Tag Archives: Maxime Bernier

Roundup: New Senate Speaker appointed

Posted on by

With the retirement of Senate Speaker George Furey this week, the prime minister has named Manitoba Senator Raymonde Gagné to serve as the new Speaker, making her the third woman to do so. (Recall that the House of Commons has only had one female Speaker to date, in the 1980s). Gagné was appointed as an independent but has been operating in the half-pregnant role as a supposedly “non-affiliated” member of the Government Representative Office as the “legislative deputy,” which is newspeak for the role of deputy leader for the government, if it properly had a caucus in that Chamber.

A couple of notes: First of all, this remains a prime ministerial appointment because this position is higher on the Order of Precedence than the Commons Speaker, and plays a much bigger role with parliamentary diplomacy than the Commons Speaker does. There are some senators who are agitating to make this a position elected by the Senate membership as the Commons Speaker is currently, but I’m not sure if this is feasible given the diplomatic weight attached to the position. Regardless, Trudeau was likely looking for a woman in the position, and needed her to be bilingual (Gagné is Franco-Manitoban), and as she was in the GRO, those factors all lined up.

As well, there was some talk about why Senator Pierrette Ringuette, the Speaker pro tempore, was not elevated to full Speaker, but I suspect that politics are at play in this. Ringuette was a former Liberal MP in the Chrétien era, but later left the Senate Liberal caucus to sit as an independent after Justin Trudeau cut them loose. She got the job as Speaker pro tempore through politicking largely within the Independent Senators Group, when there had been consensus that Senator Pat Bovey would get the post (Bovey is also reaching mandatory retirement on Monday, for the record), whereas Ringuette was apparently the choice of then-ISG leader Yuen Pau Woo, and in the power struggles at the time (which was the last straw for Bovey, at which point she left the ISG for the Progressive caucus), Ringuette got the votes for the position. This whole drama may have had an influence on the choice (depending on how closely Trudeau or his Senate-minders paid attention to it).

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces have made a breakthrough south of Bakhmut, recapturing the high ground overlooking the town, as well as one of the key supply lines, in what the head of the Wagner Group mercenaries considered a rout. Ukraine denies that this is the start of their counteroffensive, which they say they are delaying for need of more western weaponry. Russia is claiming that they repelled another attempted Ukrainian advance near Soledar.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The great passport meltdown

Posted on by

It was the absolute dumbest of controversies, and yet what was apparently half of Canadian Twitter was having an absolute meltdown because the new passport designs were unveiled yesterday, and a) the Coat of Arms on the cover was moved off-centre, and b) the interior pages replaced images of moments of Canadian history with some generic, corporate stock art of nature and indistinct people. Never mind that nobody ever looks inside those pages, and that they are covered by the stamps of countries you are entering—it’s somehow “erasing history.”

https://twitter.com/ChrisGNardi/status/1656319387039592453

This particular kind of imagery had been intended for the last update, ten years ago, when the Conservatives instead decided to include these historical images, and were accused at the time of putting forward a very selective view of history that suited their political objectives. And no, you can’t just use the same interior art over again, because if not refreshed periodically, it becomes easier to forge. But seriously, this was the hill people are now wailing that they’ll die on, or be single-issue voters about? Seriously?

Politically, Pierre Poilievre led off Question Period on this, but does any single person believe that Poilievre actually cares about Canadian history even a tiny bit? No—this is just about getting clicks. And Justin Trudeau? Couldn’t even be bothered to own the decision or defend anything around it, which is just makes the whole day’s outrage even more maddening. Everyone needs to log off for a while.

https://twitter.com/sumtimw0ng/status/1656379566410158095

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Ukrainian unit says that they routed a Russian brigade near Bakhmut, which seems to have been confirmed by the Wagner Group mercenaries fighting for Russia. There are concerns that Russians occupying the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant are planning to relocate Ukrainian staff, which will leave a shortage of qualified personnel to operate the facility.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1656224951261691904

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reverberations and court references

