Tag Archives: PMO

Roundup: Pushing back against PMO

Posted on by

There was an op-ed in the Star over the weekend from former Cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy, in which he lamented the increasing centralization of power under the PMO, and that under Trudeau, ministers have become “infantilised,” particularly after seeing testimony at the Foreign Interference inquiry where chiefs of staff were keeping ministers in the dark about certain files. It’s a valid complaint, but not one unique to the Trudeau PMO, as Canadian academics have been making it since the previous Trudeau government, and was particularly egregious in the Harper government where everything flowed through the PMO—most especially message control—and ministers were rarely without approved talking points on their files.

I will also note that the current Trudeau did make an attempt to return to a system of “government by Cabinet,” and while certain ministers were free and capable to run their files, there was not an equitable distribution of talent in Cabinet as much as there was of gender, ethnicity and geography, so PMO did need to step in for some ministers. But there is also an inescapable reality that governing has also become more difficult than in the days of the first Trudeau government, and power is distributed much more horizontally because most issues require the cooperation of several ministries, and that requires a lot more central coordination from PMO or PCO. This being said, the real sin of the current government is that everything requires the sign-off from his chief of staff, which creates bottlenecks in decision-making, and that has been a continual problem.

In response to the Axworthy op-ed were a couple of tweets from Catherine McKenna about her experience—that PMO would say something, and she would push back if it didn’t come from Trudeau directly. It shows that a minister in charge of their file and who has the spine enough to stand their ground can do so, but not every minister is capable, and it’s something we need more ministers to learn how to do, because that’s how they will actually manage to own their own files.

Ukraine Dispatch

Two civilians were killed in a Russian attack on the southern Kherson region, while Russians have been making air attacks against Kharkiv and Kyiv. Ukraine continue to target ethanol plants in Russia with drones. A high-level South Korean delegation will be briefing the NATO Council about the North Korean troops now fighting on Russia’s behalf.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not a corporate workplace

Posted on by

Parliament is back today, and while I would normally be fairly excited, it’s feeling less and less so these days, because this current parliament is a fairly terrible one overall, that feels increasingly toxic to be around. But hey, maybe we’ll actually talk about housing and food price inflation, and some things that matter! But who am I kidding—it’ll be a bunch of complete bullshit coming from Pierre Poilievre, some non sequiturs from Jagmeet Singh about “greedflation” and the like, while Justin Trudeua and his front bench will repetitively deliver some canned pabulum that is supposed to make you feel vaguely reassured and like they’re patting you on the head. Because that’s the state of the political discourse these days, and I hate it.

As with anything this time of year, we’re also getting the usual calls about ways to “reform the workplace” of Parliament, as though this were a corporate office and that MPs are all just middle managers. They’re not, and that’s the problem with framing discussions like this. They’re all elected. They are all equal under the constitution, and in the framework of power dynamics. You can’t impose HR standards because you can’t involve an HR structure like this because power is entirely horizontal.

The other thing that we need remember here, however, is that MPs need to divorce Question Period—which is theatre—from the every day, and I see a lot of that in these complaints, and it goes around and around. Why do people do it and get away with it? Because it’s performance, and it’s confrontational for a reason. Heckling has a place, and some of that is to knock MPs and ministers off of their talking points. And that’s why I have a hard time qualifying all of it as “bullying” or “intimidation” because while that does happen, QP is a different beast and we all need to remember that. We also need the Speaker to do his gods damned job, but that’s also the fault of MPs for consistently choosing weak Speakers and ensuring that he has weak Standing Orders to enforce, because they like it that way.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles have again hit the grain port at Odessa, while another strike at Kharkiv was allegedly targeting a plant where armoured vehicles undergo repairs. Ukrainian forces have apparently carried out a “special operation” in Sevastopol in occupied Crimea, and reclaimed another village near Bakhmut. Meanwhile, a Ukrainian farmer was killed when his plough hit a landmine, while Norway is reporting that the number of Russian forces staged along their borders are now just twenty percent or less than what they were before Russia invaded Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bringing in a general as a prop

Posted on by

To finish out what was unofficially Vaccine Week™, prime minister Justin Trudeau announced that he had tasked Major General Dany Fortin, the country’s former NATO commander in Iraq, to head up the vaccine distribution response – because apparently, we have decided that if the Americans have a military response, we need one too. Also, Doug Ford went and hired former Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, at great expense to head up Ontario’s vaccine roll-out, so Trudeau apparently felt the need to compete there too.

