With just a couple of QP session left in the year, all of the leaders were present today, interim or otherwise. Rona Ambrose led off, worrying that the prime minster was bragging about being the target of illegal lobbying — which was not what he said, but whatever. Trudeau said that wherever he is, he talks about growth for the middle class and all of those wonderful things. Ambrose wondered when money became more than ethics. Trudeau insisted that he has the same message everywhere he goes, about taxing the one percent more to cut taxes for the middle class. Ambrose asked the same again, got the same answer, and then she worried that his true priority was fundraisers and that he’s left the impression that he can be bought. Trudeau reiterated that they raised taxes on the wealthiest to cut taxes for the middle class. Ambrose accused the Trudeau Foundation of laundering influence to the PM, and demanded that he tell them to stop accepting foreign donations. Trudeau assured her that he severed his connections shortly after he became party leader and they advance the cause of the humanities in a non-partisan manner. Thomas Mulcair was up next, also concern trolling about fundraising, and Trudeau repeated his same points about their priorities. Mulcair demanded support for the NDP bill to “give teeth” to ethics rules, but Trudeau repeated his same points. Mulcair moved onto marijuana legalisation and demanded immediate decriminalisation. Trudeau reminded him that their objectives were to keep it out of the hands of children and the profits from the hands of organised crime, and that until the law was changed, it stands. Mulcair pivoted again to the situation of Stelco workers, and Trudeau said that they were engaged in the challenge.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: Questions about fundraising
This whole fundraiser headache just won’t go away, and at this point, I just want to bang my head against a wall because all sides are just making this whole situation way more needlessly gross than it needs to be. At his end-of-year press conference yesterday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that at fundraisers, people do talk to him about stuff and he listens, but that doesn’t really influence his decision-making. And I’m a little queasy about everyone labelling this as “lobbying” because that has a fairly specific term and any actual lobbyists need to be registered, which the party makes an effort to screen them out of these events. According to the opposition, this was “bragging” as opposed to the reality that when you’re the PM, people will want to tell you stuff all the time, so unless the suggestion is that he doesn’t attend fundraisers any longer, then I’m not sure how you stop people from taking that opportunity to try and tell the PM their great idea/issue they’re passionate about that he could totally do something about/etc. The NDP are vowing to introduce a bill to put the government’s ethical guidelines into legislation, but how do you legislate the “appearance” of conflict of interest? It’s a subjective measure that the media and the opposition have been torqueing with no actual demonstrated quid pro quo (and no, insinuation based on coincidental timing is not actually proof of quid pro quo), and I’m not sure what they’re exactly suggesting they give the Ethics Commissioner power to do when it comes to regulating said appearance of conflict, but giving yet more power to an unaccountable officer of parliament rankles on me even more.
And then there’s the Trudeau Foundation. After they embarked on new fundraising efforts because of low interest rates were hitting their ability to do their work, and lo, they suddenly have new donors, some of them Canadians with foreign connections. This apparently is a sign of a conspiracy that people are somehow trying to curry favour with the Prime Minister, despite the fact that he has severed his ties to the Foundation before this happened. (Apparently this too goes into “appearance” of conflict where none actually exists). Oh, and it’s also apparently suspicious that some companies have increased their lobbying of a new government. Because it’s not like you want to get your points to the new people in charge when you’re looking to change policies that the previous government implemented (or refused to). That’s kind of how lobbying works. It’s not necessarily nefarious.
And to tie this all off, the Globe and Mail ordered polling on “cash for access” fundraising (never mind that what happens at the federal level bears no resemblance to what went on in Ontario), and wouldn’t you know, most people don’t like it. And half of respondents think that you can buy government influence for $1500? Honestly? This is the media not doing our jobs to show how government works, but is just reinforcing stereotypes about crooked politicians being on the take. It’s kind of gross, and we should be better than this.
