Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

QP: Something pretty fishy

Posted on by

On a snowy day in the Nation’s Capital, we had a mere single major leader present for QP, that being Thomas Mulcair. Denis Lebel led off, railing about Chinese billionaires and ethics rules, which got some of the usual points from Dominic LeBlanc about fundraising rules, seeing that he was answering in the place of Bardish Chagger (who is up north on small business and tourism-related work). Lebel wonder if the forestry industry needed to fundraise for the party to get heard, and Lebel assured him that they were working on solutions for that sector. Lebel switched to English to re-ask his first question, got the same answer, and then Candice Bergen took a turn on the same topic. LeBlanc assured her that the rules were followed, and on the second go-around, LeBlanc started listed similar fundraisers held by Conservatives while they were in power. Thomas Mulcair was up next, raising the Canada 2020 story and their sudden attempt to create distance between themselves and the government. LeBlanc listed fundraisers that Mulcair attended, and they went for another round in English. Mulcair then raised the limitations that the new CPP enhancements would have against women raising children, and Scott Brison said that this was an issue that was being raised at the next meeting with provincial and territorial ministers. Mulcair went another round of the same, raising that Pierre Trudeau fixed this 40 years ago, and Brison reiterated his response with some added praise for the Canada Child Benefit.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Crying wolf on fundraising

Posted on by

I’m starting to feel like a bit of history repeating again as I get cranky over yet more clutched pearls about so-called “cash for access” or “pay to play” fundraisers, which are nothing of the sort. Cabinet ministers are not soliciting stakeholders for tens of thousands of dollars of donations to meet fundraising targets. This is a government whose penchant for consultation means that there are multiple avenues of access for said stakeholders that they need not pony up to ministerial shakedowns in order to get meetings. And this latest allegation, that somehow “communist billionaires” from China got preferential access for $1500 (they didn’t pay as they can’t donate since they aren’t Canadian citizens) stretches credulity, and taking the cake is this hysteria about a donation made to the Trudeau Foundation. You know, a foundation that the Prime Minister is not a part of, and is a registered charity, which the PM sees no enrichment from in the slightest. That wealthy donors also contributed to the foundation, a statue of Trudeau’s father (again, where is the actual enrichment?) and to law school scholarship at McGill (Trudeau did not go to McGill law school) doesn’t have any particular relevance to him or government business, so even on the face of it, where is the conflict of interest? And don’t tell me that there’s a “perception” because if you actually look at the facts and not just go “Hmm, Justin Trudeau…Trudeau Foundation… Yup, sounds fishy to me,” then you’d realise that this is bunk. But no. Here we are, yet again, trying to make hay over activities that are reported, above board, and not actual conflicts of interest beyond people yelling “smell test!” and “appearance!” with no actual facts. And let me again remind you that the Chief Electoral Officer himself noted that our current donation levels are fine, and lowering them will mean money starts to move underground, which we do not want. And if you bring up the Ethics Commissioner calling these events “unsavoury,” let me also remind you that she wants all gifts to MPs registered at an extremely low threshold, meaning a massive amount of more compliance paperwork which MPs themselves have balked at, and the Lobbying Commissioner’s investigation is because people have brought this to her attention, and it doesn’t mean that she has found anything amiss. Honestly, stop lighting your hair on fire over innuendo. You’re currently crying wolf, and when any real impropriety happens, you risk it being shrugged off after any number of previous false alarms.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Opioids and bovine TB

Posted on by

Today’s special guest star for Senate Question Period was Health Minister Jane Philpott, whose birthday it also happened to be. Senator Ogilvie led off, and he raised the social affairs committee’s report on dementia, which the full Senate endorsed last night, and he wanted to know if she was aware of its contents. Philpott said that she has had a preliminary briefing on the report and she personally has experience with the file, given her own father suffers from it and she was looking to working on the file together.