Posted on by

The fallout from the Teck Frontier decision reverberated yesterday, whether it was with disappointed local First Nations, or industry groups giving the usual lamentations about investor confidence. More blame was thrown around, most of it at Justin Trudeau’s direction which seems to be in direct contradiction to what the company’s CEO said in his withdrawal letter, which talked about partisan bickering between levels of government, while also talking about how they supported carbon pricing and the emissions caps – in other words, largely siding with the federal government as the provincial government tore up the comprehensive and reasonable plan that the former NDP government had put into place with a great deal of thought and consultation, which introduced all manner of uncertainty into the market and put them into direct conflict with the federal government unnecessarily – but they also made the gamble that Andrew Scheer would win the last federal election and they wouldn’t have to worry about carbon pricing or strict regulations any longer, and well, that didn’t happen. Of course, it didn’t stop Kenney, Scheer or others from making up things wholesale in order to keep the blame on Trudeau, after they already overly raised expectations for the project (in part by lying about what its promises actually were). In conversation yesterday, a fellow journalist made the supposition that Teck may have been afraid of federal approval at this point because the expectations for it had been built so high when they knew they couldn’t deliver on it, in large part because the price of oil is simply far too low for the project to be viable, not to mention that it’s hard to attract financing as global investors are looking for climate-friendly projects these days.

In pundit response, Heather Scoffield points to the lack of the next stages of the federal climate plans, combined with Alberta’s battling those plans, as factors making us unattractive to investors. Scoffield also blames a lack of leadership for why it’s taking so long to get those needed plans in place. Max Fawcett considers Teck Frontier a metaphor for an Alberta past that won’t come back, and that the withdrawal of the application should be a wake-up call for those who are trying to bring that past back. Kevin Carmichael calls out Teck’s CEO for playing martyr while sabotaging the kind of conversation over energy and the environment that the country needs to have, but now won’t because the deadline is off the table and we have degenerated into assigning blame.

And then, as if things couldn’t get any more interesting, the Alberta Court of Appeal released their 4-1 decision that said that the federal carbon price was unconstitutional, in direct opposition to the decisions from Ontario and Saskatchewan (both of which will head to the Supreme Court of Canada next month). But that being said, there is a curious amount of overtly political editorialising within said judgement, from one of the concurring judges in particular, which I am assured by a law professor will be a field day for the Supreme Court of Canada when this ruling makes it to them.

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232059249158545408

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232074971918168064

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232161066898968576

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232054682140340225

https://twitter.com/charlesrusnell/status/1232124886937550849

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Cabinet dominoes

Posted on by

With the days counting down until the Cabinet shuffle, the speculation is starting to get intense, and much of it is centred around the fate of Chrystia Freeland and whether Justin Trudeau will keep her in foreign affairs or move her to a more problem-solving domestic portfolio – particularly intergovernmental affairs, and capitalizing on her Alberta upbringing as the regional representative around the table (along with Jonathan Wilkinson as the Saskatchewan representative). One of the considerations is that nobody is quite sure who might take Freeland’s place in the foreign affairs portfolio, and the dominos go from there.

Another consideration is the fact that there will need to be some additional bench strength remaining for the committee chairs, as they will be a bigger battleground in a hung parliament than under a majority, given that the opposition will now hold the majority on them. That will essentially mean that amendments for bills will become a bigger consideration at the committee stage than they were in the previous parliament (to say nothing of what happens with amendments coming from the Senate, now that the Commons can insist on adopting them if the opposition all gangs up). There will be plenty of new dynamics that need to be managed – which is why the positions of House Leader and Whip will be all the more important in this new parliament.

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield has been imagining mandate letters for incoming ministers, and those released over the weekend include the international trade minister, as well as the social development minister.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Last minute obfuscation

Posted on by

As this interminable, awful election draws to a close, leaders were busy making their final pitches to voters, starting with Justin Trudeau in Niagara, and then to Hamilton, where he had a media availability, and he mostly talked around questions being posed to him around things like that interview from Stephen Guilbeault where he said that more pipelines were unlikely to be built (I mean, has anyone actually looked at the economic data?), or what he might do in a minority situation (which really is the right thing to do, because all of this baseless speculation without seeing the seat math is pretty dumb). Trudeau then went to Brantford, Milton, Winnipeg, and ended off with a late-night rally in Calgary, so he can at least say he visited. There, he made a pitch for progressives to consolidate around him as an anti-Kenney vote.

Andrew Scheer held his media availability in North York, where he consistently refused to say whether the stories about his party hiring a certain Cult of the Insider figure to try and discredit the Maxime Bernier Fan Club, before he simply repeated misinformation. He then headed for Don Valley North, Brampton, Scarborough, and finished off with a rally in Richmond Hill where the crowd started chanting “lock him up” about Trudeau. Scheer tried to get them to say “Vote him out” instead, but honestly? This Dollarama-knockoff LARPing of American politics is so tiresome.

