Tag Archives: Kirsty Duncan

Roundup: A lack of enthusiasm

Posted on by

The House of Commons resumes today, and normally at this time I would have started to miss them all, and would be eagerly awaiting the first Question Period back, but this year? I’m having a hard time summoning the enthusiasm, which may be a reflection of just how tired I still am, or possibly because there isn’t a lot to get excited about right now. We are in this kind of holding pattern of outright lies coming from certain opposition parties, and a government that just carries on responding to absolutely everything with a mountain of pabulum. It also doesn’t help that almost nothing is getting done, because of dilatory motions on every single piece of legislation, and the fact that they passed only two non-budget-related bills in the fall doesn’t really give any confidence that they’re going to get stuff done.

With that in mind, I’m going to point you in the direction of this piece I wrote a few weeks ago about what is on the Order Paper, and it’s a lot, and considering how long some of the bills have been on there (carrying over from previous sessions or parliaments), one has to wonder just how they plan to get things done, and I suspect we’re going to be in for a lot more time allocation, closure, and other procedural tools to finally get these bills moving.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 341:

Russian missiles struck Kosyantynivka and an apartment building in Kharkiv, and the town of Chasiv Yar near Bakhmut. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s defence minister says that now that they have secured modern tanks, they are now looking for new fighter jets, and the president’s aide says that talks for planes and missiles are being fast-tracked.

https://twitter.com/maksymeristavi/status/1619040069490442241

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1619295582878834688

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford getting huffy about his Greenbelt plans

Posted on by

There was a hint of defensiveness from Ontario premier Doug Ford yesterday when he was asked about comments that the federal environment minister Steven Guilbeault made about the plans to develop parts of the Greenbelt. Guilbeault had pointed out that the plan goes against plans for dealing with climate change, and that he could look at potential federal tools to stop those projects, though later his office clarified that there are currently no projects proposed, so this was about potential legal processes to protect nature, which is fair enough, but is really getting up to the line on what he can actually do there.

Doug Ford, however, got a bit huffy and insisted that this is his jurisdiction, and then blamed the federal government’s immigration targets for needing to open up new spaces for housing development, which is bullshit because Ford has the tools to force cities to end exclusionary zoning that prevents densification, but he chooses not to use them. As well, much of the Greenbelt is on watersheds so you really don’t want to build housing there because it’ll be at high risk of flooding, and good luck getting those properties insured. It’s really not the place you want to build housing, so Ford is really not making any good case there for carving up those protected areas.

Of course, Jagmeet Singh also chimed in and demanded that the federal minister use his “tools” to stop the development, citing both the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act as possibilities, but that’s on some pretty thin ice. To use the Species legislation, well, you need to prove there is endangered habitat there, which may not be a relevant consideration in those particular places. And the Impact Assessment Act would be going out on a very big limb to try and assert jurisdiction there because there is unlikely to be an interprovincial federal effect to hang it on (such as increased GHGs or mine runoff). Yes, the minister currently has the power to add any project in exceptional circumstances, but I’m not sure this would qualify, if those powers are around much longer, because they’re being challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada in March, and this is far less of a sure thing than the carbon pricing legislation. Once again, there are very few ways for the federal government to swoop in and assert jurisdiction, and they may not have the ability to come to the rescue of the Greenbelt (and yes, Ontarians are going to have to organise if they want to stop the development).

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 339:

Renewed Russian shelling in the east and south killed ten Ukrainian civilians and wounded twenty others. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that Russians are focusing on Vuhledar and Bakhmut, methodically destroying towns and villages as they go. Meanwhile, here’s the tale of Canadian medic serving on the front lines near Bakhmut in Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reducing chances of a wage-price spiral

Posted on by

There have been a lot of misleading things said about the Bank of Canada’s concerns around a potential wage-price spiral, most of them from left-wing economists or union leaders (as well as Jagmeet Singh and Pierre Poilievre), who have wrongly said that either governor Tiff Macklem was blaming wages for inflation (false), or that he told business leaders not to raise wages (also false). What Macklem said was that when negotiating contracts, to remember that they were determined to get inflation back to two percent as quickly as possible, so don’t keep high raises out for too long, because that is what could drive a wage-price spiral. What that means is that because wages would be above the rate of inflation, it means that prices—particularly for services—would need to be raised to pay for those wages, which then keeps inflation higher for longer. It’s also why it’s not just price controls that have happened in the past, but wage and price controls, to try and keep that impetus in check.