QP: Taxing Canadians to death
While Justin Trudeau held a media availability earlier in the day, he was not in QP, despite there being nothing else on his agenda. Rona Ambrose led off to decry the carbon tax in the light of the Trumpocalypse and its promises of slashed taxes, and Jim Carr stood up to take the questions, praising the outcome of the meeting with the premiers on Friday. Ambrose insisted that there was no costing for said tax, and Carr reminded her that each province would determine their own system. After another round again on French, Ambrose turned to fundraising and said the PM “bragged” about people discussing government business at fundraisers. Bardish Chagger got to stand up to start the “rules” talking points. Ambrose asked again, and got the same answer. Alexandre Boulerice was up next to raise fundraising, asking in English (unusually for him). Chagger gave her usual points. Ruth Ellen Brosseau stood up to ask in French, and got the French version of Chagger’s speech. Brosseau switched to English to read some confusing question about fundraising and the MyDemocracy survey, but Chagger took this one for the same response. Boulerice, in French, railed about MyDemocracy, and Maryam Monsef stood up to praise it.
Roundup: A small government climbdown
Sometimes it’s not just that the Senate is everyone’s convenient punching bag in federal politics – it’s also what they like to dangle before the media to show that they’re serious about some issue or another. Early on in the parliament, it was Conservatives who were supposedly going to flex their muscles to defeat all kinds of government bills in the Senate, which never happened, and now we’re getting threats from the new independent cohort. This time, it’s Bill C-29, the government’s budget implementation act, and a provision therein that has Quebec all hot and bothered because it would affect their consumer protection legislation as it relates to the banks.
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/807715472296833024
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/807715828141584384
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/807716568276856832
The government has maintained that because this is a federally-regulated sector that they have jurisdiction. Quebec disputes this, says that they have a Supreme Court of Canada decision to back up their position, and premier Couillard has been asking the government to remove this section from the bill, and impressing upon Senators to do something if the government won’t. New Quebec Senator André Pratte has apparently been making the rounds to do just that, while Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative” – Senator Peter Harder has responded with the usual plaintive wail that the Senate should respect the will of the House of Commons, never mind how much he was praising up and down the work they did on amending the assisted dying legislation just a few months ago.
But the pressure from the Senate may have already come to good effect. In Question Period of Friday, the finance minister’s parliamentary secretary, François-Philippe Champagne, announced a particular government climbdown on the issue:
We are going to continue working with consumer groups, stakeholders, and the provinces and territories to develop regulations and enforce the law. We are going to delay the implementation of some provisions of division 5 of the bill so that the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce can examine this important issue more closely.
In light of this development, should the Andrew Coynes of the world really be wailing and gnashing their teeth about the Senate supposedly overstepping their authority, or not respecting the will of the Commons? Or should we acknowledge that they heard the concerns that the government steamrolled over with their majority and forced the government to acknowledge that hey, maybe there is a problem that we should fix? Because I’m getting awfully tired of constantly hearing about how the Senate is somehow becoming this de facto ruling body of appointees, when it’s anything but. It’s doing the job that it was intended to do, which is sober second thought – particularly when there is a government with a majority, and with more independent senators in the chamber, they’re not taking orders from PMO to push things through. This is their job. This is what they’re supposed to do. Can we please tone down the histrionics about it?
Roundup: A catalogue of ineptitude
Over in the weekend Ottawa Citizen, our good friend Kady O’Malley has a comprehensive breakdown of everything that went wrong with the electoral reform committee, and it’s pretty stunning once it’s all laid out before you. It starts with the Liberals’ relenting to allow the makeup of the committee to be more *cough* “proportional” than the traditional make-up of a parliamentary committee (which was not actually proportional, but merely gamed by the NDP to give the appearance of proportionality, and the Liberals relented for what I’m guessing was good faith). From there, it moves to the Liberals putting all newbies on the committee (with the exception of the chair) who didn’t have a clue what they were doing, and their lack of experience, combined with the fact that they no longer had a majority (despite having a parliamentary majority) meant that the opposition party gamed the witness selection in such a way that it meant they were able to self-select witnesses to get the outcome they wanted – namely 88 percent of witnesses preferring proportional systems, and furthermore, because they had motivated followings for their public consultations, it allowed them to self-select their famed 87 percent in favour of proportional systems and a further 90 percent in favour of a referendum. And almost nary was there a voice for ranked ballots. (Also a nitpick: ranked ballots have little to do with the proportionality that people keep trying to force the system into, nor are they about gaming the system in favour of centrist parties like the Liberals. Rather, ranked ballots are designed to eliminate strategic voting, ensure that there is a “clear winner” with a simple majority once you redistribute votes, and to make campaigning “nicer” because you are also looking for second-place votes. Experience from Australia shows that it has not favoured centrist governments).