Jagmeet Singh largely stuck to the Vancouver area, and he too prevaricated on yet more questions about post-election situations including whether he’d trigger an early election rather than work with the Conservatives.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pre-negotiation and a better debate

Posted on by

In advance of the debate, Justin Trudeau held a photo-op with one of his sons in a pumpkin patch in nearby Manotick, while Jagmeet Singh was at a bistro near Parliament Hill to outline his party’s priorities were they in need of negotiating in a hung parliament, and conveniently, they were all planks of his party platform. Of those six enumerated, four were wholly or in part provincial jurisdiction, one involves building an entirely new tax system, and the final would drive out competition in the mobile phone sector, and then they also decided that electoral reform should be in there as well. (Look for my column on this coming later today). So there’s that. Andrew Scheer had no events, but his party did say that their full platform will be released today, now that the debates are over.

And then the final French debate, which was a far cry better than the hot, hot mess that was the English debate. Possibly learning from the experience, the format changed up considerably, so that there were better questions, more direct engagement, and far less cross-talk (though that did start to creep in during the second hour, when Scheer was trying to go after Yves-François Blanchet). Scheer and May were noticeably weaker in French, while Scheer and Singh in particular kept up their focus on getting their canned one-liners delivered, even if it was tortured to get them in. Nevertheless, while we once again didn’t learn too many new things, it was a far and above better performance for all involved than the English disaster. (Here’s Paul Wells’ take on the night).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Get away from that hot, hot mess of a debate

Posted on by

The morning wasn’t quite as uneventful as one might have hoped – Justin Trudeau want to a school in Ottawa to talk about provincial cuts and how teachers feared federal ones, while Andrew Scheer announced that the Conservatives would make national museum admission free (which doesn’t really help with affordability, especially as most of these museums are in Ottawa), and that the RCMP Heritage site in Regina would be turned into another national museum. That said, he also took swipes about “political correctness” supposedly “erasing history,” which is false when there is a move to expand the historical record to include effaced minorities like Indigenous people. A few hours later, the Liberals held a press conference to point out that the Conservatives were planning a stunt during the debate to point to a website that would again recirculate the lie about a supposed “capital gains tax” on selling houses, which I will reiterate, is a lie. There is no such plan. That didn’t stop the Conservatives from sounding all-hands-on-deck over social media to circulate this lie over the remainder of the afternoon, and they even had a doctored version of the original recovered Liberal discussion document on their site to eliminate context (which they later had to remove to put the original up once they were called out on it).

And then came the Leaders Debate (not “Leaders’”), at a time slot too early for anyone west of Ontario to really get to watch it (likely so that the private networks didn’t have to unduly inconvenience their American programming). It was a gong show, where in order to accommodate six leaders, all of the exchanges were too short and the questions inconsistent, so most of the time the leaders focused on getting their canned lines out, to hell with the substance of it. And they all said misleading things. Maxime Bernier sucked up too much oxygen for someone who shouldn’t have been on the stage at all but was simply there to act as a spoiler. The whole way this was done, trying to please everyone, pleased absolutely no one, and we are all the poorer for it.

 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Childcare and competing mistruths

Posted on by

It was a crazy-pants day on the campaign, so here we go. Justin Trudeau was out the door first today in Kitchener–Waterloo, with a pledge to create more before-and-after school care spaces for children, which will also involve the creation of a secretariat to do the negotiating with the provinces and lay the groundwork for a pan-Canadian childcare system (which won’t need to include Quebec, given that they already have their system). The pledge was also to reduce the fees parents are currently paying for before-and-after school care by ten percent, so we’ll see how that works out logistically and procedurally. There is an argument to be made here that ensuring this kind of care means more parents – and especially women (and Trudeau made this point in his announcement, showcasing that gender-based analysis was part of it) can re-enter and remain in the workforce. Given the state of our labour pool in this country – essentially at full employment – it is incumbent to ensure that we have the maximum rate of participation by women and minorities so that they can fill those labour shortages. (More thoughts on the announcement in this thread from Lindsay Tedds).

Jagmeet Singh’s big announcement in Longueuil, Quebec, was a “star candidate” – very loosely defined – who was a one-time provincial Green leader in Quebec who is now running for the NDP, against Pierre Nantel, the NDP MP who crossed to the Greens (and the riding is that the “star” very badly lost in many years ago). Apparently, there is now a tit-for-tat battle with the Greens as to who crossed the floor to whom, because that’s helpful.

