During a visit by the president of the Philippines yesterday, Stephen Harper took a question from a Filipino reporter about the Temporary Foreign Workers Programme – something that affects a great many Filipinos who come to work in Canada, and how there has been an exodus of those workers whose four-year permits have expired. Harper responded that he doesn’t want to see a “permanent underclass” of workers who don’t have the same rights as Canadians, and that they can become immigrants like everyone else. While that answer sounds pretty high-minded on the surface, the problem with it is that it ignores the changes that his own government put into place and perpetuates. Under Harper’s watch, the numbers of permanent residencies has declined in favour of more temporary work permits, and the other problem is that the current immigration program ignores the fact that there is a need for low-skilled immigrants in this country who can’t get in the door now because we are only looking for highly skilled or educated individuals and their families. That kind of system ignores the long-term investment in the country that low-skilled immigration brings, and has brought to this country when it was a big part of the way our system operated. In other words, Harper’s own government policies are perpetuating a system that will allow these temporary workers for four years, but won’t allow them to become permanent residents, and yet he admonishes them for not using the regular immigration routes. But hey, rhetoric while a foreign leader is present makes everything sound better.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: Tales of internal audits
The issue that dominated Question Period and the headlines yesterday – that the PMO was trying to direct the Senate’s Internal Economy Committee to protect Duffy from internal audits – is one that needs a bit of a deep breath before we freak out about it. For starters, we need to be aware that Duffy and his lawyer are deliberately stoking this in order to direct the attention toward Harper and the PMO as their way of exculpating Duffy. Number two, that any “conspiracy” within the Senate to protect Duffy has largely been limited to a couple of players and not the chamber as a whole. In this case, it seems to be largely three key players – then-leader Marjory LeBreton, Harper loyalist Carolyn Stewart Olsen, and David Tkachuk. That Stewart Olsen might be doing Harper’s bidding is no surprise, and while Tkachuk should have known better than to take PMO direction, he has been playing his own power games within the Senate (including a few nasty leaks to the media designed to undermine people). The other thing that should be pointed out is that Senate administration – the Clerk and a senior staffer conducting an internal audit – were trying to point to the nebulous rules around residency and were getting pushback from Stewart Olsen and Tkachuk, and in Stewart Olsen’s case, the motives were likely self-interested given her own problematic residency situation at the time. That internal audit was not killed, in part because of legal action threatened by the Clerk, but it does point to the fact that while rules could be nebulous, the staff was trying to ensure that there was some due diligence, and Duffy would have been caught up in that exercise. That the PMO was trying to take the heat off of Duffy with a later external audit is concerning, but should be for the rest of the Senate. They have institutional independence for a reason, and they are betraying their role when they take that kind of direction. Of course, Harper created the situation where a number of senators would take direction by flooding the chamber with so many pliable rookies at once who wouldn’t hesitate to take orders. It’s one of the things that the late Speaker Nolin was trying to change – getting senators, particularly those in his own caucus, to take their roles more seriously. None of this should detract from the fact that Duffy still bears responsibility for his own actions, and that senators themselves should be telling the PMO to shove off. We shouldn’t let Duffy and his lawyer play us to confirm those facts.
QP: Obstruction and obfuscation
With it being Thursday, it appears that the PM couldn’t be bothered to show up, and with Harper put, so was Trudeau. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the recent revelations of the PMO interference in a Senate audit around Mike Duffy. Paul Calandra demurred, and insisted that the Senate should answer their own questions, and when pressed, Calandra returned to the satellite office repayment talking points. Mulcair tried a third time, this time in French, and Calandra gave the same in both languages. Mulcair switched back to English, so Calandra did too, now adding the inappropriate mailings into his list of NDP sins. Mulcair kept reading from the email in question, and accused the PM of obstruction of justice. Calandra called it ridiculous, wanted the courts to do their job, and demanded the NDP repay their millions. For the Liberals, Domininc LeBlanc kept up the topic, to which Calandra demanded the Liberals repay the “missing $40 million” from Adscam, and noted that Trudeau’s home is worth $2 million. Sean Casey asked the same again in English, adding in the “Albertastan” and soviet jokes, but got no different response from Calandra.
