Tag Archives: Kevin O’Leary

Roundup: A curious silence

Posted on by

After a long weekend of seeing waaaay too much social media abuse hurled at Ruth Ellen Brosseau regarding The Elbowing, and both the Liberals and Conservatives coming to her defence, I am struck that no NDP MP has come forward to take any responsibility for the apocalyptic rhetoric they hurled at the Prime Minister on Brosseau’s behalf that she is now being blamed for, even though she didn’t actually say anything other than to acknowledge that yes, she was elbowed. Also, I remain bemused that people continue to muse about Justin Trudeau’s “anger management issues” and temper when it was Thomas Mulcair who exploded into a rage ball as it all happened, which forced MPs around to separate him physically from Trudeau. Also, amusingly, an Ontario newspaper took the Beaverton fake news article about the NDP showing up the day after The Elbowing in wheelchairs and neck braces as being true. So there’s that. Meanwhile, we’ve got a week for tempers to cool and to see if the House Leaders can come up with any kind of schedule regarding the remaining legislation that needs to be passed while ensuring the opposition feels they’ve had enough time to debate the assisted dying bill, while also noting that it looks like Parliament will sit extra late this year as the Senate contemplates those bills with likely amendments, and keeping in mind that President Obama is due to address a joint session of Parliament on June 29th – which is after the June 23rd date that the Commons was supposed to rise for the summer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Six months later

Posted on by

The Liberal government is now six months old, so everyone is checking in on the list of their promises kept and broken. This one list, compiled from the “Trudeau Meter,” however, is a bit nitpicky on some of those “broken” promises, calling them broken because there was no mention in this year’s budget when there are three more years of budgets left in the current mandate, and it’s pretty hard to expect everything to have happened in the first six months of a government, when there are a lot of moving pieces to keep track of. In other words, give them a little more time before you declare all of these promises broken. The deficit figures for this year continue to look better than anticipated as the Fiscal Monitor shows continued surpluses into the spring months (which the Conservatives will be insufferable about in QP next week, I can promise you), but that may be because CRA is apparently having a banner year in terms of collecting lapsed taxes, up to an extra $1 billion so far. So there’s that. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have the challenge of trying to stay united during this period of transition for their party, particularly as the leadership contest starts to intensify. As for the NDP, they’re now struggling to remain relevant six months later. So there’s that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Go knock doors

Posted on by

While I’ve pretty much said my piece on the Manning Conference, one last headline caught my eye yesterday, which was the “Traditional campaigns dead! It’s a digital world now!” variety, which made me roll my eyes a bit, but here it is. The “experts” – all American – talk about how Facebook and digital ads are where it’s at instead of TV advertising, but it seems to me like they missed entirely what happened during the last federal election – you know, something that the Conservatives might have a vested interest in actually learning from their mistakes in, rather than what is going on south of the border, with their utterly insane primary season and unlimited corporate and private money. Because seriously, if they paid attention to what the Liberals did here, it was actually a lot of traditional campaigning, which was door-knocking. Yes, they flooded social media with their “days of action,” which featured candidates and their teams – wait for it – door-knocking. There wasn’t a series of YouTube or Facebook ads that won the election for the Liberals – in fact, the only commercial that anyone remembers is the one with Trudeau on the escalator, and mostly because everyone tried to mock it (not all of it effectively). How often in the last decade did we hear about the Conservatives’ fearsome electoral machine with their CIMS database, and how that was helping them cut swaths though campaigns based on the smiley and frowney faces of voter identification? It didn’t win them the election. Yes, the Liberals rebuilt their own voter identification database (“Liberalist”), but again, what was it used for? Door-knocking, and canvassing donations, but it also bears noting that the Liberals did not spend the most money, disproving that money is what wins elections. So if you’ll excuse me, I’ll take the words of these American “experts” that the Conservatives enlisted with a grain of salt, while the traditional shoe-leather method of direct voter engagement and going from door-to-door is putting in the hard work that won a majority of seats.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Looking beyond mediocrity