Elizabeth May launched her party’s full platform, which they claim is “fully costed” – err, except that costing won’t be released for several days. Economists are already picking holes in the promises, particularly the promise for a guaranteed livable income (thread here).

Andrew Scheer was in Kelowna, BC, framing the election as the life you want being in reach or getting further out of reach, and after his tirades about Justin Trudeau and his laundry list of mistruths about the state of the deficit and the carbon price and he announced his plan to restore yet more tax credits, this time for children’s sports and arts programmes, and unlike under Harper, these tax credits would be refundable, so that even low-income families who don’t pay taxes will be able to benefit. When asked about how he could afford these plans, he said that his path to balance was over a five-year time period, and then he proffered a fantasy version of Energy East (who cares about economics), and claimed his climate plan was the only “real” one (verifiably untrue). Most unbelievable was that, when pressed about false statements that he and his candidates were making about Liberal plans, he went on a tirade about how Justin Trudeau lied, so it was fair for him to keep promulgating these false statements.

And then, suddenly, Scheer drops an allegation that Justin Trudeau had drinks with Faith Goldy and he wanted answers on that. The Liberals responded shortly thereafter with a blanket denial, but if this election is going to be fought over who was in the same room as Faith Goldy, it’s going to be a long five weeks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reviving a failed tax credit

Posted on by

Day three of the campaign, and in the post-debate glow, there was some damage control on a part of a couple of leaders. Justin Trudeau was in Trois-Rivières, Quebec, to promise new measures to help small business, including the “swipe fees” that those businesses are charged for transactions.

Andrew Scheer was in the GTA, and he announced his plan to revive the Harper-era transit tax credit, but to rebrand it as “Green.” The problem, of course, was that it’s a nigh useless measure that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. (Fact check here to show that Scheer’s rhetoric is misleading, plus a thread from economist Lindsay Tedds). He also had to defend himself and do damage control over his meltdown during the debate on Indigenous issues and his contention that they hold major projects “hostage,” but he nevertheless refused to back down from the basic contention even if he tried to say that he didn’t mean to use those exact words. So that’s something.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1172519241918099459

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1172548996570734592

Jagmeet Singh was in downtown Toronto to promise to cap cellphone bills – a policy that has no actual specifics as to how he would do it and what the impacts would be – before giving a speech to the Canadian Club to tell them that if he forms government, it won’t be “business as usual” in Ottawa.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cheap outrage over MPs’ spouses

Posted on by

Long-time readers will know that one of my pet peeves is the propensity for my media colleagues to push cheap outrage stories, to trigger the hairshirt parsimony and tall poppy syndrome of the Canadian public, and lo, they did it again with the screaming headline that taxpayers footed the bill for $4.5 million in MP spousal travel over four years. Which is actually not a lot, particularly when you consider that we’re a big country, and that airfare is expensive here because of our duopolistic air carriers and lack of population density.

Of course, when I tweeted this out, I had all kinds of people yelling at me that Bill Morneau’s millionaire wife shouldn’t be eligible for sponsored spousal travel. The problem with this kind of qualifier is that it when you start qualifying who is and isn’t eligible for the benefits based on personal circumstances, you start running into the mentality that plagued the UK for centuries – that MPs were poorly compensated and essentially needed to be independently wealthy before they stood for office. We’ve seen enough people suggest that the Canadian Senate be run this way, with the ludicrous suggestion that it be a volunteer position. I would also add that the divorce rate for MPs is several times above the national average – if we start begrudging their ability to travel with their spouses to Ottawa and back, particularly if the distances are fairly large ones – we’d see even more divorces, or a pervasive belief that people with families shouldn’t run for office. I’m not sure who that would benefit.

Throughout this bit of cheap outrage, Jody Wilson-Raybould’s spousal flights were singled out in a separate piece about cabinet ministers and their spouses’ travel costs. That a Vancouver MP’s costs would be higher should be no surprise, and it could very well be that they are higher because they may have been booked last-minute rather than in advance (given that they are simply treated by the MP and their spouse as points rather than being given a dollar figure as their expenses limit). Suffice to say, these kinds of stories are pretty gross when you stop and think about it, and the performative outrage over taxpayer dollars that are packaged in a way to look big and without sufficient context is one of the biggest problems we have in Canadian politics, and why we make the lives of our MPs so miserable.

Continue reading →