In other words, this whole exercise was flawed from the start, in large part because the Liberal government was so inept at handling it. In fact, this cannot be understated, and they are continuing to be completely inept at handling the fallout of the broken process that they allowed themselves to be bullied into (lest they face charges of trying to game the system – thus allowing the other parties to game it for them), and rather than either admitting that this went off the rails (because it did) and that it was a stupid promise to have made in the first place (because it was) and trying to either be honest about cutting their losses, they’re dragging it out in order to find a more legitimate way to either punt this into the future, or declare that no consensus can be found (which there won’t be) and trying to kill it that way. But in the meantime, the daily howls out outrage of the opposition because of the way that they have completely bungled not only the committee response (and let’s face it – the report’s recommendations were hot garbage) and the further rollout of their MyDemocracy survey without adequately explaining it has meant that this continues to turn into an outrageous farce. I’m not necessarily going to lay this all at the feet of the minister, or call for her resignation, but this is one particular file where the government has been so clueless and amateurish that the need to pull out of the tailspin that they find themselves in, take their lumps, and then smother this in the crib. Enough is enough.
Roundup: Desmond’s deserving recognition
The news was announced yesterday that Bill Morneau had chosen Canadian civil rights icon Viola Desmond to grace the new $10 banknote, which is being hailed pretty much universally as an excellent choice, and certainly the one that I had been hoping for when the shortlist was announced. As soon as it was announced, though, we got inundated with a flood of headlines declaring Desmond to be “Canada’s Rosa Parks,” which starts to grate because Desmond’s stand against segregation began nine years before Parks’ did, but she has largely been an unknown in Canadian history. I hadn’t even really heard of her until the History Minute last year (and side note, not only was it a compelling story, but I was pleased to see that Battlestar Galactica’s Kandyce McClure played her), and it was a reminder that yes, we too had segregation in Canada, albeit a subtler one because it wasn’t entrenched in legislation. That Canadians identify Parks before Desmond is part of our problem with our own history, both in that we have a tendency to whitewash much of it, but also that we are so inundated with Americana that our own achievements get lost in it (such as when Upper Canada was the first jurisdiction in the British Empire to end slavery). Of course, part of why Desmond’s case has been obscured in history has to do with the fact that her case was ostensibly one related to tax evasion (for the one cent theatre tax she did not pay to sit in the lower seats despite requesting to pay the higher priced ticket) and her lawyer didn’t push the racial discrimination angle in court. Hopefully, this inclusion will help to rectify this wrong, to restore Desmond’s rightful place in the history books and in the popular consciousness about civil rights in Canada.
Chatelaine has seven facts about Desmond. Former Nova Scotia lieutenant governor Maryann Francis talks about when she was able to give a Free Pardon posthumously for Desmond and the meaning of it for her. Maclean’s digs into its archives to look at Desmond and the issues of racism in Nova Scotia going back decades.
