For what was likely to to be the final QP of the parliament — for realsies this time — unless the Senate Liberals are able to come up with some new procedural tricksyness to delay C-377 further. There were only two statements today — Canada Day and the museums in Montreal over the summer — and after speeding through Routine Proceedings, Senator Cowan rose for QP. He led off noting the government studiously avoided answering questions yesterday, and how Bill C-377 could turn mutual funds and TFSAs into “labour trusts” and triggering disclosure obligations. Answering for the government, Senator Carignan evaded, saying it was important to pass the bill and noted unions posting on Twitter that they were working with the NDP in preparation for the election. Cowan noted that had nothing to do with his question, and demanded an answer on “labour trusts.” Carignan continued to evade, noting mandatory union dues. Cowan was not swayed and wanted an answer on the issue of the expert testimony on how the legislation would catch those funds. Carignan said that he was there to answer questions and not play “interpretation games” — which is ridiculous because it was a legitimate question about the substance of the bill. Cowan tried asking a different way — would they be okay with people’s private information going online if they were caught up in a “labour trust” interpretation, at which point Carignan babbled about legal opinions. Cowan, at the end of his patience, said that Carignan’s refusal to answer meant that he was okay with people having their financial information being made public. Carignan retreated to his mandatory union dues talking points. Senator Moore rose on a supplemental, asking if Carignan was okay with his own mutual funds and TFSAs being made public under the bill. Carignan went on a homily about the time he had Quebecor shares that he had to sell. Moore tried again, and got no answer.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: And now the environmental policy
Justin Trudeau was out in Vancouver yesterday to unveil the next plank in his party’s platform, filling out his previous environmental proposal to sit down with the provinces to allow them to collectively come up with a climate plan in the short time between the election and the Paris climate conference in December. Trudeau’s new announcements included phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, putting more money into clean tech jobs, restoring the environmental assessment process and adding more teeth to the National Energy Board and its review processes, increasing the amount of protected coastal areas, and cancelling fees at national parks in 2017 to celebrate Canada’s 150th anniversary. Overall, his message was that there will be a price on carbon if the Liberals form government. Predictably, the Conservatives came out with cries of “carbon tax!” while the NDP rolled their eyes and muttered about vague targets with no actual named carbon price. Paul Wells notes that one really can’t criticise Trudeau for being devoid of policy any longer, and that it may force voters to give him and his party a second look.
Senate QP: A perfectly legitimate mechanism
For what was possibly the final day of the Senate’s sitting, there was some tension after the shenanigans on Friday. Things got off with a single statement, regarding the terror attacks last week, and then it was onto Routine Proceedings. The deputy government leader, Yonah Martin, tabled a motion that the next sitting of the Senate would see them rise until mid-September. “You’ll be pretty lonely,” a Liberal senator heckled, knowing an election would be taking place then.
Roundup: Preparing to change gears
Today may be the final day the Senate sits – we’ll see if the Liberals are able to tie-up the “union-busting” bill C-377 in procedure for longer than it has been illegitimately time-allocated for today. From that point on, with business out of the way, it looks like senators can spend the summer focusing on some of the more managerial aspects of what has been going on with them of late, being the Auditor General’s report and his recommendations, particularly with regards to the independent oversight committee. It’ll be a tricky thing to get right because the AG did not contemplate the issue of parliamentary supremacy, but you can be sure that there are a number of senators who won’t be silent about that particular issue. It will also be a summer of fending off smears and attacks from MPs trying to use the Senate as a punching bag in their bid to get re-elected – never mind that a few incidents of alleged misspending have nothing to do with the powers or legislative business of the Senate, or the fact that MPs are far more opaque about their own spending practices. To that end, Senate Speaker Housakos told Bob Fife over the weekend that he’s not going to take any lessons on accountability from MPs, and most especially Mulcair with his party’s $2.7 million satellite office issue. And that’s exactly it – MPs aren’t saints by virtue of having been elected, and it doesn’t mean that they are really held to account for those issues because they are rarely brought to light. Witness last week, when the Ottawa Citizen asked MPs about their residential claims, and only 20 out of some 300 actually bothered to respond. Oh, but it’s the Senate that has the problem and with the “entitlement” issue.
