Tag Archives: Kathleen Wynne

Roundup: A more modest budget than feared

Posted on by

We are now somewhere around day forty-four of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia’s retreat from Chernihiv has shown much more destruction in its wake. Given that Russia is re-positioning to the Donbas region, Ukraine is trying to maintain humanitarian corridors from the area, while pleading with NATO and other countries for yet more weapons to fight the Russian invaders. Meanwhile, RCMP officers in Canada are reaching out to Ukrainians who have made it here to gather evidence of Russian war crimes, so that it can be forwarded to The Hauge.

As for the budget, it was not the orgy of NDP-led spending that Candice Bergen and others had been hinting at, though it did increase spending somewhat, but that was largely offset by higher revenues thanks to the booming economy. The deficit is reducing rapidly, as is the debt-to-GDP ratio, which is the “fiscal anchor.” In fact, Bergen’s reaction speech was pretty much drafted with a very different budget in mind, and when called on this, she prevaricated. Jagmeet Singh, predictably, said there was enough in there for him to support (checklist here), but he still put on a show about criticising things he didn’t like, and the environmental provisions in particular.

https://twitter.com/AdamScotti/status/1512237421513125897

Some specifics:

  • Here are the $10 billion in housing measures the government is proposing, though some of those measures will do nothing for affordability.
  • The corporate tax rate is going up, and there is a special surcharge being levied against banks and insurance companies, as promised.
  • There is money allocated for dental care, but no details on the implementation mechanism, which is very important to have.
  • The $8 billion over five years in new defence spending won’t get us to the NATO two-percent goal, but a needed defence review is included.
  • There is some $500 million earmarked for more military aid for Ukraine, plus another $1 billion in loans to prop up their economy.
  • There is new money for cyber-security, much of it going to CSE.
  • Some $15 billion is earmarked for the creation of two new arms-length bodies to help with medium-and-long term growth.
  • There is $4.3 billion over seven years for Indigenous housing.
  • As expected, the tax credit for carbon capture and storage projects is drawing heat from environmental groups.
  • There is $3.7 million being earmarked for mental health services for Black civil servants (as they have a class action lawsuit underway).
  • There is some more money for arts organizations including the National Arts Centre.
  • Both the National Post and The Canadian Press have lists of smaller items in the budget that may have escape notice.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The inevitable comparisons will be flawed

Posted on by

It’s the anniversary of the Capitol Hill insurrection, so you can expect the media on both sides of the border to be full of thinkpieces about What It All Means™, particularly as America continues down the path of being a failed state. So while there is some good stuff out there, such as this good analysis piece, we’ll see some inevitable “what about Canada?” pieces out there as well. Case in point:

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478858665423745026

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478861864541036544

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478865054699294726

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478868398192930817

To answer Wherry’s question, there aren’t the same structural weak points in Canada, because our system is far more robust than the Americans’ system. For example, the insurrection happened on the date that Congress had to ratify election results, which doesn’t happen here, because Parliament is dissolved for an election. Elections Canada, which answers to the Crown, does the work of verifying election results, and they have uniform rules around the country, unlike the US, where every state and county runs their own federal polls, and there is no uniformity and voting rights are a mess across the board. We don’t have their gerrymandering because we gave that to arm’s-length judge-run panels decades ago. Nothing could prevent a transfer of power, short of a recalcitrant Governor General, and in that case, there would be the recourse of going to the Queen, but even in those cases, things tend to work behind the scenes to prevent that eventuality from ever happening (because the first rule of constitutional monarchy is that you keep the Queen out of it).