So honoured to meet #WandaRobson today at the unveiling of her sister's image on the $10 bill. Thx @Bill_Morneau #ViolaDesmond #bankNOTEable pic.twitter.com/c81I91Gilx
— Celina Caesar (like the salad)-Chavannes (sh-van) (@iamcelinacc) December 8, 2016
Sidenote on Canada choosing Viola Desmond for bank note: Former Canada PMs Mackenzie King & Borden to no longer appear on bank notes
— Paul Vieira (@paulvieira) December 8, 2016
Meanwhile, there have been a few comments about how our wartime prime ministers, Sir Robert Borden and William Lyon Mackenzie King will no longer be gracing banknotes, while Sir John A Macdonald and Sir Wilfred Laurier are moving from the $5 and $10 banknotes to the $50 and $100, with accusations that this means that we’re somehow “effacing history.” The thing is, Borden and King are in plenty of other places in our history books, while a person like Desmond is not. I think we have room enough to learn about the contributions of more than just the great white men of history and making it more inclusive. That’s hardly effacing history – it’s opening it up.
QP: These are not the fundraisers you’re looking for
The PM was present for a second day in a row, the benches were starting to empty out, with stacks of holiday cards on the desks of the other MPs present. Rona Ambrose led off, noting the visit of Joe Biden later in the day, but worried that with Trump about to slash taxes, and that Trudeau was too busy with photo ops and fundraisers. Trudeau responded by listing off the various things that this government has done to lower taxes and help families. Ambrose demanded a “real” low-tax plan, and Trudeau noted more things his government did like getting pipelines to tidewater approved. Ambrose switched to French to ask again, and Trudeau listed the many investments that he has attracted to the country. Ambrose changed back to English to pivot to the fundraising question, and Trudeau fell back to the rules talking points. For her last question, Ambrose accused him of breaking conflict of interest laws, and Trudeau assured her that he followed the rules. Thomas Mulcair was up next, accusing the PM of having become what he accused the Conservatives were doing, and Trudeau returned to his talking points on the rules. Mulcair wondered where the PM was last night, and when Trudeau only answered with his points about the rules, Mulcair prefaced his next question by saying that Trudeau was at a “cash-for-access” event. Mulcair moved onto the electoral reform file and worried that the government would unilaterally impose a system that would benefit their party. Trudeau responded with a plug for for MyDemocracy. Mulcair asked about the banking provisions in C-29, but Trudeau deflected with talks about tax cuts and benefits.
Roundup: A Senate of randoms is not the answer
Every now and again, boneheaded ideas about what to do with Senate pop up, and then as now, I feel the need to take it myself to smack them down. Because I care about Westminster democracy. This time it’s political scientist Arash Abizadeh writing in the Montreal Gazette that we should replace the Senate with a randomly selected Citizens’ Assembly.
Nope.
For starters, Abizadeh gets his civics wrong in which he tries to get at the tension between democratic legitimacy and the role of the Senate in being sober second thought on the House of Commons. The problem is that he doesn’t actually get to where the Senate derives its legitimacy which is from the constitution, and by that, we include the unwritten conventions of Responsible Government. The Senate is legitimate because the people appointed to it were chosen by the prime minister who held the confidence of the Chamber. It’s how all judges or tribunal chairs or any other decision-making body is appointed, and the Senate is no different. This is a glaring omission when it comes to trying to “solve” a problem that doesn’t actually exist. Just because the general public (and certain political scientists, it would seem) are ignorant as to how the system works, it does not mean that said system is illegitimate.
Abizadeh also fails to make a convincing case as to how some of the more specialised work of the Senate is to be done by 105 randoms selected by a national lottery. Currently there is an impetus to fill the body with people who have a lifetime of knowledge and experience (and up until recently, having done work for the party didn’t hurt either). It’s made the Senate the country’s pre-eminent think tank, which is part of the “value-added” of the institution on top of its job of scrutiny of legislation and holding the executive to account. This cannot be replicated by randoms, particularly if we keep the current appointment terms of continuous until age 75 (which is both for security of tenure and to dissuade them from seeking government favour for post-appointment work).
