There was an interesting read over on Policy Options yesterday that all MPs should be paying attention to: a reminder that they should watch what they say in when speaking about bills, because the courts (and most especially the Supreme Court of Canada) are checking Hansard. When it comes to challenging laws, particularly Charter challenges, the issue of legislative intent is often raised, and the courts are forced to determine what it was the government intended to do when they passed these laws, and that can matter as to whether those laws will survive a Charter challenge. And if MPs – and most importantly ministers – give speeches full of bafflegab and meaningless talking points, it muddies the record that the courts rely on. The example here was the bill eliminating time-served sentencing credits, by which the court examined Rob Nicholson’s statements and tested them against the results of the law and found that no, eliminating the sentencing credits didn’t enhance public safety or confidence in the justice system. I would also add that it’s yet another reason why Senate committees have particular value, particularly when it comes to contentious bills that perhaps shouldn’t pass but do anyway under protest. Because their findings are on the record, when those laws inevitably wind up in the courts, those same objections can be read and taken into consideration. So yes, your speeches and work in parliament does matter, probably more than you think. Just be sure to use your words wisely, because they will come back to haunt you.
Author Archives: Dale
QP: California meetings
Tuesday, and only two of the three main leaders were all in attendance, possibly for the only time this week. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, and raised the subject of that Torys fundraiser that Jody Wilson-Raybould attended. Justin Trudeau noted that the rules were followed, the Conservatives were convicted of election fraud, and Conservatives had been convicted of election fraud. Ambrose said that when their government had a similar issue “from a mistake” that they paid it back — not actually true, as Shelly Glover attended a fundraiser with people who were looking to her for grants, and thus was not a similar situation. Trudeau noted that they only paid the money back when they got their hands caught in the cookie jar. Ambrose gave it one last shot but got the same response. Denis Lebel took over, and railed about the figures in the budget, and raised quotes from the parliamentary budget officer. Trudeau insisted that no, his government was being open and transparent. Lebel then raised the old bill C-377 and now it was all about union transparency. Trudeau reminded him that it was actually about using transparency against their rivals, which was not what his government was about. Leading for the NDP, Hélène Laverdière asked about the signing of the Saudi LAV export permits, and Trudeau said that he would not renege on a deal and he had confidence in Dion. Laverdière demanded the contract be made public, but got the same answer. Nathan Cullen then decried the lack of new GHG targets, for which Trudeau reminded him that they are working with the provinces. Cullen asked again in English, and got the same response.
Roundup: Freeing up some spots
The Senate bat-signal is calling me once more, and there’s plenty to discuss, starting with the fact that the Conservatives and Liberals have come to a decision about making space on the committees for “non-aligned” senators to get seats – likely two on each committee. It’s a tacit acknowledgment of the changes happening, and starts living up to a bit more fairness for the growing number of independent senators, but it’s not everything that it’s cracked up to be in part because this was a move made without consulting the Independent Working Group, which is organizing on behalf of seven of those independents (and may grow to include more as the new ones start getting their bearings). There were also 18 vacancies on committees, which this does fill. So it’s a good and welcome change, but there do seem to be a few questions around the process by which this happened.
Conservative and Liberal senators each give up a seat on committees for independent senators. #SenCA #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/G4iI5IieVd
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 18, 2016
As for Senator Harder’s budget request, I’m still having a hard time buying it. As he explained, he’s looking to hire a chief of staff (I’m dubious why), a senior policy advisor (okay), a director of communications (sure), three legislative assistants (three sounds like an awful lot), a director of parliamentary affairs (again, a bit dubious), plus an executive assistant and an assistant (I’m not sure why he needs both). It’s not like he has a caucus to manage, even if he is liaising with all parties in the Senate. He went on Power & Politics to insist that this is just like the previous Government Leaders got – but he’s not the Government Leader. They explicitly made this whole distinction so that it was going to be different. He’s not a cabinet minister, so I’m not sure why he needs the same staff as a cabinet minister would. His file management is minimal in comparison, and he has not caucus to manage, legislative agenda of his own to carry out. He’s sheperding the government’s agenda, and possibly answering questions on their behalf in Senate QP, maybe (which we’re not entirely sure about yet, and even then, he still wouldn’t need that much staff for that task). I remain dubious in the face of the task at hand, and the government’s insistence that they’re doing things differently, rather than just putting a new label on the position and being too-cute-by-half about it.
