LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Katie Telford, back left, and Gerald Butts, back right, listen as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks at a First Ministers meeting in Ottawa, in 2016.

One of these days, senior Liberals and key advisers in Ottawa need to start telling Prime Minister Justin Trudeau what goes on in his government. At the moment, he’s being left sadly ill-informed. No one tells him anything. He seems, with surprising frequency, to end up lost in the dark when important matters pop up.

Gerald Butts — his friend, principal secretary and top aide at the time — neglected to tell him that Jody Wilson-Raybould was getting upset about people interfering in her job as attorney general, or warn him she might resign if he demoted her.

Nobody told him it was a bad idea to visit India dressed as a Bollywood star. When it came time to consider handing a $900-million grant program to a charity that was paying his mom, wife and brother, no one took the time to explain it might be a good moment to recuse himself from the decision.

He certainly should have been advised that, before hiring an astronaut as governor general, it would be prudent to investigate her previous record in handling people, but apparently he wasn’t. And was it his fault he wasn’t informed in clear and simple terms that a misconduct allegation against Canada’s top soldier was a #MeToo moment, rather than just an everyday, garden-variety misconduct complaint?

Nope. Again and again, he’s been left to stumble into messes that might have been avoided if someone in the Prime Minister’s Office, the cabinet, the caucus, the Liberal party of Canada or the bevy of advisers, aides and communications experts employed to keep him on top of events had just taken the trouble to inform him there was a cliff ahead and he was heading straight for it.

It’s becoming a real dilemma. It’s one thing to dismiss boyish missteps from the days he was a keen young school teacher and liked to paint himself up for parties, but when you’ve been prime minister for five years and are angling for re-election, you’re supposed to have a handle on things, especially matters that take place within your own government.

This latest bit of confusion is a case in point. Harjit Sajjan, Canada’s defence minister, was informed three years ago of an allegation of misconduct against Gen. Jonathan Vance, the military’s top soldier. Sajjan told his chief of staff, who told the PMO, which informed the Privy Council Office, which took a quick stab at gathering more information before letting the issue slide.

Obviously, Sajjan was aware of the issue, even though he made a point of refusing to look at the evidence. His chief of staff knew, as did Katie Telford, Trudeau’s chief of staff, as did Elder Marques, a PMO adviser assigned to co-ordinate with Vance, as did the clerk of the Privy Council, as did the Privy Council Office official who made the failed effort to follow-up.

Lots of people knew, all of them senior people to one degree or another in a government that has loudly declared itself to have a zero-tolerance policy on abusive conduct towards women (and presumably anyone else, for that matter.) Yet none of them told the prime minister. Didn’t even hint at it, apparently, given that he insists he was totally unaware of the allegations until they appeared in the media this year.

Given that Marques says he quickly realized the misconduct must be sexual in nature, it would seem natural that a zero-tolerance prime minister should have been informed, especially when he was being asked to sign off on a pay raise for Vance, which he approved. Any one of Sajjan, Telford or Michael Wernick, the clerk of the Privy Council at the time, should have had the political wherewithal to know that leaving Trudeau dangling over such a cauldron of potential trouble was a bad idea.

Wernick later ran into trouble over the Wilson-Raybould embarrassment and decided to retire ahead of schedule. He told the House of Commons defence committee in April that there were a lot of military matters going on at the time of the allegation against Vance and it “dropped off the radar,” for which he apologized.

He added that more could have been done, including “options for Minister Sajjan to do things differently.” Sajjan disputes that, insisting he did everything that could be expected, and that “it does not matter” whether the complaint was sexual or not, as long as it was addressed.

Except it wasn’t addressed — by any of them. The only thing they all did with any success was to keep it from the prime minister.

The result is that for the umpteenth time since he took office, Trudeau is battling to contain an affair that has disrupted the government, diverted it from other issues, made it look foolish or incompetent and raised questions about the judgment of the people surrounding the prime minister, if not the prime minister himself.

It says a lot about their opinion of their boss that they are constantly afraid to confront him with bad news. Are they afraid they’ll get yelled at? Get fired? That it will leave Trudeau in a grumpy mood?

It’s his job to know these things. If Butts, Telford and the others are too skittish, he needs to find someone who’s willing to take the risk, and with enough confidence in the prime minister’s skills to trust he’ll be able to deal with bad news. Unless he can’t find anyone with that level of confidence in him.

