Tag Archives: Stephen Harper

Roundup: Harper gives his predictable endorsement

Posted on by

It’s day one-hundred-and-fifty-three of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and Russia’s foreign minister openly admits that they want to topple president Volodymyr Zelenskyy because they consider his government “unacceptable” or some such nonsense. Russian forces continue to shell Ukrainan cities in the east and south of the country, as well as in the Kharkiv region. This while a lot of people who initially fled from the Donetsk region have returned home after either feeling alienated further west in Ukraine as Russian speakers, or because they ran out of money, only to be killed by Russian shelling once they’re back. Meanwhile, the push to prosecute Russian war crimes continues in Kyiv even while the fighting rages on, while Slovakia is considering giving Ukraine their fleet of Soviet-era MiG warplanes.

Closer to home, Stephen Harper came out with his endorsement of Pierre Poilievre yesterday, and no, this is not a sign that he’s worried about Charest. Quite the opposite—it’s a sign of his absolute enmity for Charest. Harper has bad blood with Charest, dating back to when Charest was Quebec premier. He had sold Harper on the fantastical notion that Quebec was suffering from some kind of “fiscal imbalance” with Ottawa, which was all bullshit, but it made a good talking point for Charest, and lo, Harper decided to be different from Jean Chrétien and buy peace with Quebec, so he gave Charest the money he was demanding to fix said fictional “fiscal imbalance.” And lo, Charest immediately turned around and turned that payment into a tax cut in the province, and Harper was furious. I mean, it shouldn’t be a surprise, and it’s exhibit eleventy-six for instances of provinces taking federal dollars and not doing what they’re supposed to with it (which is why Justin Trudeau is so insistent upon strings being attached to future healthcare transfers), but Harper has nursed a grudge ever since. His endorsement of Poilievre is just more of him nursing said grudge—he’s not actually worried about Charest winning.

And while we’re here, no, Harper is not still pulling all of the strings in the party. He’s a micro-manager. If he were, they wouldn’t be in as much disarray as they are now. Also, the IDU is not some kind of fascist plot—it’s a gods damned social club that Harper is the convener of. Yes, it’s comprised of small-c conservative parties (including Angela Merkel and her party), and yes, Harper has made some very, very questionable statements from it, but it’s a social club. It has no power, and it’s not pulling any strings. He’s not a Bond villain. He was a mediocre prime minister who now spends his time swanning around the globe pretending he used to be important. That’s it. Stop giving him any more credit than that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ignoring the broader privacy concerns

Posted on by

The House of Commons Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee met yesterday to discuss the Public Health Agency of Canada’s use of anonymised mobile phone data to assess the efficacy of public health orders. As expected, this was little more than a partisan dog and pony show wrapped up in a bow of concern trolling that ignored the actual privacy issues involved in favour of trying to score points. Which is pretty much how we knew this was going to go down.

There could be actual privacy issues that they could discuss, and summon witnesses from telecom companies that sell this data, or the health companies that use it and track it, but no, they’re going to bring in the minister and Chief Public Health Officer to grill them about the programme, because accountability. And yes, the minister would be accountable politically, but that solves none of the actual issues that might be at fault here, but hey, this is about putting on a show rather than doing something useful, so good job with that, guys.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The $3.5 million witch hunt finds no witches

Posted on by

In Alberta, the Committee on Un-Albertan Activities – err, Allan Inquiry – released its final report, a year late and millions of dollars over-budget, and it concluded that there was no illegality or nefarious activity with regard to environmental groups who may have received some funding from international donors when it comes to opposing the oil sands and other oil and gas activities. Dollars that went toward campaigns against the energy sector were fairly minor, and had little-to-no impact on projects not moving forward (because market forces did the job just fine, thank you very much). In other words, the province spent $3.5 million on this joke of an inquiry, and tried to claim it was money well spent, because the government is nothing more than a total clown show.

And then there were the lies – the minister insisted that the inquiry was never about finding illegality (untrue – there are receipts), and Jason Kenney outright lying about what the numbers in the report stated, because he needs to try and spin it in the worst possible light to both justify the exercise, and to continue trying to point the populists he stoked in a direction other than his.

https://twitter.com/charlesrusnell/status/1451353269708603397

https://twitter.com/charlesrusnell/status/1451353273781293094

Meanwhile, prime minister Justin Trudeau is pouring cold water on Kenney’s referendum rhetoric, reminding him that a provincial referendum is not an amending formula for the constitution – seven provinces representing fifty percent of the population is. More to the point, Kenney sat around the Cabinet table when the current equalisation formula was last amended, so he can’t claim it’s unfair as he’s the one who helped put it into place. Because seriously – claiming it’s unfair because Albertans pay the same federal taxes as everyone else is just political bullshit masquerading as a grievance, even though it’s a grievance that has largely been created for the sole purpose of driving populist anger.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Just the Speaker doing his job