Continue reading →

QP: Having trouble with the concept of a charitable foundation

Posted on by

While the PM headed off to Africa for the Francophonie summit, the other major leaders were present, ready to go. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, railing about the menace of Chinese billionaires, apparently selling out the country for Liberal party donations. Dominic LeBlanc reminded her that only Canadian citizens can donate to political parties, and there was full disclosure. Ambrose insisted there was a conflict of interest with government business being discussed there, and LeBlanc deflected, noting the broad consultations that the government engages in all the time. Ambrose raised the case of a judge striking down a mandatory minimum sentence on a child sexual offence, and railed about the PM defending the judge. Jody Wilson-Raybould noted that they take child sexual offences seriously and that they are looking at criminal justice reform with an eye for maximum discretion for judges. Ambrose asked in French, and got the same response. Ambrose then moved onto the issue of Yazidi refugees and the inadequate number being targeted for relocation, and John McCallum stated that the number quoted was not the one that they were working with. Thomas Mulcair was up next, railing about cash-for-access and insinuating that the country was being sold out to these donors. LeBlanc reminded him that the Chief Electoral Officer praised the fundraising rules. Mulcair switched to French to note the donation by that Chinese billionaire to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation as a conflict of interest. LeBlanc noted that the foundation was an independent charitable organization that former MPs Chuck Strahl and Megan Leslie sat on the board of. Mulcair moved to the topic of Kinder Morgan and its pending approval, to which Jim Carr reminded him of the added consultation process they applied to it. Mulcair thundered about the same approach being taken by the Conservatives, and Catherine McKenna asserted that the process was led by science and fact.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Peter Harder is trying to bamboozle you

Posted on by

Behold Senator Peter Harder, the “government representative” in the Senate. Faced with attacks from his (mostly) partisan detractors, he bravely mounted his steed, and galloped out to the webpages of Policy Options where he oh so bravely slew a straw man to defend his particular moves in modernising the Senate. And in case this wasn’t clear enough, let me spell it out for you – Peter Harder is trying to bamboozle you.

The particular straw man that Harder bravely faced was the notion that those who defend the Westminster model in the Senate are trying to keep it a mirror of the House of Lords. This, incidentally, is complete malarkey. Nobody has ever made this argument. The Senate of Canada has never borne any resemblance to the Lords (aside from the fact that each is an appointed upper body), and nobody has advanced an argument to make that claim. But Harder went on at length to prove how different the two chambers were (again, nobody claimed otherwise), and then went on to showcase all of the other upper chambers in Westminster countries and how different they were too. Look at how flexible the Westminster model is! Harder proclaims. And it’s all very “Father knows best,” as he schools everybody on parliamentary democracy. And then he starts his subtle subversion. Look at Nunavut, he suggests – they don’t have parties there! It’s a consensus legislature.

And this is the point where I want to punch someone in the throat. But I have that urge everyone someone brings up the Nunavut legislature.

The Nunavut legislature works (more or less) on a party-less consensus model because a) it has a mere 22 members; and b) it operates within the cultural context of its Inuit residents for whom consensus-making is a norm. The Nunavut legislature model is neither scalable nor portable, and anyone who tries to suggest otherwise requires a smack upside the head. The other part, which escapes Harder’s point, is that it still has an executive council and an ostensible opposition whose job it is to hold said Cabinet to account. And that’s the basis of the Westminster model that Harder quite carefully ignores in his defence of said model’s mutability. You see, the real basis of the Westminster model is that of Responsible Government, and the exercise thereof needs both a government and an opposition to hold it to account, and that can replace the government when they lose confidence. Oh, but wait – the Senate isn’t a confidence chamber, you might be saying. And that’s right. But they still have a part to play in the exercise of accountability, whether it’s asking questions of the government in their own QP (which is why the Leader of the Government is supposed to be a cabinet minister), and why they have an absolute veto, which is a necessary check on executive power.

Harder’s other suggestion – that perhaps instead of an official opposition, there instead be an “opposition representative” to mirror his role as “government representative,” is as much about undermining the ability of senators to organise opposition to the government agenda as it is about extending his own power base among the independents. 101 loose fish cannot be an effective opposition force just as much as they cannot be a consensus body (not that the Senate’s role is consensus). Harder’s attempt to delegitimise the role of partisanship in the Senate has nothing to do with trying to respect the chamber’s constitutional role (which he uses revisionist history to assert) and everything to do with his own ambitions, and he’s willing to slay as many straw men along the way as it takes to convince everyone that he’s on the right path. Don’t let him get away with it.

Continue reading →

QP: Oh noes, Chinese billionaires!