National Post

Twitter.com/kellymcparland

The big issues are far from settled. Sign up for the NP Comment newsletter, NP Platformed — the cure for cancel culture.


Public policy think-tank Cardus is opposed to the federal government’s proposed national daycare, arguing the government should instead help families choose their own child-care solutions.

OTTAWA — A report that tries to estimate the cost of the universal child-care program envisioned in the federal budget warns that it may cost billions of dollars more than expected to get a top notch system, with provinces either having to pick up the tab or have an underfunded system.

The report is set to be released Thursday by Cardus, a public policy think-tank focused on education, religious freedom and other social issues. Cardus is opposed to the federal government’s proposed national daycare, arguing the government should instead help families choose their own child-care solutions.

Cardus estimates national daycare could cost in the range of $17 billion to $36.3 billion annually by 2026, depending how the program is established.

The low-cost model would create a system similar to Quebec’s, which Cardus argues Canada shouldn’t want to emulate given its poor access to high-quality spaces and high ratio of children per staff. For the type of system that universal child-care proponents generally call for, the report estimates it would require the high-cost model and leave a $23.3-billion gap after federal funding and parent fees are considered.

“Our model calculates the provincial share of daycare funding as the difference between the federal and parent contribution and our cost estimates,” the report says. “The federal government promises a 50/50 cost sharing with the provinces, but this sharing is not guaranteed over time. How the provinces will handle funding shortfalls is unknown. Thus the risk of an uneven distribution of care, or care of mediocre or poor quality, is a significant possibility.”

Andrea Mrozek, co-author of the report and a senior fellow at Cardus, said its goal is to attempt to fill in the details missing in the federal budget, which promised to spend $30 billion over five years to create a national system and slash fees to an average of $10 per day by 2026.

“With all the talk about how (the child-care system) pays for itself, the starting point to understand the answer to that is: actually, how much does this cost?” Mrozek said. “So we decided to try and figure that out in a detailed, and what we hope is a thoughtful, cost assessment considering all the various factors of child care. And we did so based on the assumptions of proponents of this type of plan.”

The budget said Ottawa will seek to negotiate initial five-year agreements with provinces to bring the federal government into a 50/50 share of costs, with federal funding of $9.2 billion in year five.

But there were no details in the budget about what the requirements of this program would be, such as staff-to-child ratios, staff salaries, capital costs for building new spaces, per-space payments for home daycares, and the cost of infant care.

The Cardus report attempts to build a range of what a national system might cost depending on how these metrics are set. The models assume a five-year phase-in, capital costs for building new licensed spaces, and coverage of 70 per cent of kids aged one to five (the OECD average).

The low-cost model comes with a price tag of $17 billion in year five, with provinces having to cover the $4.2 billion remaining after federal funding and parent fees. But this is partly based on Quebec’s model, which Cardus argues is a bad system due to the highest ratio of children per staff in the country and very long waiting lists that block access to high-quality spaces (the CPEs, les centres de la petite enfance).

“I just want to nurture the discussion around some of the undisputed problems there,” Mrozek said. “When proponents talk about Quebec, they will talk about these problems and say we should avoid this, but they never say how.”

The highest-cost model has a price tag of $36.3 billion in year five, with a $23.3-billion gap after federal funding and parent fees. Mrozek argues it will cost this much to get the kind of space requirements and staff-to-child ratios that proponents of a universal system want to see.

Infant care is also a big cost difference. The low-cost model estimates 13 per cent of children under age one needing a child-care space, which is Cardus’ estimate of the current situation in Canada. The high-cost model estimates 33 per cent, which Cardus says is the situation in Quebec due to their subsidized system. However, infant care is much more expensive to provide.

Attempting to fact check these numbers against the federal system won’t be possible until more information is revealed about what the federal system will look like, and how negotiations with provinces turn out.

“We’re not unsympathetic to the high costs of daycare,” Mrozek said. But she said she wants to encourage more discussion about how you tackle that, because subsidizing one type of universal child care at great cost will have unexpected consequences for parents looking for options.

“There’s a ton of complexity to both the existing ecosystem of care, and then what might happen to it when they subsidize only one form of care,” she said.