Posted on by

We got our first glimpse at the court documents related to the challenge of the House of Commons’ order demanding the production of secret documents related to the firing of the two scientists from the National Microbiology Lab. The Speaker, Anthony Rota, put in his submission that the case should be tossed because of Parliamentary privilege, and there was no explicit waiving of parliamentary privilege under the Canada Evidence Act, which is what the Public Health Agency is following in refusing to turn over unsecured documents. As a reminder, they have turned over the documents, both in redacted form to the committee that requested them, and in unredacted form to NSICOP, which has appropriate security clearances and safeguards, so it’s not like this is a blanket refusal to defy Parliament – it’s that they have their own obligations to follow. It’s also somewhat problematic that the committee wants the Commons’ Law Clerk to then redact the documents on his own, without appropriate training or context, so they ultimately claim they’re not looking for unredacted documents – only for someone else to do the redacting, at which point this is just becoming absurd.

The way this is being spun is also somewhat irritating – because this was a Canadian Press wire story, outlets who ran the piece sometimes did so with altered headlines that stated that it was the Liberals interfering with the “exclusive jurisdiction” of the Commons rather than the government, which is not really true. This isn’t a partisan issue – it’s different parts of the government acting according to the laws that Parliament passed. When the demands were made, PHAC was bound in legislation to inform the Attorney General, and while it is the same physical person as the minister of justice, under his Attorney General hat, he had obligations to follow the law and test these demands in Court.

The other commentary that is somewhat maddening is people pointing out that the Speaker is somehow going against his party in doing his job as Speaker in defending the Commons’ privileges. Again, this isn’t actually a partisan issue on either side (well, the Conservatives making these demands for the documents, with the support of the other opposition parties, are behaving in an extremely partisan manner and trying to embarrass the government, but that’s neither here nor there for the purpose of what we’re discussing). Trying to make it a partisan issue when everyone is doing their jobs is just degrading the discourse and muddying the understanding of what is going on (which is what certain parties would like to happen because it makes it easier for them to lie about the state of play). We shouldn’t be doing their dirty work for them.

Programming Note: I’m taking the next week off (as much as I am able), because it’s probably my only opportunity in advance of the possible election, and I really don’t want to have to deal with election coverage while battling burnout. Take care, and I’ll see you on the far side of the long weekend.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Announcing the process to find the next GG

Posted on by

Yesterday afternoon, the government finally announced the process by which they will be selecting the next governor general, and it is the return of an advisory panel – but not really the old vice-regal appointment committee process that Stephen Harper initiated. For one, minister Dominic LeBlanc co-chairs the committee along with the interim Clerk of the Privy Council, which is a big change because LeBlanc’s inclusion means it is no longer arm’s length and won’t be able to claim that it can avoid the appearance of considerations being made through a political lens. As well, the Canadian Secretary to the Queen is nowhere to be seen in this process, whereas the previous CSQ chaired the previous committee process. (There has been some disagreement with this over Twitter, which is their prerogative but I would not consider the creation of a short list to be “political advice” any more than any other options presented to a government as compiled by the civil service).

What concerns me is the timeline of this process, which the government claims to want to be “expeditious” because they don’t want to keep the Chief Justice in the Administrator position for long, particularly if we are in a hung parliament that could theoretically fall at any time (if you discount that the only people who actually want an election right now are bored pundits). Nevertheless, it took them a month-and-a-half after Payette’s resignation to just announce the committee. The old committee process took an average of six months to conduct a search and compile a short-list for a vice-regal position, which is really not tenable in the current situation.

If anyone wants to read more about the old process and the role of the Canadian Secretary of the Queen in it, it was part of the focus of my chapter in Royal Progress: Canada’s Monarchy in the Age of Disruption, which was the product of presentations made at the last conference by the Institute for the Study of the Crown in Canada.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Absent other measures

Posted on by

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report that unsurprisingly states that the federal carbon price will need to increase significantly, absent other measures. This is not news. We all know this is the case. We also know that the government is finalising all kinds of other non-price measures as part of their plans to exceed our 2030 Paris targets, including the Clean Fuel Standard, and we have Jonathan Wilkinson on the record stating that they are nearly ready and should be out before the end of the calendar year. Why the PBO and others feel the need to keep repeating that absent other measures the carbon price would need to increase significantly to meet those targets, I’m not sure, because all it does is start a new round of media nonsense about how awful the current prices are (they’re not), and that this is all one big socialist plot, or whatever. And there are more measures on the way, so the question becomes fairly moot.