Paul Wells correctly noted on Power & Politics yesterday that this is mostly theatre, because the real work is being done by anonymous bureaucrats in public health offices in each province, who do the work of immunization on a constant basis. Nevertheless, the impulse to follow the American lead is so strong in Canadian politics, even when it makes no sense. In particular, the Americans needed their military to coordinate vaccine roll-out because they don’t have anything that resembles centralised healthcare delivery in any way. It’s more of a need than we have here, but hey, it looks like we’re being super serious that we have generals coordinating this. And it’s not to say that there wasn’t already coordination between the Public Health Agency and the Canadian Forces for any logistics help they might provide, which could mean transport or medical personnel (because remember that our complement of doctors and nurses are already being overloaded with COVID hospitalisations), but it wasn’t going to be a big Thing with the military in charge. Now Trudeau has pulled that trigger, and I’m not sure exactly what value he hopes to add to the equation from it.

Trudeau also stated yesterday that he estimates that most Canadians will be vaccinated by September of next year, but of course, this remains a bit of a moving target based on the number of vaccines available. If another candidate becomes viable and goes into production, that could cut the time down as well (assuming no logistics bottlenecks along the way). But as with anything, it’s a bit of a moving target, and there are still too many unknown variables to say anything definitive, despite the constant demands to, but that’s where we are. We’ll see if this fixation continues next week, or if the fiscal update will become the prevailing narrative instead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Feigned confusion and a filibuster

Posted on by

As anticipated, the government unveiled their reforms to the wage subsidy programme yesterday, which included more of a sliding scale for revenue drops and how much support businesses could get before the subsidy phases out, which helps ensure that businesses don’t reach a “cliff” in terms of restart growth only to have that support ripped away at an arbitrary level. This has the business community both applauding the government for responding to concerns, while also moaning that it’s so complicated now, which has some economists rolling their eyes. It also looks like the government that insisted they don’t like abusive omnibus bills is rolling the legislation for these changes in with the new-and-improved disability payments, as well as the justice timelines legislation, so that’s something to look forward to when the House comes back next week for a single day.

Meanwhile, the Ethics committee met yesterday to start their own look into the WE Imbroglio (conveniently with many of the same faces who subbed in at the Finance Committee during its hearing), to which the Liberals on the committee, knowing that they don’t have sufficient votes, decided instead to filibuster things, which is not a good look. Their arguments that this undermines the work of the Ethics Commissioner ignores that his role is supposed to support them, not the other way around; the fact that they were blocking a motion to demand the receipts from Margaret and Alexandre Trudeau’s public speaking events from their Speaker’s Bureau going back to 2008 is a little more suspect, and I haven’t heard a reasonable rationale for it or how it relates to the proposed study on how well the conflict-of-interest regime is working. Suffice to say, this isn’t a good look for the Liberals, and there are better ways of beating the Conservatives at their own game than playing into their hands. It’s too bad that they can’t seem to grasp that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sticking with the date

Posted on by

You may recall that last week, the Federal Court granted judicial review to the Conservative candidate looking to change the election date because it clashes with a particular orthodox Jewish holiday, and lo, the Chief Electoral Officer set about to review his decision. Yesterday he announced that he’d reviewed it, and he was still confident that there wasn’t sufficient reason to change it – moving it back a week would put it in conflict with a bunch of PD days in schools that they needed to use for polling stations, and it would collide with municipal elections in Nunavut, and there were still plenty of options, be they advance polls or special ballots, for those affected by the orthodox Jewish holidays. That decision goes to Cabinet, who will make the final call later this week.

