lack of accountability, then everyone needs to take a share of responsibility there – not just the PM.

Continue reading →