Speaking of the Clean Fuel Standard, there was a bunch of clutched pearls and swooning on fainting couches over the past couple of weeks when a former MP and current gasoline price analyst indicated that said Standard would be like a super-charged carbon price, and a bunch of Conservatives and their favoured pundits all had a three minutes hate about it. What I find amusing is that these are the same people who a) claim to believe in the free market, b) oppose the carbon price which is a free market mechanism to reducing carbon emissions, and c) are calling for more regulation, which the Clean Fuel Standard is, even though regulations are opaquer as to the cost increases that will result. There is an argument to be had that the government should focus on increasing the carbon price over other regulatory measures (though I would disagree with the ones that say all of said measures should be abandoned in favour of the price), but getting exercised because the very regulatory measures you are looking for cost more money means that you’re not really serious about it in the first place.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dairy commissions and questions of jurisdiction

Posted on by

There were a couple of announcements for prime minister Justin Trudeau’s daily presser yesterday – that Health Canada had approved a serological test that was critical to the work of the immunity task force; that some $1 billion in additional funds was being allocated to regional development agencies to help struggling businesses; and that the student benefits would be open for applications as of Friday. There were a lot of things that came up during the Q&A – demands from reporters for a budget or a fiscal update, for which Trudeau said that they couldn’t predict what was going to happen in a few weeks, so it didn’t make much sense to try to lay out a plan for the next twelve months. On the Canada-US border, it was strongly hinted that the current closure would continue for another month, but he wasn’t going to speculate past then. He talked about the need to work with provinces and municipalities as transit operators face a huge revenue shortfall. Regarding Norway’s sovereign wealth fund pulling its investments out of the oilsands, he remarked that it was clear that climate considerations were becoming a bigger feature in the investment landscape. He also promised to look into the issue of health researchers in the country facing layoffs because funding sources evaporated and they aren’t eligible for the federal wage subsidy because of a technicality.

And then it was off to the House of Commons, first for the in-person meeting of the Special Committee, which descended into farce fairly quickly and stayed there – Andrew Scheer railing about the revelations that potential fraud of the CERB isn’t being caught up-front, while his MPs both demand easier access to small business supports while clutching their pearls about the potential size of the deficit, apparently blind to the contradiction in their position. Meanwhile, Jagmeet Singh was demanding that the federal government swoop in and offer some kind of national guarantee around long-term care, giving Trudeau the chance to chide him about his disregard for provincial jurisdiction (and Trudeau was a little sharper on this than he often is).

The special committee eventually gave way to a proper emergency sitting of the Commons to pass the latest emergency bill, this time on increasing the borrowing limit of the dairy commission, while many a journalist mischaracterized this as “debating” said bill. There was no debate – it was pre-agreed to, and each party would give a couple of speeches that may or may not be related to the bill before they passed it at all stages for the Senate to adopt on Friday. At the beginning of this, however, Singh was back up with yet another motion, this time to call on the government to ensure that there was universal two-week paid sick leave – which is, once again, provincial jurisdiction. (The motion did not pass). I’m torn between trying to decide if Singh is genuinely clueless about what is and is not federal jurisdiction (a position bolstered by his promises in the election around things like local hospital decisions), or if he’s cynically trying to make it look like the federal government doesn’t care about these issues when they have no actual levers at their disposal to make any of these demands happen. Either way, federalism is a real thing, and trying to play it like it’s not is a real problem for the leader of a federal party.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Tightening the border even more

Posted on by

There was news today from Justin Trudeau in his daily presser (which will happen again today, but I suspect we’ll all be working through the weekends for the foreseeable future), which was not only that the government was working with industry to both increase the capacity at companies which produce medical equipment, and to help other companies retool in order to produce supplies that may be necessary in the near future – something that is akin to a wartime scenario. Trudeau also said that the government had come to an agreement with the United States to essentially suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement, and that for the next 30 days (at which point the agreement sunsets), any irregular border crossers trying to seek asylum in Canada would be returned to the United States.