Payroll data has been released, which demonstrates why the concerns about a wage-price spiral are abating. Kevin Milligan explains:

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1618678055396081665

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1618679010099359744

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1618680872106086402

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1618691478653644800

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 338:

Russians fired more missiles at Kyiv and places like Zaporizhzhia, killing eleven civilians in the process.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1618859295851921409

Continue reading →

Roundup: Look at all the chimeric ministers

Posted on by

With the usual bit of pomp and circumstance, the Cabinet has been shuffled in advance of Parliament being summoned. It is bigger by two bodies, there are seven new faces, a few new portfolios – and baffling ones at that – a few being folded back into their original ministries, and yes, gender parity was maintained throughout. The Cabinet committees are also getting a shuffle, which gives you a glimpse at what they see the focus will be, and spoiler alert, it’s very domestic and inward-looking – not much of a surprise in a hung parliament where there are few plaudits or seats to be won on foreign affairs files. It’s also no surprise that it’s Quebec and Ontario-heavy, and largely representing urban ridings, because that’s where the Liberals won their seats.

And thus, the biggest headline is of course that Chrystia Freeland has been moved from foreign affairs to intergovernmental affairs, but with the added heft of being named deputy prime minister – the first time this title has been employed since Paul Martin, and Freeland assures us that it’s going to come with some heft and not just be ceremonial. She’s also retaining the Canada-US file, so that there remains continuity and a steady hand on the tiller as the New NAFTA completes the ratification process. It also would seem to indicate that it gives her the ability to keep a number of fingers in a number of pies, but we’ll have to wait for her mandate letter to see what specifics it outlines, though the expectations that she will have to manage national unity in this somewhat fractious period is a tall order. Jonathan Wilkinson moving to environment has been matched with the expected talk about his upbringing and education in Saskatchewan, so as to show that he understands the prairies as he takes on the environment portfolio. Jim Carr is out of Cabinet officially, but he will remain on a Cabinet committee and be the prime minister’s “special representative” to the prairie provinces, which is supposed to be a less taxing role as he deals with cancer treatments (though I don’t see how that couldn’t be a recipe for high blood pressure, but maybe that’s just me). Two other ministers were demoted – Kirsty Duncan, who will become deputy House Leader, and Ginette Petitpas Taylor, who will become the deputy Whip – though it should be noted that both House Leader and Whip are of added importance in a hung parliament.

The opposition reaction was not unexpected, though I have to say the Conservatives’ talking point was far pissier than I would have guessed – none of the usual “we look forward to working together, but we’ll keep our eyes on you,” kind of thing – no, this was bitter, and spiteful in its tone and language. Even Jason Kenney was classier in his response (but we all know that lasts about five minutes). That’ll make for a fun next few years if they keep this up.

As for some of my own observations, I was struck by the need to name a new Quebec lieutenant, given that Trudeau used to say that they had a Quebec general (meaning him), so no need, and lo, did the Conservatives had meltdowns over it. Likewise, there was thought under the previous parliament that they would eliminate all of those regional development ministers and put them all under Navdeep Bains (whose ministry has rebranded again from Industry, to Innovation, Science and Economic Development, and is now Innovation, Science, and Industry), which kept a lot of the kinds of nepotism that was rampant in those regional development agencies at bay. Now Trudeau has hived off the economic development portfolio into its own ministry, to be headed by Mélanie Joly, but she’ll have six parliamentary secretaries – one for each development agency region, which feels like the whole attempt to break those bonds is backsliding. Science as a standalone portfolio was folded back into Bains’ domain, but the very specific project that Kirsty Duncan was tasked with when she was given the portfolio four years ago was completed, so it made a certain amount of sense. Democratic Institutions is gone, folded back into Privy Council Office and any of its functions Dominic LeBlanc will fulfill in his role as President of the Queen’s Privy Council (which is a role that is traditionally secondary to another portfolio). Trudeau continued to keep his Leader of the Government in the Senate out of Cabinet, which is a mistake, but why listen to me? (I’m also hearing rumours that Senator Peter Harder is on his way out of the job, so stay tuned). The fact that David Lametti got a new oath as minister of justice and Attorney General to reflect the recommendations of the McLellan Report was noteworthy. But overall, my biggest observation is that Trudeau is doubling down on the kinds of chimeric ministries that tend to straddle departments, which makes for difficult accountability and confusing lines of authority on files. The most egregious of the new portfolios was the “Minister of Middle Class™ Prosperity,” which is a fairly bullshit title to attach to the fact that she’s also the Associate Minister of Finance, which should have been significant in the fact that it’s the closest we’ve been to a woman finance minister at the federal level, but dressing it up in this performative hand-waving about the Middle Class™ (which is not about an actual class but about feelings) is all the kinds of nonsense that keeps this government unable to communicate its way out of a wet paper bag, and it’s just so infuriating.