But then something curious happened – a couple of Liberal MPs tweet their dismay at the CEO’s decision, which is a little odd because, well, it’s not really his call. He’s making a recommendation, and Cabinet makes the final decision because the dissolution of Parliament for an election is a Crown prerogative, meaning that it depends on the Governor-in-Counsel (i.e. Cabinet advising the governor general) that makes the decision, regardless of our garbage fixed election date legislation. So if they’re tweeting dismay, they should direct their pleas to their own government rather than to harass the CEO.

This having been said, I am forced to wonder if this isn’t part of the fallout from the aforementioned garbage fixed election date. One of the justifications for said garbage legislation is that it’s supposed to help Elections Canada plan, rather than scramble in the event of a snap election call – but it’s starting to feel like perhaps those plans are also getting a bit precious, which is a bad sign for an institution that is supposed to be adaptable in order to accommodate the election call, whenever it may be.

Continue reading →

QP: The ascribing of dubious motives

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau in Paris, and Andrew Scheer outlining his “vision” for the economy, it was up to Candice Bergen to lead off today, and she led off with the news of the formal arrests of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, and called the prime minister a coward — and got censured for it — and demanded he do something for it. Mélanie Joly told her not to play games with their lives, and said that the minister was in touch with her counterparts and Canada’s international allies to secure their release. Bergen then pivoted to the Mark Norman case, compared his treatment to that of Omar Khadr, and demanded a personal apology by the prime minister. Diane Lebouthillier replied in French about the independence of the investigation and prosecution. Bergen said that Norman can’t tell his story because of military guidelines and demanded the government give him an exception, to which Lebouthillier responded that committees are independent, as were the others involved in the case. Pierre Paul-Hus accused Justin Trudeau of not respecting Quebec which was why they didn’t want that contract to go to the Davie Shipyard as it relates to the Norman case. Lebouthillier reminded him of the contracts that Davie has received. Paul-Hus accused the government of wanting to “destroy” Norman, and Lebouthillier reminded him again of the independence of the RCMP and public prosecutor. Peter Julian led off for the NDP, and demanded a public inquiry into money laundering, and Bill Blair noted that there were measures in the budget to combat it that the NDP voted against. Alexandre Boulerice tried again in French, got the same answer from Blair in English, before he railed about the climate emergency. Catherine McKenna stated that the government has a plan which protects jobs. Julian repeated the question in English, and got much the same response from McKenna.

Continue reading →

QP: A course on how the court system works

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in Paris to sign the Christchurch Call on ending on online extremism, Andrew Scheer was present, and he led off with a level-headed question about the video of the RCMP interrogating an Indigenous sexual assault victim, and Ralph Goodale asserted that the video demonstrated technique at that were abhorrent and wrong, and that police needed to ensure that survivors were not re-victimised in the process. Scheer then pivoted to Mark Norman case and the disclosure of documents to the court, to which Bill Blair started that the government fulfilled its obligations and all decisions relating to them were done by public servants and the court and not the government. Scheer tried again highlighting the use of code words to evade Access to Information requests — a practice that long predates this incident — and got the same answer. Pierre Paul-Hus tried again in French, and Blair repeated himself again in English. Paul-Hus accused the prime minister of trying to destroy Norman, but Blair’s answer did not change. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and moaned about Loblaws before demanding more action around climate change. Catherine McKenna asserted that there was indeed a climate emergency and they had a plan, but then highlighted Singh’s constantly shifting position on things like the LNG project in BC. Singh flailed, trying to connect climate change with stable work and jobs, and McKenna zeroed in on the ten thousand jobs related to the LNG project. Singh then changed topics to the Phoenix fiasco, and Carla Qualtrough noted their “laser focus” on the matter and it was being fixed with IBM as a partner. Singh tried again in French, and got much the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fighting on the economy

Posted on by

There are a couple of interesting threads out on the wires right now about the direction that the government is headed in as we head toward an election, and one of them is that Liberals in Ontario would rather their party fight the election based on the economy rather than the environment – this as the Liberals and NDP are trying to compete as to who can talk a better game on climate in order to head off the surge in Green Party support in the polls, and the recent Green by-election win. I’m sure this is going to be a very lively discussion behind the caucus room doors, and in the party’s election planning meetings, but that sentiment is clearly there.