QP: Imagining conflicts over cocktails
Despite it being Monday, none of the leaders were in the House (save, as always, Elizabeth May), which is starting to feel like a bad old habit making a comeback. Denis Lebel led off for the Conservatives, first offering condolences for the Quebec family that died in the Ecuador earthquake, and asked for an update on Canada’s efforts. Marie-Claude Bibeau noted the support they were offering to that country. Lebel then pivoted to a demand to know which taxes the Liberals plan on raising to pay for their spending. Bill Morneau responded that they were investing as it was the right time to do so. Lebel switched to English to decry the lack of transparency, to which Morneau insisted that they were being open and transparent, and said that they only showed two years in the budget so as to show that they have work to do. Andrew Scheer bemoaned the “mean-spirited” ways in which the budget rolled back Conservative programmes like income splitting. Morneau insisted that the new measures would help more families than the old programmes. Scheer then launched into a question laden with lame sports puns, but Morneau repeated his assertions. Peter Julian decried a cocktail party that CRA officials attended along with firms like KPMG. Diane Lebouthillier noted that it was an event held by the Chartered Professional Accountants, which many employees are members of. Peter Julian tried again, ramping up the conflict of interest accusations, and got the same answer. Hélène Laverdière worried that human rights were not on the ambassador’s priority list in Saudi Arabia. Pamela Goldsmith-Jones said that Canada does not miss any opportunity to raise human rights with anyone including Saudi Arabia, nor did they miss an opportunity for positive engagement. Laverdière asked again in French, and Goldsmith-Jones reminded the NDP that they supported the LAV sales as well.
Roundup: A couple of notes on the assisted dying debate
The debate on the assisted dying bill starts this week, so expect all manner of hyperbolic commentary on all sides of the debate. Because the government has talked about extending sitting hours in order to accommodate the debate, one expects that over the next couple of sitting weeks, we’ll have about two hundred second reading speeches that basically say “What about palliative care?!” and a lot of MPs who deliberately try to remain ambivalent about the topic, because this remains one of those topics that most MPs won’t touch with a bargepole. It was one of the things that Jason Kenney was grousing about over the Twitter Machine over the weekend – the implication that MPs wouldn’t deal with the issue and forcing the courts to was appreciably false because they twice voted down a Bloc private members’ bill on the subject. Of course, major policy like this should never be the domain of private members’ business, and that governments of either stripe for two decades avoided dealing with the issue is exactly proof of a lack of moral courage, but hey, since when do facts or context matter in these kinds of debates? Here’s a look at Justice Committee chair Anthony Housefather as the assisted dying bill looms on his schedule, and I’ll be curious to see if any changes do come out of the hearings – particularly around the “imminent death” clause, given that it is one of the most problematic aspects of the current bill as far as complying with the Supreme Court decision. And while the likes of Andrew Coyne continue to meltdown over the Twitter Machine about “they want to euthanise children!” I’ll leave you with this reality check.
Same hysterical doomsday prognosticating that followed same-sex marriage.
"A vertical skating rink!"
Wow, that's some kind of slippery slope— Alheli Picazo (@a_picazo) April 16, 2016
No, killing off someone who's a burden to another is not going to be legal.
No, people won't be "putting down" children for kicks.
— Alheli Picazo (@a_picazo) April 16, 2016
But yes, we ignored warnings of legalized pedophilia and rampant bestiality and the imminent apocalypse after legalizing same-sex marriage
— Alheli Picazo (@a_picazo) April 16, 2016
and some good THAT did us, amirite?!
Straight down that slippery slope we went, and descended into anarchy .
ANARCHY I TELL YOU
— Alheli Picazo (@a_picazo) April 16, 2016
Roundup: Monsef’s problematic principles
I was set to delve into the eight principles that Maryam Monsef laid out as part of what she plans to work on the electoral reform proposals around, when it turned out that Peter Loewen went ahead and tracked which of the three most likely voting systems corresponded to each principle. Suffice to say, not one system fit with each, which gives rise to the notion that Monsef will have to treat some principles more than others. Now, the NDP were outraged in QP yesterday that proportionality was not on this list of principles, though one could argue that the first principle, that votes are translated into election results without significant distortions, could be an endorsement of proportionality, except of course that it’s a perception problem based on a logical fallacy, which makes its inclusion as a principle to be a problem. I also have a problem with the inclusion of the third principle of using the system to increase diversity. That’s not a problem of the electoral system so much as it’s a problem of how parties seek out and nominate candidates. Most parties are getting better at this, but we should beware that including this principle would give rise to list systems, which in turn give rise to unaccountable token MPs in a two-tiered system. Monsef’s eighth principle, that the system needs to build consensus, is also problematic. Why? Because our system is built to hold people to account, and consensus makes this problematic. If everyone is accountable, then no one is accountable. Of course, I would remind everyone that there’s nothing actually wrong with our system as it is – what’s wrong is our crisis of civic literacy, which means that people don’t understand how the system works, leading them to assume that it’s broken – particularly if they succumb to sore loser tendencies and complain about things like “wasted votes.” If I may be so bold, Monsef is probably better off tinkering with the existing system to encourage greater participation (as we saw examples of in the last election, such as campus polling stations) and education rather than this attempt to rethink the system which will please no one and ensure that everything is worse off than it is now. We don’t have to break the system even further. We can stop this train before it goes off that cliff.