https://twitter.com/sproudfoot/status/1197239923100856321

In hot takes, Chantal Hébert sees the move of Freeland as the defining one of this shuffle, and notes that it could either be just what they need, or it could be a kamikaze mission for Freeland. Susan Delacourt sees the composition of the new Cabinet as one that corrects past mistakes and of taking on lessons learned. Robert Hiltz points to the two polarities of this Cabinet – the farce of the Minister of Middle Class™ Prosperity, and the menace of putting Bill Blair in charge of public safety. Paul Wells makes the trenchant observation that carving up ministries across several ministers has the effect of creating multiple redundancies that will make more central control necessary – and I think he’s right about that. (Also, for fun, Maclean’s timed the hugs Trudeau gave his ministers, which didn’t compare to some from 2015).

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1197245638548869120

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “quiet” housekeeping bill

Posted on by

Do bills get passed “quietly”? There was a bit of debate over the Twitter over this fact yesterday, where it was conceded that a bill was passed with little fanfare, but I wanted to dissect this a little bit. The bill in question was one that was a technical housekeeping bill that legislated that several Minister of State positions were bumped in status, salary and precedence to full ministers, and that they had line departments split out from the previous departments they existed under the envelope of. It had been on the Order Paper since 2016, and signalled that it was happening since the Cabinet was first unveiled in 2015, with Orders in Council doing effectively what the bill did on an interim basis. It garnered attention yesterday because amidst the Cabinet shuffle speculation, it was noted that the bill allows for a couple of more seats to be added to the Cabinet table under this new framework, so Trudeau could theoretically increase the size of his Cabinet (and he yet might). But regardless, because this was passed without fanfare, it was termed as being passed “quietly.”

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1017468288207552512

Part of why I have a problem with the use of “quietly” – not just in this circumstance but in others – is because it implies that that there was intent. A recent egregious example was the renewal of the equalization formula – something that was in the budget document, in the bill (clearly marked), and came up at committee, and on top of that, was the subject of discussions between the federal and provincial governments for months. But nobody batted an eyelash until the Globe and Mail said it was passed “quietly” (apparently because they didn’t report on it, which is like a tree falling in the forest). And like I said with that equalization issue, it’s not the media’s job to flag every little thing for MPs – they can do their own homework.

My other issue with this is that not every bill is going to get fanfare – a lot of it is technical and relatively uncontroversial, there are a number of bills that are financial measures that are eye-glazing that most MPs don’t pay attention to (though they should) and simply pass of to the PBO to do their homework for them on. This particular bill was, as I said, on the Order Paper since 2016. There was nothing really controversial about it because it purported to fix inequities that would otherwise have ensured that a number of the women in the gender-equal cabinet were not equal in status or pay because they were in portfolios that had previously been relegated to “junior” positions, and a few reporters tried to make hay out of that fact when the Cabinet was first announced in 2015. This is not a bill that deserved fanfare. Expecting it is unrealistic and frankly comes off as a bit whiney when reporters can track these things on LegisInfo like everyone else. It didn’t pass “quietly” – it was a technical bill that passed like all technical bills do. And it’s time we struck “quietly” from the political lexicon.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, committee studies shouldn’t guide government