Posted on by

It was the one day that the PM was going to be in QP for the week, this being a busy travel season, but not all leaders were in the room. Rona Ambrose first tried to note that Trudeau had not been present since November 2nd — and got chastised for it — and raised the latest fundraising story with a Chinese billionaire present. Trudeau noted that the previous government  had a poor record for growth, and by the way, there was no conflict of interest at that fundraiser. When Ambrose tried to raise that said billionaire was connected with a bank seeking authorization, Trudeau noted that the previous government signed off on it, not his. Ambrose switched to the announcement about fighter jet replacements, and the process that the government just announced. Trudeau said that they were engaging in a full process but there was a capability gap. Ambrose tried another round but got the same answer. For her final question, Ambrose raised an Ontario court decision where a judge struck down a mandatory minimum sentence on child sex offence and if the government would ensure that those remained under mandatory sentences when they contemplate justice reform. Trudeau assured her that they respect the judiciary and would not politicize it. Alexandre Boulerice led off for the NDP, asking a pair of questions on that latest fundraising allegation, and Trudeau reminded him that $1500 was a level that everyone was comfortable with when it comes to financing without undue influence. Murray Rankin then rose on a pair of questions about the government not complying with a Human Rights Tribunal order on First Nations child welfare funding, to which Trudeau reminded him of their investments in Indigenous communities and they have a lot of work still to do.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Partisan crybabies and skewered straw men

Posted on by

As machinations and protestations go, the current drama in the Senate is starting to try my patience, particularly because so many of the players seem to be getting drawn off onto silly tangents at the expense of the bigger picture. In particular, the Conservative senators continuing to push this conspiracy theory that all new independent senators are just Liberals in-all-but-name is really, really throwing them off the message that Senator Peter Harder is trying to destroy the Westminster traditions of the Senate, and has a stated goal of removing any sense of official opposition from the Chamber. But when the complaints about Harder’s machinations are drowned out by their conspiracy theorizing, they’re only harming their arguments by making themselves look petty. And it is concerning what Harder has been up to, his latest move being a closed-door meeting for all senators to “discuss short-term and long-term government business.” Add to this are a number of the more established independent senators, who previously felt shut out, excusing Harder’s actions because he’s trying to bring them in, oblivious to the fact that this is how he’s trying to build his little empire.

Add to this conversation comes former senator Hugh Segal who penned an op-ed for the Ottawa Citizen, bravely skewering straw men all around him about those darned partisan senators not giving up committee spots to independent senators (when he knows full well that it’s an ongoing process and that committees don’t get reconstituted until after a prorogation), and coming to the defence of Harder, with whom he worked together all of those years ago during the Mulroney government before Harder transitioned to the civil service. Poor Peter Harder, whose budget has been cruelly limited by all of those partisan senators and how he can’t get the same budget as Leaders of the Government in the Senate past (never mind that Harder has no caucus to manage, nor is he a cabinet minister as the Government Leader post is ostensibly). Gosh, the partisan senators are just being so unfair to him. Oh, please.

So long as people are content to treat this as partisan crybabies jealously guarding their territory, we’re being kept blind as to what Harder’s attempts to reshape the Senate are going to lead to. His attempts to dismantle the Westminster structure are not about making the chamber more independent – it’s about weakening the opposition to the government’s agenda. Trying to organise coherent opposition amongst 101 loose fish is not going to cut it, and Harder knows it. The Senate’s role as a check on the government is about to take a serious blow so long as people believe Harder’s revisionist history and back-patting about how great a non-partisan Senate would be. Undermining parliament is serious business, and we shouldn’t let them get away with it because we think it’s cute that it’s making the partisans angry.

Continue reading →

QP: A singular focus on CETA

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau returned from the APEC summit somewhere around 5:30 this morning, it was not a real surprise that he wasn’t present in QP as a result. Then again, none of the other major leaders were present either. Denis Lebel led off, railing about the lack of new trade agreements signed and wondered if the government would fumble other agreements. Chrystia Freeland assured him that they ensured that CETA got signed, and when Lebel repeated the question in English, Freeland didn’t stick to her notes, but reminded Lebel that it was her government that got CETA signed for real. Lebel tried to switch to softwood lumber, but Freeland stuck to chastising him about CETA. Gerry Ritz tried to move the topic to the TPP, but because he mentioned CETA, Freeland stuck to those points with a reminder that they were still consulting on TPP. Ritz tried to press on TPP, and Freeland reminded him that there was a two-year consultation period on TPP, which they were pursuing. Tracey Ramsey led off for the NDP, railing about the flaws in CETA, and Freeland hammered on the progressive credentials of the agreement and the fact that socialist governments in Europe supported it. Ramsey pounded on the effect that CETA would have on drug prices, but Freeland stuck to her points about CETA’s progressive credentials. Ruth Ellen Brosseau then rose on a pair of questions decrying the inadequate compensation for dairy producers under CETA, but Lawrence MacAulay assured her that they sat down with the producers and designed a programme based on that, and that they were protecting supply management.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Expat voting just fine as is

Posted on by

Democratic institutions minister Maryam Monsef is saying that she plans to table new legislation around expat voting by the end of the year, and I’m going to come right out and say that while I know it’s not really popular to say so, I’m actually not sure that a five-year time limit for expats is so bad, because of the way that our voting system operates. To be more specific, our electoral system depends on your voting in one of 338 ridings to elect a local representative. You’ve not voting for the party banner or the party leader – you’re voting for the representative, regardless of what your particular electoral calculation is when you’re in the voting booth. And as an expat who has been out of the country – and in particular that riding – for more than five years, does it really make sense for you to continue to cast a ballot in said riding if you don’t actually live there?