• Email: bplatt@postmedia.com | Twitter:


Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation Minister Ravi Kahlon at the podium, with Premier John Horgan looking on.

VICTORIA — When Jobs Minister Ravi Kahlon took the wraps off the NDP’s half-a-billion-dollar InBC investment fund, he made several high-sounding claims about government’s intentions, each questionable.

“InBC is a public strategic investment fund and will be investing taxpayer dollars,” said Kahlon during debate last week on the enabling legislation for the InBC Crown corporation that will administer the fund. “It is incredibly important that it has the highest standards of transparency and accountability to the public.”

Important, to be sure: the government plan is for InBC to invest $500 million over the next three years. And the NDP promise of transparency and accountability is easy to test.

InBC was approved and structured according to the recommendations in a business plan. I asked Kahlon’s Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation for a copy of the plan. Not a chance, I was told. The business plan is a cabinet document, hence confidential. So much for transparency and accountability.

Will taxpayer money be secure once invested by InBC? Kahlon suggests it will.

“The fund will be doing what is known as impact investing,” he assured the House. “This means that investments must aim for and achieve a financial return.”

But for those inclined to check the fine print on what politicians say, the supporting documentation for the InBC Investment Corp. contains a sobering warning about the prospects for returns on the investment plan.

“Venture capital is a high-risk asset class that does not afford guaranteed returns. Negative returns may occur in the early years while new investments are being made. Expected timing and distribution of venture capital returns is difficult to predict.”

The fund will pursue a “patient” strategy with a view to reaping a five per cent return on investments, and then only after a period of years — perhaps many years.

One of Kahlon’s selling points for the fund is the promise that the final call on the disposition of the $500 million will be in the hands of a chief investment officer, whose independence is guaranteed in law.

As proof, he quoted Section 18 (1) of the enabling legislation: “No person other than the chief investment officer — or an external fund manager retained by the corporation — may make an investment decision.”

Seems clear-cut. But the chief investment officer will operate under guidelines laid down in the NDP legislation — and under cabinet-approved regulations that are still to come.

Kahlon says the fund’s investments “must support social, economic and environmental policy objectives of the government” and “move the dial on key priorities, like building a more innovative low-carbon economy, promoting growth and investment across the province, and achieving reconciliation with Indigenous people.” He also says InBC “will help promising businesses to scale up and grow here in B.C.,” and it will “anchor” those businesses in the province.

Worthy goals. But will the cabinet limit the decisions of the chief investment officer with regional and sectoral targets and quotas? Will companies that accept InBC investments be restricted from contracting work outside B.C. or banned from moving some of their operations offshore down the road? Will they be bound, like the government itself, to the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Much of the oversight for InBC will be in the hands of a nine-member board of directors. Two will be senior public servants — the deputy minister of finance and Kahlon’s own deputy. The other seven will be recruited from outside government.

“The legislation stipulates that these individuals will be appointed by cabinet,” said Kahlon. “All will be recognized leaders in their fields, chosen for their expertise and their ability to represent a diverse range of perspectives. The initial board will also reflect the diversity of this province.”

On that score, I found myself thinking back to the last NDP-appointed oversight panel to come under public scrutiny, the one charged with keeping an eye on the budget and construction schedule for B.C. Hydro’s Site C project. Turned out the New Democrats, with their rudimentary grasp of the concept of oversight, appointed an oversight board where half of the members were also members of the B.C. Hydro board. For a time both entities were chaired by the same person, now-departed executive chairman Ken Peterson.

Must have been quite a time-saver. Chairman of oversight panel to himself in his capacity as B.C. Hydro chairman: “So how are things with Site C?” Hydro chairman to himself in his capacity as oversight chairman: “Great.” Chairman to self: “Thank you for the update.” Chairman to self: “Thank you for the oversight.” Chairman to self: “Catch you next month.”

Joking aside, the test of the government’s intentions for the InBC board will be in the actual appointments, not what the minister said in the House.

Once all this is set in motion later this year, what assurances are there that InBC’s funds are being dispensed in keeping with the legislated goals and the broader public interest?

Not to worry, said Kahlon. There will be annual reports to the legislature and, at the end of five years, an independent performance review by a third party, external to government. The latter will be made public, unlike the current business plan.