Posted on by

And lo, from Toronto’s den of hipsterdom, comes the plaintive wail that a government ignoring the work of committees is a betrayal of democracy. No, seriously – this is the complaint of VICE’s parliamentary columnist (who does not reside in Ottawa, or ever darken the halls of Parliament Hill, but whatever). Brown cites the centralization of power in the PMO and the growing power of branding as the forces that eclipse these poor committees, but it’s possibly the laziest gods damned complaint you can imagine.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/971427684965371905

So, for Brown’s edification, here are a few points that he overlooked in his ignorance of how things actually work in Ottawa:

  1. The role of Commons committees is not to be driving government policy, as Brown seems to think. The role of Parliament is to hold government to account, and committees are the workhorses of doing that, particularly when it comes to scrutinizing legislation. Senate committees, it should be noted, do a much more robust job of looking at areas of concern and coming up with policy recommendations, but that’s because the Senate is Parliament’s built-in think-tank, and it operates on a less partisan basis than Commons committees, who often approach their committee work with the lens of validating their party’s pre-existing positions.
  2. Not all committees are created equal. He may cite the work of a few of the “high profile” committees, writing on “sexier” topics like pharmacare, but because those are higher-profile committees, you’re seeing more studies that are bound to attract attention but have little substance to offer. If he wants to get a better sense of really effective committees that do really good work, he should look at ones like Public Accounts, who do the real work that Parliament is supposed to be doing, which, again, is holding government to account.
  3. Committees coming up with reports that the government does not then follow is hardly a sign of PMO centralization – if he wants an example of that, it was how committees operated in the Harper era, where they were all branch plants of minsters’ offices, with parliamentary secretaries directing the government MPs to do their bidding, and having ministerial staffers providing direction throughout. Oh, and the minister would often direct the committee to study topics that were of convenience (while he or she went ahead and legislated before waiting for the committee report). The way committees are operating currently is a vastly different environment than it was just a few years ago. But he might know that if he was actually here and paid attention to these things.

You’ll excuse me if I have little time for facile analysis like this. Whinging about PMO centralization without looking at the complicity of MPs themselves in the problem is to miss the point. And to miss the whole point of Parliament in a column like this makes it clear that nobody should be paying attention to the musings of its author.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The cause, not the cure

Posted on by

The particular turmoil of the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership is difficult to turn away from, particularly given that right now it’s grappling with a fairly fundamental point about what is ailing our Westminster parliamentary system, which is the way in which we choose our leaders. Andrew Coyne lays it out really well in his latest column, which notes that another leadership contest won’t solve the party’s problems precisely because it’s the cause of those problems. And Chris Selley notes that with the inclusion of Doug Ford in this new race, that system of leadership selection is just as likely to result in a civil war within the party as it will do for anything else. (On a side note, Selley’s piece notes how Ford is attracting the evangelical endorsements in such an eerily Trump-like way).

Another point that Coyne gets to is this particular fetishization of the membership figures that Brown was able to attract to the party, but it ignores the fact that most of those who are signing up memberships have little connection to the party itself, and are little more than tools to be used by the leadership winner who sold them those memberships. And the point that I would add is that these memberships don’t actually strengthen the party because they’re being used to justify central control by the leadership rather than being a vehicle by which the riding associations are interlocutors between the grassroots and the caucus. These “rented” memberships are meaningless and do little to enhance the party, the way the chatter would otherwise suggest. If anything, they weaken the meaning of what the grassroots is supposed to represent. That’s why we need to get back to the proper working of a Westminster system, and restore caucus selection, so that we can reinvigorate the meaning of the grassroots.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/958171212944830465