Roundup: Going around the rules
So there were shenanigans in the Senate yesterday, the result of a confluence of a number of factors. Some of them are longer term – the terrible manner in which Harper has made his appointments has left a large cadre of Conservative senators who feel beholden to him and his largely imaginary whip. There are exceptions to the rule, but there are a lot of Senators right now who still feel they need to follow the PM’s rule because he appointed them, and that’s simply not the case. It was just a sensibility encouraged by the Senate leadership on the Conservative side who had far too many newbie senators in place at once. Then there’s the problem of the bill itself. The PMO has ruled they want to see this go through – never mind that it would create a giant bureaucracy at CRA, and that it could have “staggering” compliance costs for mutual funds and other organisations beyond the unions it’s targeting. It’s also a constitutional overreach because labour relations are a provincial jurisdiction, but the government wants this through because they see unions as a big threat to them. It never should have been a private members’ bill, but that was how they introduced it, and got it past the worst of the scrutiny on the Commons side because of automatic time limits. The Senate recognised it as unconstitutional and a threat to labour relations in this country, and even a number of Conservative senators opposed it. Led by Hugh Segal, they voted to amend the bill to near uselessness and sent it back to the Commons – but then prorogation happened, and the amendments were undone when the bill reset (thanks to Senate rules). In the interim, Hugh Segal retired, and Marjory LeBreton stepped down as government leader, almost certainly because of the caucus revolt over the bill. The Conservative senators sat on the bill for months before the PMO decided it wanted them to try and pass the bill. The Liberals, as is their right, filibustered. And they have the provinces on their side – seven provinces representing more than 80 percent of the population are opposed to the bill, and the Senate has a regional representation role. Things came to a head yesterday when the Conservatives tried to break the filibuster by trying to time allocate the bill – something they can’t do under Senate rules, and when the Speaker said no, the Conservatives challenged the ruling – something they can actually do under Senate rules. Kady O’Malley explains some of it here, and I responded with a Twitter essay.
One of the problems with PMBs in the Commons now is the automatic time allocation of 2 hours per stage. It severely limits debate… 2/n
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 26, 2015
By not having time allocation on PMBs in the Senate, it gives them a chance to actually study, or in some cases, slow down these bills. 4/n
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 26, 2015
Allowing time allocation on PMBs in the Senate means these faux-government bills (which #C377 essentially is) can also be rammed through 6/n
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 26, 2015
It might mean they'd have to do something other than lob insults at the denizens of the Upper Chamber. Wouldn't that be awful? 8/n #SenCA
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 26, 2015
So no, the rules don't need changing. The Senate rules committee looked into it and saw no need for precisely the reasons outlined. 9/9
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 26, 2015
Senate QP: Intelligence sharing questions
It was an early start in the Senate, and only one statement was made, regarding the committee report on on-reserve First Nations housing. Routine proceedings sped along, and the QP started, Senator Mitchell asked about the recent media reports on intelligence information sharing, and that the agencies asked only for more sharing and not broad powers. Carignan talked about protecting Canadians from jihadis and then raised the news of today’s attacks in France and Tunisia. Senator Plett tried to rise on a supplemental, but Mitchell wasn’t finished yet, and after some back-and-forth, Mitchell carried on with the questions about the unnecessary overreach in C-51 that CSIS didn’t ask for, but Carignan insisted they were concerned about the safety of Canadians. Mitchell noted the lack of oversight for intelligence agencies and how that would show leadership, but Carignan moved immediately to partisan swipes, saying he felt safer with Harper than with Trudeau. Mitchell started mocking Harper’s “leadership” in not getting pipelines, and asked again about oversight, and Carignan insisted things were great with SIRC. Mitchell gave one last attempt to get more of a commitment to oversight, but it did not happen.
Roundup: Getting out the leg irons
It was the image that launched a thousand attack ads – or probably will, at any rate, as Dean Del Mastro was marched out in handcuffs and leg irons, off to spend the night (at least) in an Ontario prison after being found guilty of breaking election finance laws. “Cheating is cheating,” the judge noted, and that it was a serious enough crime to warrant some kind of jail time, so she decided on a month – though he may get out by tomorrow on bail pending the appeal of his case. Del Mastro’s lawyer also tried to get other exceptions for Del Mastro – jail on weekends, numerous exceptions for the eventual house arrest provisions – because he has a farm and needs to feed the animals, and a job in Toronto, and so on. The judge didn’t appear to be buying it, and made a point about needing a jail sentence onto only to show the severity of the crime (hence denunciation and deterrence), but also the issue of time to reflect on his actions, thought may be asking a lot from Del Mastro, as he walked into the courtroom convinced of his own innocence, and has shown no remorse whatsoever, even though the judge noted that Del Mastro was prepared to falsify his own statements to try and get away with his overspending. Many will argue that leg-irons and jail time are overkill, give that he’s not a dangerous criminal, but it relies on the same logic behind putting white collar criminals behind bars as well – because making them pay a fine or just house arrest aren’t considered punishment enough for the severity of their crimes. Disagree with it all you want, but we have made this choice though our legislative regimes, and if we want to change that, well, there’s an election coming up. Meanwhile, Stephen Maher says the Conservatives’ treatment of the man who testified against Del Mastro leaves a lot to be desired.