Roundup: Overreading mandates
In the wake of Tuesday’s election victory in Alberta, there has been no shortage of jubilation and outright triumphalism amongst NDP-types here in Ottawa, who have rushed to claim their own share of the victory – or at least the reflected glory – while mouthing trite sayings like “only New Democrats can defeat Conservatives!” without actually understanding the actual facts on the ground. There was no shortage of congratulations for either Thomas Mulcair – who future Alberta premier Rachel Notley quite explicitly distanced herself from during the campaign – or Linda Duncan, their only federal MP, as though she was somehow a key player in that victory. But amidst all of this self-congratulation comes to mind a warning that Bob Rae made after the last federal election – be careful not to over-read your mandate, advice that applies not only to the federal, but also the provincial NDP. To wit, I would posit that Tuesday night was not so much a victory for the NDP as it was a defeat for Jim Prentice and the Progressive Conservatives in Alberta, which Notley was able to capitalise on. It’s not like there was much else in the way of alternatives – she was articulate and had some experience as an MLA, whereas the Alberta Liberals were rudderless and in a tailspin after the departure of Raj Sherman, and the Wildrose had Brian Jean for a leader for all of five minutes before the election was called. Absolutely none of this has to do with some great leftward shift in the province. No, Virginia, Alberta did not suddenly become a bastion of socialists. Quite the opposite, as Notley has run on a relatively centrist, populist platform that has all but repudiated a number of planks of her federal cousins, and she will live in constant awareness that it could all be gone by the next election if the political right’s vote coalesces around Wildrose, or the centrist vote in the province fragments once again around a hypothetical renewed Alberta Liberal brand, or gains by the Alberta Party to replace them. None of this leaves a lot of room for Mulcair and the federal NDP to make gains, particularly as their particular brand is much more hostile to the oilsands and pipelines than Notley is. Alberta may have had a desire for change, but there are no guarantees as to how that translates federally. Meanwhile, federal NDP MPs are giving advice to their new rookie provincial cousins. Paul Wells sets up the eventual victory by Notley, while Colby Cosh cautions about some of the lessons to take from the election. Kathleen Petty gives us a reminder of some of the political demographics and history that has played out in Alberta over the length of the PC dynasty there, most especially that the party was built on centrism.
QP: Triumphalism and playing catch-up
In the wake of the Alberta election, there was a giddiness among the NDP benches — never mind that they had nothing to do with what happened there. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the Deschamps Report and the lack of action on eight of the 10 recommendations. Jason Kenney refuted the questions, and said they were working on implementation. Mulcair brought up a recent case of an Inuk soldier who was in the media, and Kenney insisted that they were taking action. Mulcair then changed to Mike Duffy’s appointment and the declaration Duffy allegedly signed before being sworn in. Paul Calandra turned it around on the satellite offices that the NDP owe for. Mulcair demanded the document, and Calandra offered the same response. Mulcair tried once more in French, bringing in the Nigel Wright “good to go” claim. Calandra was undaunted in his talking point. Justin Trudeau stood up for the Liberals, asking about tax breaks for the wealthy and asked if they would cancel those tax breaks. Pierre Poilievre insisted that Trudeau was going to raise taxes. Trudeau rephrased it, and Poilievre insisted that Trudeau’s platform won’t balance, and insisted Trudeau would raise taxes. One last round in French was no more edifying.
Wait — didn't the government fill their own budget hole with the contingency reserve and EI fund? #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 6, 2015
Roundup: Risk or propaganda?
It really was pretty galling when the tweets started rolling in yesterday morning – after admonishing the media to pay close attention and be very careful not to show the faces of any of the Special Forces troops in Iraq while they covered the Prime Minister’s surprise visit, the PM’s own media team went ahead and did it without a second thought. Oops. When this was pointed out, they took the videos down and tried to make some excuses, and later in the day, the Chief of Defence staff called the risk “minimal,” but maybe that’s because the PM’s 24/Seven videos get a mere tens of viewers, half of them from the media trying to see what they weren’t allowed to cover while the PM had his own team of propagandists doing the work for them. But the thing is, this wasn’t the first time this particular screw-up happened either. No, just a few weeks ago, Jason Kenney tweeted some of those faces that were not supposed to have been shown when he posted photos of the ramp ceremony of Sgt. Doiron, and I’m not sure that he delivered so much as an apology. And while Marc Garneau did ask whether this was a matter of incompetence, it also needs to be called out that neither of the opposition parties took this rather serious breach of operational security and government incompetence was asked about in QP until the second round for the NDP, the third for the Liberals. If a government is putting troops in danger because they want to bolster their image for propaganda videos, they deserve to be raked over the coals for it. It’s too bad that the opposition parties can’t be bothered to do their jobs.