Our structure is sound, but we do have a problem with bad actors because much of our system depends on people having a sense of honour or decency to do the right thing, and when they don’t, things get sticky. They tend to work out in the long run because it’s resilient—but if we go about codifying a bunch of things that operate by convention, we would likely find things being perverted even more so, because then the impetus to find ways around those written rules becomes apparent, rather than there being a broader spirit of the convention to be upheld. It also tends to lead to all kinds of unexpected consequences—Erin O’Toole weaponizing the (garbage) Reform Act is proof of that. And it’s hard to build systems to be bad actor-proof, because bad actors will find a way to exploit the system to their ends. We do need to fix some things in our system, such as the way we’ve bastardised leadership contests and turned them into quasi-presidential primaries, the broader point is that we don’t have the same structural vulnerabilities that the Americans have, which is a good thing, but we do need to be on guard to ensure that bad actors don’t get the chance to wreak havoc.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wynne’s final gambit

Posted on by

The big news over the weekend was the extremely curious decision by Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne to essentially concede defeat of the election days before the vote and urge Liberal voters to return enough MPPs to Queen’s Park to hold the NDP or the Progressive Conservatives to a minority, ensuring that neither party gets a “blank cheque” come Friday. Wynne also stated that she wouldn’t be premier after Thursday, but that’s not quite correct – she may signal her intention to resign on Thursday, but she would still be in the job another two or three weeks during the transition period because as we know, Her Majesty must always have someone there to give her advice. That’s how Responsible Government works, after all.

This having been said, I’ve had a few people ask me what I think of the move, and I’ve had a hard time with it. So little about this election makes any kind of sense, but here we are. Some political scientists say that this is a clever long game to keep her personal unpopularity from sinking the party entirely, and that seems to be echoed by members of her own party who were blindsided by the move, but who say that it may help with people who feel that they want to still vote for the local Liberal MPP but not for a continuation of the Wynne-led government. And after some consideration, I do think this is part of the calculation – to reassure Liberal voters (particularly in safer-Liberal seats) that they can still vote for their MPP and still have an eye on the bigger picture that won’t necessarily mean a Liberal government, as opposed to the supposition that this is just about handing votes to the NDP in a bid to keep Ford out of office.

Andrea Horwath, meanwhile, is already ruling out any kind of Liberal support to in a minority situation, which is a) not wholly unexpected for someone who suddenly has a shot at forming government; but b) is also potentially a dangerous gambit should she be forced to walk back from those sentiments if she does rely on having Liberal seats to keep her government from falling in short order. And it really is up in the air right now as to where things are sitting, so I’m sure we’ll be having all kinds of conversations about government formation in the next week or two. (If you need a head start, read up in my book).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A tire fire of a debate

Posted on by

Last night was the third and final leaders’ debate in the Ontario election, and it was…terrible. Painful to watch. And yet here we are. Doug Ford promised all kinds of increased spending, and promised not a single layoff, while he offered no specifics on any promise, and a false version of history of when he was at Toronto City Hall. Andrea Horwath promised some different spending than the Liberals, that she would end “hallway medicine,” while being overly generous on the hole in her party’s platform and the fact that she doesn’t stand for Hitler memes (while not having actually rebuked or dumped the candidate accused of posting one). Kathleen Wynne was sorry that people don’t like her personally, but isn’t sorry for her record, and she offered detailed policy in a format that didn’t let leaders fully answer questions and where Horwath in particular kept interrupting and aggressively talking over everyone else. In all, a demonstration that this whole election is absolutely terrible.

In reaction, Chris Selley remarks on Ford’s performance – that the only place he stood out was his promises around childcare (though he didn’t offer specifics, which are that his tax credit won’t amount to much for parents), while David Reevely noted Horwath’s aggressive challenges around Ford’s lack of platform or Wynne’s stance around collective bargaining, showing more fire than Wynne, who was building an intellectual case in a lawyerly tone for much of the debate, only really finding her own fire when she pushed back against accusations around the Hydro One sale.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performative anxiety over the pipeline bill

Posted on by

There’s a bit of performative wailing and gnashing of teeth emanating from the Senate, as the nonsense bill from Conservative-turned-Independent Senator Doug Black about declaring the Trans Mountain pipeline in the national interest passed earlier this week, and they have no indication whether it will be passed by the Commons in short order. After all, there are only some eight days until Kinder Morgan’s “deadline” comes to pass, and under the politician’s syllogism, something must be done and this is something, therefore we must do this. Never mind that as a bill, it’s constitutional nonsense because the preamble invokes Section 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act 1867, and the project is already federal jurisdiction because it crosses a provincial boundary; invoking the section would imply that it is provincial jurisdiction (it’s not), or that it would perversely declare a federal issue to be provincial for the sake of declaring it federal again (which sets up a really terrible precedent for the future). The bigger problem is that it’s a Senate public bill, which means that when it gets to the Commons, it needs a sponsor (not a difficult get for Black in this case), and then it goes into the queue of private members’ business. It could be weeks before that refreshes and it earns a slot for debate, which will be well past the artificial deadline from Kinder Morgan. This despite the fact that the bill should be defeated because it’s constitutional nonsense. And the Conservative senators who are currently complaining that they have no indication if the government will pass the bill immediately know better – there isn’t a mechanism for them to do so, barring a motion to pass it at all stages once it’s on the Order Paper. Which it’s not. But hey, facts have never stopped anyone from making a big show of something like this before, so why start now?