Senate QP: Sole-sourcing shipyard contracts
With all government business taken care of, a showdown was brewing in the Senate over Bill C-377, a “union busting” bill the government wants passed, but Liberals and a few Conservatives are doing their best to filibuster it into the ground. Things got started with the usual statements by senators (Canada Day in Quebec, the situation in Burundi, the good work of the Senate, the Terry Fox Run), and Routine Proceedings.
Senator Beyak wishes the media would pay more attention to the good work of the Senate. I'M SITTING RIGHT HERE IN THE GALLERY! #SenCA
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 25, 2015
Roundup: Ham-fisting a simple request
The signs of the current government’s incompetence at handling the big files are numerous, but recent revelations about their anti-terrorism legislation just may take the cake. Documents obtained by The Canadian Press show that last year, Canadian intelligence services said that they were looking for “significant improvements” to information sharing between the various agencies – but they wanted them within the existing legislative framework. They didn’t need all kinds of new powers or expanded mandates, and yet, the government turn around and brought in C-51, which did just that. Because this government, after almost a decade in office, apparently doesn’t know what they’re doing, gave the intelligence services a ham-fisted, overly broad new suite of powers that they didn’t need – or even want, if these documents are to be believed – because they had managed to terrify themselves thanks to a couple of lone-wolf attacks on home soil. They drafted a bill that was so sloppy and terrible that every expert on the subject could hardly believe it. And their inept communications strategy around the bill managed to get every civil society group up in arms over it, creating a second sweep of paranoia (despite the fact that no, the bill had nothing to do with trying to expand surveillance to civil society groups or use terrorists as cover for trying to bring the hammer down on First Nations – a simple look at the fact that the government has underfunded CSIS and the RCMP will tell you pretty much everything you need to know about their intentions). It looks to be just one more example of where this government once again rejected expert advice in order to make themselves look like they were getting tough on terrorism – as effectively as they’ve gotten “tough on crime” – and they managed to balls things up for themselves and everyone else in the process. Would that we could have some grown-ups leading this country for a change.
Roundup: No, they’re not new powers
I’ll admit that there has been some terribly naïve punditry about Michael Chong’s Reform Act, and a lot of touchy-feely optimism about the fuzzy notion of “reform,” but perhaps one of the most gallingly maladroit to date has come from Campbell Clark, who wonders if MPs will actually get the will to confront party leaders with their “new powers.” Yes, that was the sound of me sighing deeply. “New powers.” For those of you keeping score, Chong’s bill did not give MPs any new powers. MPs had all the power in the world thanks to the way our system of government is designed – elected as an individual MP under the first-past-the-post system, they are empowered to give or withdraw confidence, whether it is to their party leaders, or to the government of the day in the Commons. That’s an incredible amount of power because confidence is how our system runs. The problem is that they stopped empowering themselves to exercise their power, deferring first to leaders who were no longer accountable to them after we broke our leadership selection system to make it “more democratic” by taking away that power from MPs and giving it to the party membership (a convention which Chong’s bill now cements into law), and later to leaders who gained the power to sign off on their nomination forms (a measure designed to prevent spoofing on ballots and hijacked nomination races). Sure, MPs still had power and they could exercise it – but it generally meant that enough of them had to defy the leader all at once to ensure that the spectre of group punishment didn’t draw further questions, and few MPs had the intestinal fortitude to risk their necks. They still, however, had that power. For Chong to claim that his bill grants “new” powers is bogus. As I’ve stated before, it actually takes power away because it did not actually do away with the nomination sign-off power in a meaningful way, and it raised the bar by which MPs can openly challenge a leader so it can no longer be a small group who has the gonads to go forward, but will now see the media demanding the 20 percent headcount. So will MPs have the will to use these “new” powers? Probably not, because the bar has been set higher. But in the meantime, we’ll have the pundit class praising Chong for his efforts and his “courage,” rewarding him for the campaign of bullying and attempting to disenfranchise an entire body of parliament along the way.