Posted on by

It’s Manning Networking Conference time again, and with a leadership contest in the offing, you can bet that some possible leadership hopefuls are starting to lay out a few markers (even if Nigel Wright wants them to focus more on policy). Jason Kenney is again “contemplating” a run after apparently recovering from burnout after the election (and it does bear noting that he’s only just started showing up to QP again). Peter MacKay thinks that the Conservatives can beat Trudeau of they’re smart about it, while others like Michael Chong and Diane Watts think the party needs to do better on issues like the environment. But all eyes, of course, were on Kevin O’Leary, who said a few outrageous things as he is wont to – that he wants a national referendum on pipelines, that he thinks it should be the law that a prime minister has to have run a business before they can lead the country, or that he thinks the party system is becoming doomed in the wake of a mass populist movement where people wants politicians to solve their problems regardless of political brand or label. Of the many things he did say, one that I thought merited a little more attention was his calling out the Conservatives for having become a party of mediocrity, and I do think that’s true, as it built itself around the personal brand of Stephen Harper post merger. Despite the NDP using phrases like “Bay Street buddies” in their references to the Conservatives over the past decade, there was really very little of that kind of branding to the party. It wasn’t about wealth (despite their policies actually benefitting the wealthy) or aspiration, or even markets once you really broke it down, but rather about this attempt to appeal to the suburban nuclear family in all of its messaging and the way it built programmes (but again, while they appeared to be for these suburban masses, the benefits disproportionately went to the top). Harper himself cultivated the image of being some minivan driving hockey dad, despite the fact that he was both a career politician, and it soon became clear that his kids weren’t much into hockey either (though his son was apparently quite the volleyball player, for what it’s worth). For O’Leary, whose brand is about greed being good, and a certain conspicuousness to his wealth, it’s pretty much anathema to the suburban image that Harper was crafting, and that his ministers followed suit in embodying. The closest they got to any Bay Street types was Joe Oliver, but he again was less about materialism or consumerism than he was about parroting approved Harper talking points. It is interesting that this is something that O’Leary has picked up on and would certainly be pushing back on should he decide to go ahead and pursue a leadership bid, because that would certainly be a radical shake-up for the party.

Continue reading →

Roundup: De-Canadianizing the Crown

Posted on by

A decision from the Quebec Superior Court came down yesterday which will have grave constitutional implications for Canada, yet few people actually know or understand it. The case challenged the royal succession law that the previous government passed as part of the series of reforms passed in all of the realms that share Queen Elizabeth II as their respective monarch, and by most reckonings, the Canadian law was a complete sham, simply assenting to UK legislation, in essence subordinating the Canadian Crown to a subset of the UK crown, despite the fact that they became separate entities after the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The Quebec Superior Court, however, sided with the Department of Justice, that the monarch was the same per the preamble of the constitution as opposed to a separate legal entity, and essentially reducing Canada back to a subordinate British colony, all because the Harper government didn’t want to go through the necessary steps of doing a proper constitutional amendment to change the Office of the Queen to match the aims of reform. So long, Queen of Canada. We hardly knew you.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699675727185256448

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699676140714258434

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699677275999113218

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678028784410624

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678843540545536

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678990441848832

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686628005179392

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686740714463234

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686958084288512

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699687878658494465

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689056171597824

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689344253173761

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691519066947588

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691722750742529

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699811121620889600

Continue reading →

Roundup: Weak sauce mea culpa

Posted on by

It only took a hundred days, but the NDP membership finally got some kind of a public mea culpa from leader Thomas Mulcair over the way the last election went down, and good news – he takes full responsibility for what happened! But much as Rebecca Blaikie’s interim report goes soft on what Mulcair did wrong, Mulcair’s own reckoning of events is still going pretty soft on things that happened as opposed to some of the myths that are being built up. Things like the balanced budget pledge, which Mulcair said overshadowed the “social democratic economic vision” where they thought they could squeeze all kinds of money out of corporate taxes, CEOs and tax havens, which any competent economist will remind you that you certainly can’t get the kind of money they’re talking from any of those sources. Mulcair goes soft on the observation that they lacked an over-arching narrative that could be easily communicated, when problem was less of a lack of an overall message, but a really poor message that they settled on, which was then badly communicated because, well, the message was poor to begin with. The message, of course, being “good, competent public administration,” and after Canadians had put up with a prime minister who had all of the pizzazz of dull wood varnish, Mulcair would show up to debates, smize like his life depended on it, and proceeded to look like someone on Valium because he was more intent on controlling his temper than he was in engaging with real ideas to present rather than some tired – and in come cases baffling – talking points. And this is what they sent up against most dynamic and charismatic political leader in over a generation. Couple this with some pretty disastrous policy rollouts – recall the initial release of their “costed platform” that didn’t actually have any breakdowns of numbers, but had some nonsense headings like “helping Canadians in need” that journalists rightly questioned, and when we did get numbers, they were based on some wrong assumptions. Campaigns matter, and both Mulcair and Blaikie have been downplaying that it was a poorly run campaign. Mulcair’s letter also contained some rather cryptic references to “overhauling the way caucus works,” but it’s vague, and isn’t owning up to their over-centralization that made the Conservatives’ centralisation efforts look elementary. That centralization has been carrying on to this day, which, when compared to the Liberals’ governing by cabinet rather than the leader’s office, and where their ministers are answering the bulk of their questions off-the-cuff and on their feet while the NDP (Mulcair included) have their scripts in front of them every time they rise in the Chamber, it looks stifling and controlling. So far, I’m not seeing much of a willingness to confront these truths so that they can do something to change them, which the party membership is going to have to weight when the leadership review comes in April.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/697642773235695616