Abizadeh remains convinced that the citizens’ assemblies in Ontario and BC when it comes to electoral reform were such great experiences that obviously would be applicable to the Senate, and this is where his thinking is the fuzziest. While some people saw value in those assemblies, there was also a great deal of criticism that the political scientists who ran them exerted a great deal of influence in terms of getting their preferred electoral systems to be the one chosen in the end. Why this is particularly concerning with a senate of randoms is that they become especially vulnerable to, say, a Government Leader (or “government representative” as we are styling them these days) who has enough charisma and who can get them enough meetings with ministers to talk about causes near and dear to them that the Senate’s role in accountability and opposition to the government will evaporate. This should be concerning to everyone. And seriously – stop coming at the Senate with solutions to problems that don’t exist. You’re only confusing the issues and looking to unnecessarily damage our institutions.
QP: Not taking the bait — or the guilt trip
At long last, the Prime Minister was present for Question Period, and the hope that he might have some answers. Rona Ambrose led off, asking about yet more fundraising allegations and claims that it is a way to meet ministers. Justin Trudeau did not take the bait, and assured her that there are strong rules that are being followed. Ambrose raised the potential of illegality with the donation to the Trudeau Foundation, and Trudeau said that he understands that there are questions, but moved right into his speech about the rules. Ambrose tried a third time, but Trudeau stuck to his message that Canadians can have confidence in the system. Ambrose raised the allegations that a fundraiser was done for the purposes of lobbying openly. Trudeau still didn’t bite, and assured her that the rigorous rules were being followed. Ambrose tried to throw Trudeau’s statement about talking about the need for investment at one of these events, but Trudeau stuck to the points. Thomas Mulcair rose for the NDP, said it was nice to see the PM without having to pay $1500, and asked yet another fundraising question, but Trudeau didn’t take his bait either. Mulcair switched to concerns that the Quebec Consumer Protection Act was undermined by C-29, and Trudeau got to change up his talking points, talking about the great things in the budget implementation bill. Mulcair asked if it was important for the PM to show up for Question Period, Trudeau reminded him that he has a lot of important duties, but he has a strong cabinet who can also take questions. Mulcair then asked if the PM was lying when he promised that 2015 would be the last election under First-Past-the-Post, Trudeau said that he had answered that in the positive — to much uproarious laughter at the verbal slip — and Trudeau pressed on to defend his coding exercise at Shopify as being a demonstration of investing in the economy of the future.
Mulcair says it's great to see the PM — as though his own attendance record is much better. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 7, 2016
Roundup: Trying to help with attendance
The Conservatives have become very preoccupied with Justin Trudeau’s attendance in Question Period of late, which is one of those particular political cudgels that annoys me on a couple of different levels. On the one hand, I’m annoyed at the PM for not taking it more seriously and showing up in order to be held to account, as our system of government demands; on the other hand, I get annoyed when the opposition plays cheap politics with this because they are just as guilty, with their own leaders having fairly poor attendance records to match. It’s especially precious that the Conservatives are so concerned about Trudeau’s attendance as Stephen Harper’s was abysmal, and by 2014, you were lucky if he might show up once a week. Might.
Huffington Post crunched the numbers and found that Trudeau has missed 58 percent of QPs within his first year, while Stephen Harper missed 46 percent in his first year. Mind you, that was his first year, and that thrice-weekly attendance fell off pretty quickly. Trudeau has had a fairly punishing international schedule, which is part of his job – but we’re seeing a number of instances, especially lately, where he is in town and not attending, or that he counter-programmes another event to take place at the same time as QP, which again annoys me because it shows that he’s not taking the responsibility of being held to account seriously. Sure, it’s great that you want to show kids that that coding is a good life lesson, but there are other hours in the day where that might be more appropriate, and not when you should be answering questions for your government’s actions.
But the petty politics that the opposition are playing around this are frustrating. Offering to move Question Period to 4:15 in the afternoon – or any other time to “help” the PM make it – is lunacy considering how disruptive it leaves the rhythms of operation on the Hill, with committee schedules where witnesses have flown in across the country, with the media’s ability to keep the production cycle of news shows. I’m not saying that this is a big deal, but I’m not sure that this is the way to address the problem of non-attendance, particularly when other leaders can hardly deign to make their own appearance most days.