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/958151196933423104

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/958154061873758208

Continue reading →

Roundup: Action on assisted dying

Posted on by

We’re now less than a week away from the opening of Parliament, and there’s a lot for the Liberals to do. One of those things is deciding what to do about the assisted dying file, and it looks like the Liberals have planned to strike a special joint committee of MPs and senators to quickly examine the issue and provide some legislative recommendations to the government. Remember that the deadline the Supreme Court gave the government is February 6th, and they haven’t decided if they will as the Court for an extension – one they may not be granted, and one where that extension will be a burden to those on the ground who may actually need the law in a timely fashion. There are a couple of reasons why the inclusion of senators in the process is noteworthy – one is that it can help to speed up the process of passing the inevitable legislation, because it can be like a bit of pre-study, getting them involved earlier in the process in order to speed up their own deliberations on the bill when it arrives. The other reason is that the Senate was debating a bill on doctor-assisted dying in the last parliament, which had been sponsored by Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth, based on her consultations with former MP Stephen Fletcher, and had workable solutions to some of the issues raised in protecting the vulnerable. That bill was debated over several days at second reading, but never was voted on to send to committee, likely because of some foot-dragging, but that debate happened, and those same senators are still there. If it’s something that can help speed the process, it’s not a bad idea that they’re in the loop and participating in solving the problem, which could potentially get legislation in the system before that Supreme Court deadline, and with a little luck, they won’t need to ask for an extension.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Concern trolling on bombers and refugees

Posted on by

In the wake of Friday’s attacks in Paris, and Trudeau’s trip to the G20 in Turkey, we seem to have been inundated with a whole lot of calls to carry on the bombing mission in Iraq and Syria, coupled with all manner of concern trolling from Conservative MPs and others to slow down on the refugee pledges for “security screening,” never mind that there have yet to be any verifiable links between the attackers and any actual refugees from the region. (Most of what we’ve heard has been about homegrown attackers, along with a couple of passports of dubious authenticity). Michael Petrou makes the case that keeping up the fight against ISIS with the bombing mission is evidence-based policy (plus has a video of Syrian refugees in France here), while Terry Milewski gives a look at what the mission has accomplished to date, and notes Canada’s participation in some recent victories in the region. Wesley Wark says that the aftermath of Paris shows that Canada needs to up its intelligence game. After sparring with Jason Kenney over the Twitter Machine, Paul Wells lays the smackdown on Conservatives doing backseat ministering without actually looking critically at their own policy – which is still being enacted in the region – while they second-guess what the voters decided pretty clearly on October 19th. (And it’s an amazing piece that you really must read).

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665639828235530240

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665640401370374145

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665640787040845824

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665640896562487296

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665641975610126336

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665642870829748224

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665643511606177794

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665645420547174400

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665645614206619649

Continue reading →

Roundup: A muzzle or a distasteful incident

Posted on by

The neutrality of the civil service has been an issue lately, with the distasteful episode of the cheering (and booing) at Global Affairs last Friday on the one hand, and to a certain extent, the “un-muzzling” of scientists on the other. Michael Petrou explores the former issue here, while Paul Booth offers some advice for the “un-muzzled” here, noting that there is a balance to be struck between talking about one’s research while at the same time maintaining their role of civil servants where they are not supposed to be critical of the government of the day if they want to keep their jobs, because they have a role to play. At the heart of both is that they ultimately serve the Queen and not the government of the day, no matter how much their advice or carrying out of government policy is criticised. While ink has been spilled on the cheering as being proof that the Conservatives were right to be suspicious of “official Ottawa,” one has to note a few different thing, including simple demographics – polling data repeatedly shows, time and time again, that education levels will affect political preferences, with the Conservatives scoring best among those who only have high school diplomas, while those who have attained increasing levels of higher education increasingly support Liberals. The vast majority of the civil service is university-educated, so their sympathy with the Liberals should not be a surprise. Should they have cheered Trudeau? Probably not. I will note that for context, the one clip I saw of the cheering happened after Trudeau said that he would be taking their advice unlike the previous government, while the booing of that journalist’s questions were both to the fact that they crashed a private event, and that it was a question for which an answer had already been given earlier in the day. Not that this should excuse what happened, because they should have known better, and I know plenty of other civil servants who were also critical of what happened there. But on the other hand, we should also note that they are human, and that the Conservatives exacerbated any distrust of the civil service with excessive dickish behaviour (such as Diane Finley walking into a department she was taking over and telling the staff that they were all Liberals and that she would clean up the joint). We should hope that this kind of incident doesn’t happen again, and it may very well not. I’m also not sure how helpful it is to light our hair on fire about it either, but I could very well be wrong about that.

Continue reading →