At the same time, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Canada are expressing some displeasure with the government, but as Paul Wells notes here, some of it is a bit…dubious, such as demanding balanced budgets and lower taxes while the Americans are fuelling their tax cuts with trillion-dollar deficits. Wells also noted that both of these lobby groups aren’t really acknowledging that much of the drag on our economy is caused by outside forces – namely the brewing trade war between the US and China, and before that, Donald Trump’s threats to tear up NAFTA – and that these groups have studiously avoided talking about climate and the need to deal with our emissions. Nevertheless, there is a malaise between Corporate Canada and the Liberals possibly because the party seems to be setting their Blue Liberal base loose as they try to move further to the left in order to claim the space the NDP usually occupies, and that may wind up costing them in the longer term, if history is any guide.

Kevin Milligan, meanwhile, finds himself a bit puzzled at how little these same Corporate Canada voices have acknowledged the very significant changes that the government made in the fall economic update to deal with the US tax changes.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1127275895859716096

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1127278184821444608

Continue reading →

Roundup: Drawing the wrong lessons

Posted on by

At the time I’m writing this, it’s not looking too good for Rachel Notley and her NDP in the Alberta election (and sorry I couldn’t stay up late to track results, but StatsCan waits for no journalist). With that in mind, I wanted to just post a couple of thoughts about what this could bode – not just the immediate nonsense of Jason Kenney theatrically tabling a bill to repeal the province’s carbon tax (and immediately subjecting him to the federal backstop), or his threat to “turn off the taps” to BC when it comes to oil — something a court would strike down immediately because it’s utterly unconstitutional. Rather, I suspect that this will provide additional encouragement to Andrew Scheer to emulate Kenney’s tactics — fomenting anger, and selling people a steady diet of lies and snake oil, and hoping that he can find someone to blame when he’s unable to deliver on any of it should he get into power. Scheer’s problem will be that he doesn’t have another level of government he can cast too much blame upon, but that won’t dissuade him from the other tactics.

I also suspect that we’re going to get a renewed round of wailing and gnashing of teeth from “progressives” about how they couldn’t coalesce their votes around Notley and the NDP, and there will be all manner of blame being cast at the Alberta Party and the Alberta Liberals for splitting their vote (which is nonsense, of course, but we’ll hear it anyway).

Meanwhile, my column offers my personal loathing and dread about the way the election happened, and the problem with stoking anger and promising magic wands and snake oil.

Continue reading →

QP: Chagger’s randomized responses

Posted on by

Tuesday in the Commons, and while Justin Trudeau was in the building, he was not in Question Period for some unknown reason. Andrew Scheer was, however (for a change), and he led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he wanted to know why the prime minister didn’t take no for an answer when it came to the remediation agreement for SNC-Lavalin, and Bardish Chagger read some lines about protecting jobs and the whole point of remediation agreements. Scheer tried again, and this time Chagger read about the respect they have for committees before pivoting to good news economic talking points. Scheer insisted this wasn’t true, before asking if anyone in the government gave assurances to SNC-Lavalin, and Chagger reminded him that they had confidence in the committee before pivoting go a point about Conservative austerity. Alain Rayes took over in French, and repeated the question about assurances to SNC-Lavalin, and Chagger read French talking points about opposition leaders meeting with SNC-Lavalin representatives, and respecting committees. Rayes tried again, and Chagger repeated that they respect the work of the committee. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he was concerned about the number of meetings with SNC-Lavalin representatives, and Chagger reminded him that both opposition leaders also had meetings, and they respected committees. Caron tried again, and this time Chagger read the talking point where the Director of Public Prosecutions disavowed any political interference in her work. Charlie Angus was up next, and he sanctimoniously demanded that PMO staff also appear at committee, to which Chagger repeated that they need to respect the work of committees. Angus wondered when no means no with regarding the DPA, and Chagger repeated her response.

Continue reading →