I have a couple of cynical theories about this move – one of them being that it’s a sop to the Conservatives, who have been crowing about this as other border closures have been taking place. The other theory, which has been put forward by some Washington-based journalists, is that this was in part to offer cover to Donald Trump so that he could take more extreme measures along his southern border. There is also the pragmatist aspect to this – resources are tight with other border closures and screening, so ensuring that there are enough people to man the irregular crossings like Roxham Road, where asylum claimants need to be processed, screened, and now isolated in a federal facility for two weeks, was likely going to stress their resources and capacity. The flip-side of this, however, is that it pushes more people to unmonitored crossings that are further afield, especially now that the weather is warming up, and if they cross there, they won’t be screened and won’t be tracked by public health authorities, and could easily become new vectors for infection – essentially making the government damned if they do, damned if they don’t. The humanitarian aspect of this decision is also a pretty big deal, and does damage to our international reputation, but in this time of crisis, I’m not sure how much anyone is thinking of that, and if it makes it seem like they’re taking action – even if it’s one that will inevitably have more negative consequences than positive ones – then that may be the trade-off for other political considerations at this point in time.

Meanwhile, Here’s an updated Q&A with infectious disease specialist Dr. Isaac Bogoch on COVID-19. Justin Ling worries about the patchwork of information coming from different levels of government as it relates to the pandemic. Ling is also concerned about the government’s tepid response to the pandemic relating to prisoners, and the decision around asylum seekers. Chantal Hébert gives her assessment of how the country’s political leaders are responding to the crisis. Colby Cosh offers some reflections on the state of the pandemic and where it may lead us.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Orphan well alert

Posted on by

A story that did not get enough attention yesterday was out of Alberta, where the organization that is tasked with cleaning up abandoned oil wells is sounding the alarm that the provincial regulator’s rules are not sufficient to prevent the creation of more of these “orphan” wells – at a time when more companies are offloading assets to smaller companies. This is the kind of practice that usually results in the orphaning of these wells in the first place – that the smaller companies start losing money when the price of oil tanks, and they can’t live up to their obligations to clean up the abandoned ones with the money they’re making from the active ones they’ve bought along with them.

This issue was the subject of a Supreme Court of Canada decision last year, where the court said that bankruptcy trustees who take up these companies with the orphan wells can’t simply abandon these obligations under their bankruptcy proceedings as they’re trying to sell the active wells to new buyers – that their environmental obligations can’t be jettisoned because it’s inconvenient for them. (More on the underlying issues here). This also reinforces the polluter-pays principle, which governments say they’re in favour of – except when it’s inconvenient. Like right now, for Jason Kenney.

Why this issue deserves more attention is because Kenney (and to a lesser degree Scott Moe, who is following the pattern set out for him by Brad Wall) has been demanding that the federal government spend their dollars on cleaning up these orphan wells under the rubric of it being job-creation, or good for the environment. Kenney’s demand for retroactive stabilization funds as an “equalization rebate” (which is ridiculous) has been cited on more than one occasion as a means of using the funds for this purpose, which would essentially be offloading the responsibility onto the federal government because the regulator hasn’t been doing an adequate job when these sales happen, and the provincial government hasn’t created strict enough regulations to prevent these wells from being orphaned in the first place. That’s something that we should be holding him – and the industry – to account for, but that means cutting through the obfuscation. There should be no reason why the federal government should be taking on this expense, but this is what they are being asked to do.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Encana and illogical anger

Posted on by

The big news yesterday was that oil and gas company Encana decided to decamp their headquarters and head to the US under a new name to try and attract more investors there, and Jason Kenney and his ministers freaked out. They railed that this was Trudeau’s fault – despite Encana’s CEO saying otherwise, and despite the fact that there are to be no job losses in Alberta or loss of existing investments – and Kenney upped his demands on Trudeau (including the ludicrous demand that Trudeau fire Catherine McKenna as environment minister). And while the Trudeau blaming gets increasingly shrill and incoherent, there are a few things to remember – that Encana’s stock price has hewed pretty closely to the price of oil, that it lost more value under Harper than it did Trudeau, and that even bank analysts are mystified by the move. Perhaps Kenney’s blame is misplaced – imagine that.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1189992947615289345

There have also been a number of voices making the absurd comparison that governments are quick to help companies like Bombardier and SNC-Lavalin but won’t offer it to oil companies – which ignores that the Harper government also helped those same kinds of companies, while Trudeau bought a pipeline in order to de-risk it and ensure that it gets completed, not to mention that other companies usually asking for loan guarantees and aren’t reliant on oil or commodity prices. There is a lot of false comparison going on in order to nurse this sense of grievance, because that’s what this is really all about.

Meanwhile, here is some additional context on the economic situation in Alberta and Saskatchewan that we shouldn’t overlook as part of this conversation.

Continue reading →