Roundup: Harder’s budget request
Peter Harder is asking the Senate for a budget of $800,000 to hire nine people to assist in his “government representative duties.” While I’m not opposed to the dollar figure, I’m a bit curious about why nine staff, but let’s back up first to the precedent that is guiding this whole exercise, being Stephen Harper’s fit of pique when Marjory LeBreton resigned as Government Leader in the Senate. By that point, Harper was being badgered and hectored daily about the ClusterDuff incident, as well as Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau, and he decided that his next Government Leader, Claude Carignan, was not going to be put into cabinet so as to give the appearance of distance. Of course, it was only the appearance, as Carignan was a minister in every respect but name, including being sworn into the Privy Council (necessary to get the briefing books to answer on behalf of the government in Senate QP). But because he wasn’t a minister, he couldn’t get funding from PCO for staff and needed activities, so Carignan went to the Senate and asked for a bigger budget, and he got it, hiring a staff of 14. With Trudeau now being fairly cute with the way he is handling the “government representative” file – Harder being sworn into Privy Council and able to attend cabinet meetings – the government decided that with the Carignan precedent, Harder can simply ask the Senate for the budget he needs. Now, he is getting some pushback about getting a budget without attendant responsibilities, such as answering in QP. They referred the decision to a subcommittee (that still hasn’t been filled), but I do wonder why nine. I can understand an admin staff, a policy person or two, a comms person, but without a caucus to manage, what exactly is so labour intensive about “shepherding the government’s agenda”? That’s a bit of time management, introducing the odd debate on government legislation, but what else would he be required to do? So perhaps we’ll get some answers, but it does seem a bit odd to me.
QP: Recycling the scripts and laugh lines
With so many things going on this morning — that Supreme Court decision on Métis and non-status Indians and the assisted dying bill being tabled — it was almost surprising that there weren’t any leaders (save Elizabeth May) present for QP today, but there we have it. Denis Lebel led off for the Conservatives, worrying about government transparency around the budget. Scott Brison responded by insisting that they have been transparent, including turning that information over to the PBO when asked. Lebel insisted that it wasn’t true, then went on to challenge Trudeau’s personal holdings. LeBlanc insisted that Trudeau was transparent as soon as he ran for the leadership. Andrew Scheer was up next, and recycled Rona Ambrose’s scripts from yesterday around transparency, for which Scott Brison repeated praise for the investments in the budget. Scheer tried to asking a too-cute-by-half question regarding the pipeline regulatory process, for which Jim Carr pointed out that the Bloc just yesterday insisted that Energy East was being imposed on them, hence they were going to take the time to get it right. Scheer repeated another script from the day before about oil tankers with Saudi oil, and Carr repeated that they were getting the process right. Charlie Angus led off for the NDP, demanding immediate action on mental healthcare funding for First Nations, for which Jane Philpott assured him they were working on it. Angus insisted it be done today, and Philpott noted the actions they have taken already. Brigette Sancoucy repeated the questions in French, and got the same answer, not surprisingly. Sansoucy then demanded more funds for palliative care, for which Philpott noted the bill tabled this morning, and assured her that they were doing so with the participation of the provinces.
Roundup: Mulcair stands firm (for now)
The caucus meeting ran well overtime as Thomas Mulcair met with his MPs – assuming you call them “his” any longer, given the vote on Sunday – and when they did all finally emerge and faced the media, they put on a big show of solidarity, where they all got behind him in the Foyer. Mulcair announced that he was staying put for the time being, that they were united in this decision, and he was going to remain the caretaker until the new leader is chosen. Not that every MP felt quite the same, and perhaps none of them was more courageous than Don Davies, who bucked the trend of solidarity and it being unseemly to dissent in public, who openly said that while they were united, it wasn’t uniform. And here we are – Mulcair continues to be abrasive and snide in QP, and probably will for the foreseeable future, since he no longer has to care about appealing to anyone as he is on the slow departure. Meanwhile, Jason Markusoff writes about the party’s existential crisis in the wake of the convention, while Paul Wells reminds us that the NDP has been in existential crisis for years. John Geddes writes that the party had pretty much found its new leader – Megan Leslie – but she doesn’t want the job, and it doesn’t look like she’ll be convinced otherwise. (I would of course add that while Leslie ticks most of the requisite boxes, she also lacks enough of a killer instinct for political leadership, which would likely hobble her eventually). So we shall see how this all transpires going forward, but for now, Mulcair is digging in for the long haul, whether his caucus likes it or not.
MP Don Davies says he expressed his position on Monday and that hasn't changed – ie would be difficult for Mulcair stay on for year & half.
— Laura Stone (@l_stone) April 13, 2016
"We're a democratic Party. Unity doesn't mean uniformity," MP Davies says. #NDP
— Laura Stone (@l_stone) April 13, 2016
Senate QP: Garneau in the hot seat
It was the first ministerial Senate QP with the advent of Peter Harder’s arrival as “government representative,” so it remained to be seen how this would change things. Senator Carignan started off, asking about rail safety, and more specifically around high-risk crossings. Garneau first thanked the senators for inviting him, before responding that the risk crossing database was a tool used by the department for investigative purposes and he was meeting with the Federation of Municipalities in a couple of weeks. Carignan asked further about the database, and Garneau explained some of the risk assessment measures related to it.