In other pipeline news, no other company has publicly declared that they are willing to take over the Trans Mountain pipeline if Kinder Morgan backs out (but I’m not sure why they would say so at this point, because I’m sure it would drive up the price if they sounded eager). Jagmeet Singh has firmly put himself in BC’s camp on the issue, earning the rebuke of Rachel Notley – and the fact that he hasn’t bothered to even call her has Notley questioning his maturity. That western premiers meeting that Notley sent her deputy premier to instead happened, and said deputy didn’t sign onto the final communiqué because it wouldn’t show support for Trans Mountain, while BC premier John Horgan talks out of both sides of his mouth, demanding that the expansion be halted while demanding the existing pipeline continue to carry fuel for BC, and insisting that the two are very separate issues.

Meanwhile, as Alberta turns into a single-issue province, I continue to be amazed at the hyperbole being expressed on this issue. One pipeline advocate yesterday referred to BC as a “rogue state.” Guys. Seriously? The most BC has done is hold a press conference and file a court reference that they are likely to lose. This drama queen routine is getting a little embarrassing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The quest for a less arbitrary majority

Posted on by

The electoral reform committee met for the first time yesterday and got all of its housekeeping details out of the way – “electing” Francis Scarpaleggia as the chair (though it was unopposed) and naming Scott Reid and Nathan Cullen as the deputies, allocating clerks and resources, and starting to figure out when the meetings will begin, hearing from the outgoing Chief Electoral Officer to start with. But with all of this going on, it bears reminding what we are doing with this whole “reform” endeavour in the first place, much of which has to do with the complaints that parties that don’t get a majority of the votes wield a majority of the power. Joseph Heath writes a great piece debunking this kind of thinking that everyone should read, because it is a reminder that trying to find a “true majority” becomes a futile quest – there is enough arbitrariness in any system that there can never be an actual majority, but it is simply more naked under First-Past-the-Post. Changing the system just moves the goalposts in different ways – indeed, proportional systems just removes the possibilities of majority government with the horse-trading of coalitions, which brings yet more arbitrariness into the system. So good luck, committee members, with your stated goals for the system you wish to choose when they are built upon foundations of sand.

Meanwhile, as our friends in the media write yet more stories about what the committee will be looking at, can I please offer the reminder about doing some actual research when it comes to systems like ranked ballots. Consistently our media colleagues have repeated the grossly distorted line that ranked ballots somehow “increase the disparities of first-past-the-post.” We’ve seen this over and over again, especially as the NDP and their Broadbent Institute brethren have picked it up as a talking point. No.

This supposed fact comes from a single analysis done by CBC’s Eric Grenier using a single poll done around the time of the election regarding second choices. That’s it. It doesn’t detail how the system actually works and what it is designed to do, which is to eliminate tactical voting, and yet we’ve never heard that description used once. Oh, wait – I used it in a sidebar I researched for the Ottawa Citizen. But that’s it. It would be nice if other journalists writing about this file could actually go and do a bit of research on their own rather than repeating the talking points provided to them by partisans, because we might get a better understanding of what is actually up for debate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The return of the Reform Act