Continue reading →

Roundup: An appointment panel is named

Posted on by

The government announced the composition of the permanent members of the Senate appointment advisory board, along with the ad hoc members of the three provincial members for the Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba seats that they plan to fill immediately. The federal members are headed by Huguette Labelle, a former senior civil servant and chancellor of Ottawa University, along with Indira Samarasekera, the former president of U of A who comes from a physical sciences background, and Daniel Jutras, a dean of law from McGill University. The provincial members have more varied backgrounds, including one Manitoba member who is a folk singer who also dabbles in pseudoscience around past lives, so oops there. They expect to make their first round of recommendations by the end of February – later than would have been hoped, but it’s only about three sitting weeks, so not too long to delay processes in the Senate, particularly as one of those first five appointments is to be the government’s new “coordinator” in the Senate (which remains a boneheaded suggestion if you ask me, considering that they will have no Senate experience whatsoever). And then come the complaints, mostly from the Conservatives (though the NDP did their share of tutting and shaking their heads about the “undemocratic” nature of the Senate). The problem with the complaints, largely coming out of Conservative Senate Leader Claude Carignan’s office, is that they’re grasping at straws – two of the academics were Trudeau Foundation scholars, so that obviously means they’re Liberals and can’t possibly be independent, right? No, seriously, that was Carignan’s argument. Also, that they were too elitist to pick “ordinary” Canadians to sit in the Senate, which actually isn’t their mandate. They are supposed to look for people with distinguished public service or who have some legislative experience. While I have my particular issues with the notion that the new Senators appointed through this process will all be independent (no, that’s not a guarantee, and nothing can stop them from joining whichever caucus they choose), there is this endemic chattering amongst Conservative senators that they’ll just all be Liberals by any other name, and as a result, they denounce the whole process. Never mind that the process by which some of those same senators got appointed was not particularly well run (the panic appointments of 2008 produced a number of senators of dubious merit), it makes their objections to this process to seem a bit precious. The other complaints – that because the appointment panel was not chosen by all-party consensus, that their deliberations are secret, that the short-lists are similarly kept secret, that the PM isn’t bound by the list – are all frankly out of step with the practice of Responsible Government and the constitution, and make no sense. Scott Reid’s complaint that it’s a process insulting to Albertans and their “elected” senators is also farcical considering the sham election process and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Senate reference case. And while there is plenty of things that could be criticised about the way this process is happening, the fact that the Conservatives are choosing the most ridiculous and specious arguments is a sign of that they’re not taking this seriously, which blunts the effectiveness of their role as official opposition.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The consideration of anachronisms

Posted on by

You know that I can’t resist a good Senate piece, and lo, University of Ottawa law professor Adam Dodek provides us with one, urging the government to move on what constitutional Senate reforms that are within its grasp – the things they can change without the provinces, namely property requirements, the net-worth requirement, and the use of “he” in the constitution. While the third seems blatantly obvious, one wonders whether there are other instances in the constitution, in either official language, where the gender defaults to male, and whether that would need to be updated at the same time. As for the property and net worth requirements, one has to ask what purpose changing them serves in the modern age. The $4000 figure in both real property and net worth has never been inflation adjusted, so the figures present little barrier to anyone actually qualifying in this day and age, as the way that they came to accommodation to allow Sister Peggy Butts to sit in the Senate are a good example. (Well, except for freelance journalists, in case anyone still harbours the illusion that I’m lobbying for a Senate seat). While Dodek posits that the requirements were part of an attempt to create a landed gentry in Canada that failed, my own reading of history has tended to an attempt to attract a more “serious” sort to the Upper Chamber, and let’s not forget that these were the days when there was a property requirement to exercise the franchise at all (and until the rules changed, women who owned property could actually vote, though almost none did). The property requirement does help to serve as a kind of shorthand for the primary residence question (except when monkeyed around to fit appointments into inappropriate areas for political considerations *cough*Mike Duffy*cough*), and in Quebec, it has the added significance of the historical senatorial divisions that marked minority enclaves that were to have designated representation. While those divisions have not been updated, one supposes that there is a debate to be had as to whether to update them to better reflect the modern Quebec, or to keep them as is in order to serve as a historical touchstone to remind us about the Senate’s role in giving voice to and protecting minority communities. Which leads us back to the question of why we want to undertake this exercise in the first place – is it necessary? I’m not seeing the pressing need for these changes, other than the usual “because it’s anachronistic” excuse. That’s the thing about a parliamentary system though – much of it is anachronistic, but that’s part of the beauty, because it is a direct touchstone to the evolution of our system, such as why the monarch is not allowed in the Commons. That the Senate has anachronistic property requirements that are no great barrier to membership demonstrates the evolution of our system in a very real way, and keeps parliament grounded. To do away with the harmless requirements for the sake of modernizing it risks losing that historical touchstone that is so absent from many things in politics these days, to our detriment.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Religious Freedom office on the line