The five-year timeline means no independent oversight of InBC until after the next provincial election. But only a cynic would think that was a calculated choice by the New Democrats.

vpalmer@postmedia.com


Letters to the editor should be sent to 

sunletters@vancouversun.com

CLICK HERE

 to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? We'd like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email 

vantips@postmedia.com

.


Calgary police where busy keeping the peace as hundreds of anti-mask protesters, some carrying tiki torches, and counter-protesters clashed at city hall on Saturday, Feb. 27, 2021.

Wednesday was quite the day at the Whistle Stop Cafe in the little hamlet of Mirror, northeast of Red Deer.

First, the Mounties and Alberta Health Services

padlocked the chronic health rules violator

, which has defied AHS since January.

Then, the owner, Chris Scott, launched a real-time Facebook tirade alleging his constitutional rights were violated. He shouted accusations at AHS officials and Mounties.

On Facebook, his allies applauded his defiance, while opponents vilified this guy who for months has broken the rules others choose to obey.

It was no accident that a new provincial enforcement protocol came into effect shortly before officials arrived at the Whistle Stop.

Theirs was the first move in the

tougher enforcement promised later Wednesday morning

by Premier Jason Kenney and Kaycee Madu, the justice minister.

They said fines for chronic violators will be raised from $1,000 to $2,000. They then went into a cabinet meeting. An hour later, an order-in-council with the fine increase was published.

Madu’s office also released a three-page “COVID-19 Compliance/Enforcement Framework for Repeat Offenders.”

It’s dense and bureaucratic stuff, mainly because the politicians can’t seem to be telling the police and other enforcement officials what to do, or who to target.

But the point is clear — enforcement agencies will back each other, and in turn be backed by the government.

The fact that the politicians needed to come out with this framework explains why enforcement has been so haphazard.

Often, nobody wanted to take the first step. There were so many complexities that the agencies themselves asked for a formal protocol.

The jumble of players included AHS, the RCMP, Gaming and Liquor, city police, Blood Tribe Police and several others.

One approved action on the first day was “ordering closure and blocking access to premises.” The Whistle Stop got to see that in real life.

The rules defined conditions that should lead to repeat offenders being charged.

  • "Continuing to defy requirements despite repeated attempts to generate compliance, including being non-responsive . . . or when a single organization has escalated to fines, orders or other penalties and it has not been effective.
  • "Publicly inciting others towards civil disobedience (e.g., attracting significant media and public attention or calling for others to disobey requirements.)
  • "Creating opportunities for super spreader events or situations where actions or inactions have the potential to significantly spread COVID-19.
  • "Have been aggressive, threatening or obstructive to lawful inspection or enforcement activities."

To some this kind of enforcement is oppression. One guy went right over the top by saying on Facebook: “We need another Marythorpe.”

The town is Mayerthorpe, not Marythorpe. It’s where four Mounties were ambushed and murdered on March 3, 2005. The Alberta RCMP noted that sickening post on their own Twitter feed.

The atmosphere is as toxic and dangerous as I’ve ever seen it in Alberta.

Tuesday evening, Premier Jason Kenney told UCP members on Facebook that he and his mother, who is 83, have both been threatened.

He read out messages, according to a CBC report. “You will be executed for your crimes against humanity.” And, “we know where your mother lives.”

Asked about this at a news conference Wednesday morning, Kenney wouldn’t go into detail, saying he leaves security to the sheriffs and doesn’t want to see threats.

But maybe he needs to talk about this publicly. Albertans should be aware of how ugly the mood has become.

 Premier Jason Kenney joined other provincial ministers from Edmonton and Calgary on Wednesday, May 5, 2021, during a recap of the new COVID-19 health measures being implemented in Alberta.

The big question, still unanswered, is how the authorities will enforce the big anti-mask rallies.

They certainly “create opportunities for superspreader events” and fit the definition of “inciting others toward civil disobedience.”

For most people, it’s exasperating to see the protests continue even as the majority begins to comply with yet another

set of tough rules

.

Police have so far handled these events delicately. Nobody wants riots, especially with young children present.

But the public, and the demonstrators, can expect a tougher response from now on.

Don Braid's column appears regularly in the Herald

dbraid@postmedia.com

Twitter:

@DonBraid

Facebook:

Don Braid Politics