And this is the part where people start shouting about their right to vote, which is all well and good, but again I go back to the central premise – how can you vote for a representative in a riding if you don’t live there, and almost certainly don’t know who is actually on the ballot? And don’t tell me that it doesn’t matter, that the majority of people vote based on the party or the leader, because it actually does matter. Our system is constructed in a way that ensures maximum accountability (and that accountability is currently wounded by the rules around party leadership selection, but that’s another story for another day), and that means accountability for the MP who was selected in that riding election for that seat (and yes, each riding is a separate election), and later in the House of Commons, when the government is responsible to the whole of the Chamber to maintain confidence to continue governing. And this is where expat voting gets complicated. How can someone who doesn’t live in the riding know what is going on, and whether the MP is doing a good job or not? Sure, a few expats maintain close enough ties, but I would venture that the vast majority don’t, and that the vast majority are looking to cast a special ballot based solely on party or leader preference, but that’s not how the system works, and yes, that’s important because democracy is process. The vote has to have a proper meaning, and that meaning is for the individual MP to fill the individual seat. This is not the United States where people ostensibly cast a direct ballot for the presidency (which again is complicated by their electoral college), but that makes a special ballot for expats a simpler affair. (They also impose taxes on expats, which Canada doesn’t). What about the voter rolls, where expats would ostensibly be listed at an address where they no longer live? How does that actually work in practical terms without creating yet more headaches for Elections Canada? Unless Maryam Monsef can thread the needle to demonstrate how expats can still vote within our current system in an effective manner which means voting for a candidate in a riding, I’m having a hard time seeing how dropping the five-year rule is either beneficial, practical, or even responsible. (And yes, I’m sure that I’m a monster for thinking so).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A badly needed review

Posted on by

The Criminal Code is a mess. The government knows it, and the judicial system knows it, but the question is whether anyone has the guts to do anything about it – particularly because it’s been a particularly easy target to do one-off laws without worrying about the broader consequences. The number of private members’ bills dealing with singular tweaks to the Criminal Code are innumerable, because it’s seen as something that individual MPs can use to take a stand on some issue or another while at the same time considering it to be something that won’t impose a cost on the government as no dedicated spending must be attached to it that would otherwise require a Royal Recommendation. (This is wrong – there are tremendous costs attached to it, but it’s a loophole in the rules that there is no appetite to plug either). And when governments want to increase sentencing to look tough on an issue, they pass new laws to “crack down,” to the point where there is no semblance of a logical sentencing grid any longer. I remember sitting in on a Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee meeting during the Harper years when they were passing another marijuana bill and the Liberal senators were expressing frustration that things were such a mess that these new pot offences were giving more jail time than some child sex offences.

The government’s recent move to repeal some archaic laws around gay sex (including an unequal age of consent) is an example of one place where the government is doing something about a “zombie law” – one that has been struck down by the courts, but remains on the books because Parliament has yet to take the time to actually repeal it. (This was another case were the Conservatives outright refused to when given the opportunity when they were raising the age of consent for hetero teens). But there are plenty of zombie laws still sitting on the books and nothing is being done about them. The CBC has a look here at some of those laws, and expert urging to deal with them – particularly given that murder trial in Edmonton where the judge accidentally handed down a verdict that was predicated on a “zombie” law and he had to go back and give a lesser verdict after the fact to correct the mistake. Clearly this is a problem, but the government isn’t promising much action beyond vague assurances that these sorts of things will be part of their broader criminal justice review – the same review that will be looking at doing away with a number of mandatory minimum sentences. But this is something that they really do need to get cracking on, not only dealing with “zombie” laws, but also sentencing reform so that there is a coherent sentencing grid once again. Part of the problem, however, is that the justice minister and her office are moving at a glacial pace. Everything they’ve been doing, from judicial appointments to moving on certain bills, is taking far longer than it reasonably should, and that’s concerning especially when this criminal justice review is so badly needed. Let’s hope we hear more about it sooner rather than later.

Continue reading →