Posted on by

In a month, Canada’s Religious Freedom ambassador’s first three-year term will expire, as will his office’s budget. He’s been making the rounds, once again, to talk about how much value there is in his office in helping our diplomats understand the religious points of view that dominate certain other countries, and uses that as the justification for his office. In a piece by the Citizen, there are a few other voices who say that he’s been doing a good job, and that he’s been available and accessible to talk about certain foreign policy issues, which is all well and good, but there does remain a certain discomfort around the very existence of the office and its raison d’etre. Part of that has to do with the suspicion that this was an office designed like its American counterpart to essentially be an office of Christian proselytising around the world – and to a certain extent, the press releases we did see out of that office seemed to weigh in particular to countries where there was a Christian minority in some level of persecution. But what the Citizen article misses is a more existential problem that the office faces, which is that its very existence creates a problem of perception in terms of a hierarchy of rights. The previous government in many statements it made in the Commons and elsewhere seemed to point to freedom of religion being a more fundamental building block to other rights and freedoms, which is fairly anathema to human rights academia. Back when the office was created, I spoke to a number of scholars who were sceptical because it introduced the notion that there was a hierarchy of rights, when all rights should be treated equally, lest they get their own departments within Global Affairs, and the jockeying for status, position and funding would take over. It remains to be seen what Stéphane Dion and the Liberal government thinks of the Office and whether they will be inclined to keep it around, or possibly absorb it into some other department within Global Affairs, of if they are persuaded by the argument of the perceptions of hierarchy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Prairie drama queens

Posted on by

Finance minister Bill Morneau was in Calgary yesterday as part of his pre-budget consultations, and while listening to the questions during his televised press conference after the meeting, I am forced to wonder if Albertans aren’t trying to be Confederation’s biggest drama queens about their current economic woes (and yes, I say this as a former Albertan). You’d think that the province was actually disintegrating, but if you look at their numbers, their unemployment rates are only now reaching the national average (around 7 percent), and those that are employed (being the vast majority) are making more money in those jobs than the national averages. Yes, their provincial budget has a huge hole blown through it with the fall in oil revenues, but it’s nothing compared to what Newfoundland & Labrador’s budget hole is looking like with their own oil shock. Meanwhile, I don’t hear the pundit class bemoaning the job losses in that province, or people threatening their premier (though he’s been on the job only a couple of months). People were asking Morneau about extraordinary funding mechanisms outside of equalisation, and while he demurred on answering most of it, I am reminded of the usual Twitter snark of some economists like Mike Moffatt, who quite rightly point out that nobody would have even contemplated the kinds of bailouts for southwestern Ontario when their manufacturing centre crashed the way you hear about what they’re demanding for Alberta. The other problem that the loudest of critics (especially Kevin O’Leary) can’t seem to grasp is that there is a global supply problem with oil – there’s too much in the market, which has depressed prices. What exactly can Alberta’s provincial government do to prop up the sector when there’s already too much supply in the market? Even getting that oil to tidewater would just be adding even more to the global supply chain, which one would imagine wouldn’t help with the depressed prices. Supply and demand, and all of that. Yes, it’s a challenge, and it’s a long-term one that’s rearing its head now. Yes, there is a need for some bigger transformation initiatives, and the provincial government is looking to make changes, and I’m sure the federal government will try to get in on that action, but transitions are difficult things. There are going to be hard periods ahead, but simply demanding federal handouts and calling for Rachel Notley’s head aren’t helping matters.

Continue reading →