QP: Dropping the ball on operational security
On most Tuesdays in the Commons, the leaders would actually be present, given that it’s usually one of the two days per week that Stephen Harper deigns to show up. Today, however, with Harper still in the Netherlands, none of the other main leaders bothered to show up either. Yay accountability! Megan Leslie led off, asking about the record trade deficit (which it needs to be stated is not necessarily a bad thing, just because it’s referred to as a deficit). Ed Fast insisted that exports were up, and yay trade agreements. Leslie asked again in English, capping it off with a demand for $15/day childcare. Candice Bergen insisted that theirs was the best plan for all families. Again, Leslie bemoaned the state of the manufacturing sector, to which James Moore praised all of their measures. Rosane Doré Lefebvre was up next, and decried the imminent passage of Bill C-51. Stephen Blaney wondered why the NDP refused to give tools to the police, or how they could deny that there were terrorist attacks in Canada. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, and wanted help for the middle class, touting the plan they introduced yesterday. Pierre Poilievre responded that the Liberals would raise taxes by replealing the doubling of the TFSA (which is not actually true). Ralph Goodale was up and more forcefully asked the same again in English twice, and Poilievre doubled down on his blatantly untrue talking points.
Roundup: Trudeau makes a move
After months of anticipation, the Liberals unveiled the first real plank of their policy book yesterday, being their tax plan as it relates to middle class families. By restructuring the current universal childcare benefit, eliminating income splitting, and introducing a new tax bracket on those earning over $200,000 per year, Trudeau has proposed a income tax cut for the “middle class,” along with childcare benefits that will be more means tested than the current system, all under the banner of “fairness.” Immediately the government was apoplectic, and Pierre Poilievre, incredulously, tried to spin it as the Trudeau Tax™ and that somehow eliminating the doubling of TFSAs was a “tax hike” on those earning more than $60,000 per year (never mind that that income was already taxed, and that bracket got the income tax cut). The NDP insisted that the plan wouldn’t give a tax cut to “two-thirds” of Canadians, but when challenged on how they would cut those taxes, they instead pivoted to “childcare!” Emmett Macfarlane is glad there are now concrete proposals to debate, while John Geddes has three questions about the proposal. Kevin Milligan and Lindsay Tedds give more of the economic details and analysis.
QP: Carry on the middle-class talking points
As Monday is the new Friday, none of the main leaders were in the House — Harper in Europe, Mulcair in Quebec City, and Trudeau across the river in Gatineau, having just laid out his party’s new tax plan. When QP kicked off, Megan Leslie led off, asking about job losses in the manufacturing sector. Pierre Poilievre took the question, and listed off some talking points about how great their family tax cuts were. Leslie noted the media reports that Conservative MPs will personally benefit more from income splitting than others, but Poilievre was undaunted from his talking points. Leslie then changed to the topics of coalition air strikes in Syria hitting civilians. Rob Nicholson noted that they had a 12-month commitment. Jack Harris then asked about Harper’s comments that they were not sure how effective the bombing campaign was. Nicholson noted it was a precision campaign, and wanted the NDP to thank the men and women in uniform. Harris then asked about reports about allegations of mistreatment of Taliban by military police. James Bezan insisted that they were taking the allegations seriously. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, praising their recent announcement and wondered why the government wouldn’t adopt it (Poilievre: Yay our plan), and Ralph Goodale got increasingly critical of that plan Poilievre was touting (Poilievre: You just said you want to raise taxes on people making $60,000 — blatantly untrue).
Pierre Poilievre is sticking to his talking points. #QP pic.twitter.com/lxQCieojfm
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 4, 2015
Roundup: A surprise visit
Stephen Harper took everyone (and most especially assignment editors across the country) off-guard by taking a surprise trip to Iraq while headed to V-E commemoration ceremonies in the Netherlands. While in Iraq, he met with that country’s prime minister and announced $167 million in aid and security equipment promises ($139 million of which is actually for the region, including Lebanon and Jordan). Politically, he also gained the advantage of being in theatre, getting photos and video of him being near the front lines, and talking tough about terrorism and national security, which he sees as vote-getters and poll-movers after weeks where his messaging has been thrown off track by both the distraction that is the Duffy trial, and the pushback to the budget, which was only balanced by raiding the contingency reserve and EI fund. In other words, he needs to remind people why they should vote for him, and looking prominent in a place where we’ve sent troops is one way to do it. While there, it was also said that the investigation into the friendly fire death of Sgt. Doiron is complete, and was likely due to fatigue among Peshmerga fighters. That report is supposed to be released publicly back in Canada within a month.