Posted on by

Despite hopes that we might be rid of this nonsense, Michael Chong is back with a vengeance, plugging for parties to implement the Reform Act when their caucuses meet in the coming weeks, and hey, he’s not done spouting a bunch of complete bollocks about the new legislation! A reminder: The Reform Act is de facto useless, and de jure harmful to our system of government. I’ve outlined it all before here, here and here, so that soil is well tilled, but suffice to say, it’s not going to empower MPs like he says as MPs already have that power but simply don’t exercise it. It will, in fact, do the opposite. But then there’s some troubling statements he made on Power & Politics last night regarding his idea of the role of the Senate when it comes to leadership votes. Not only did his bill define the caucus as MPs only, but he stated that senators have no role in the selection of an interim leader because it was about (in this case) choosing the “leader of the opposition” which had nothing to do with the Senate, since MPs didn’t choose their leader. Nope – all wrong. It’s about choosing the interim party leader, not just leader in the Commons, and senators are just as much part of the party as MPs are. That makes a difference, particularly if the interim leader is going to be making organisational changes within the party structure which senators are every bit as entitled to have a say in as MPs. Also, because that leader will be able to choose who the Senate leader is going to be (well, for the Conservatives anyway – mileage may vary for future Liberal interim leadership votes), they have a vested interest in who will be chosen. Chong insisting otherwise is being disingenuous. So why is he making the big pitch – other than for the sake of his legislative legacy? Because I’m pretty sure that he’s building himself up for a permanent leadership bid as the “great reformer.” It’s too bad that his reforms are a sham that only serves to entrench what problems have grown in our system. But it’s all about looking like you’re changing things, right? It’s cynical, and sadly, a great many people (my journalistic colleagues included) will lap it right up.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Setting the ballot question

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, Chong’s bill won’t give us Australian leadership spills

Posted on by

News of the leadership spill in Australia, ousting Tony Abbott as prime minister and ending the greatest political bromance of the Commonwealth countries (Harper and Abbott were quite the mutual admiration society), we were suddenly inundated with Twitter musings about whether that could happen in Canada, thanks to Michael Chong’s Reform Act which passed this summer. While Kady O’Malley offers the “in theory” answer, the in practice answer is that no, it couldn’t happen here, because Canada has a terrible system of leadership selection that purports to “democratise” the system with grassroots involvement, but instead created an unaccountable and presidentialised system of an overly powerful leader that has little fear of their caucus turning on them, because caucus didn’t select them. When it comes to removal, selection matters. A lot. Chong’s bill, perversely, makes an Australian situation less likely by raising the bar for leadership challenges to happen in the first place, and would instead give us situations like what happened in Manitoba where a sitting leader was challenged, and when it went to a leadership process where he still participated and won based on the grassroots support when his caucus was no longer behind him, well, it’s ugly and it’s down right unparliamentary given that a leader needs to have the confidence of his or her caucus, and when they don’t but stay in based on grassroots votes, the system breaks down. Paul Wells cautions that reforming a system usually replaces real or perceive problems with different problems, while Andrew Coyne points out that being able to dump a bad leader quickly is the lesser evil of being stuck with them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: May’s magical thinking

Posted on by

It was Elizabeth May’s turn to go before Peter Mansbridge last night, and as with all other leaders, she too got the basics of government formation wrong – but unlike the others, May just got it wrong in a different way. She insisted that if Harper got a minority government, the opposition parties should be able to call the Governor General to insist that they get a chance to form government before Harper. Nope, that’s not how it works, because the incumbent remains the Prime Minister until he or she resigns. That’s because the position can never be vacant. Ever. Her Majesty must always have a government in place, and it’s the GG’s job to ensure that happens. So really, no matter the result on election night, the leader whose party wins the most seats isn’t invited to form government – the incumbent is still the government until they choose to resign, which may or may not involve testing the confidence of the Chamber first. May also revealed that she has the GG’s number and will make that call herself, as though he is obligated to take it. Remember of course that May has also previously written the Queen about issues, and treated form letter responses as vindication. It’s part of her particular problem of over-reading her mandate – she’s hugely conflated her role as an MP with that of being in government in the past, and it’s a problem with how she interacts with the system. It’s also part of her curious insistence that somehow, a handful of Green MPs sitting in opposition and not in a coalition cabinet would magically make a minority parliament a less fractious place. How, exactly? Did none of the proponents of more minority governments learn any lessons from the three minority parliaments prior to 2011? Apparently not, because the magical thinking prevails.

Continue reading →