Monday being the new Friday in QP, there were no major leaders in the Chamber to start off the week — Mulcair in Halifax, Trudeau in the 905, and Harper, well, elsewhere. That left Peter Julian to lead off, demanding oversight over national security agencies, and Stephen Blaney to respond by insisted that freedoms would not be curtailed and invited them to support it. Julian pointed out contradictions in government messaging, to which Blaney noted that Parliament itself came under attack. Julian worried that any protests could be considered “Eco-terrorism,” which Blaney insisted he read the bill instead. Peggy Nash then asked about possible plans to steel GM shares at a loss to balance the budget, to which Andrew Saxton read a statement about the “decisive action” taken during the recession. Nash asserted that the government didn’t really care about the auto sector, to which James Moore gave an impassioned refutation. Dominic LeBlanc was up for the Liberals, and lamented the government’s lack of action on the middle class, for which Pierre Poilievre insisted that the Liberals just want to raise taxes. Ralph Goodale gave more of the same in English, Poilievre repeated his answer, and when Goodale listed the many ills of the government’s budgeting, Poilievre fell back on the usual “your leader thinks budgets balance themselves.”
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: Yes, governing is political
Your best political read of the weekend was a Twitter essay from Philippe Lagassé, so I’ll leave you to it.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569515068326457344
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569515450780020736
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569515909972434945
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569516334192701440
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569516761273532418
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569517336677507073
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569517603938369536
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569517862274142209
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569518893456171008
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569530939325296641
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569531442990088193
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569532019685908480
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569532280991055872
Lagassé, who was part of the fighter jet replacement options analysis task force, reminded us then as reminds us now that we need to stop behaving like we should be in a technocracy, that there are political considerations and debates that need to be had, and that ministers decide things for which there is always a political calculation. This is not a bad thing, though we may disagree with the final decision. The great thing is that we can hold those who made the decisions to account – something you can’t really do in a technocracy, so can we please stop pretending that it’s the way our system is supposed to operate?
Roundup: About those federal minimum wage claims
I got a householder from my MP, Paul Dewar, the other day, and the figure he cited on it bothered me – that raising minimum wage for federally-regulated workers would benefit “tens of thousands.”
We fact-checked this right? There aren't tens of thousands of federally regulated workers making min wage. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/oODcbmGfMw
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 20, 2015
I remember this being fact-checked when the NDP first announced this policy, and shortly after I tweeted the photo of the mailer, one of my followers found the reference – that there are currently 416 federally-regulated workers earning minimum wage.
https://twitter.com/debalap/status/568907831178600448
And let’s also be clear – federally-regulated workers are paid the prevailing provincial minimum wage, which keeps them in line with their local counterparts, and is in line with other jurisprudence regarding federally-regulated workplaces and provincial workers compensation regimes – jurisprudence that has been upheld at the Supreme Court level. It was later pointed out to me that the number of federally-regulated workers who earn between the local minimum wage and $15 may indeed be in the thousands.
https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568985974824267776
https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568986289363484673
https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568986575398252545
https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568986883247640576
https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568987594337296384
https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568987927687995392
Fair enough. It may well be that the intent of the NDP policy is to encourage the provinces to raise their own provincial minimum wage rates, but no province with an NDP government has bothered to make such a move, so that may be a telling sign. The bigger issue, however, is that this $15/hour minimum wage issue is a gimmicky policy that will actually do nothing to raise anyone out of poverty, and in fact seems to be yet another case of a political party lifting talking points from American sources without bothering to check the Canadian data or context, and if you talk to any credible Canadian economist, they will tell you that you may as well advocate raising the minimum wage to $20 even $20,000/hour, because raising the minimum wage is terrible policy for poverty reduction. What does work, however, are cash transfers to the poor by means of things like the GST rebate mechanisms that are already in place. But it’s populist to say that people “deserve a raise,” even if it’s terrible policy, and it deserves to be pointed out. Context is as important to journalism as repeating facts in isolation.
Roundup: Eminent Canadians push back
The anti-terror legislation again dominated the headlines yesterday, starting with a letter that four former Prime Ministers – Turner, Clark, Chrétien and Martin – along with 18 other eminent Canadians including five former Supreme Court justices, penned in the Globe and Mail about the need for better oversight of our national security agencies. You know, like the Martin government was trying to pass in 2004 before the Conservatives and NDP brought them down (and which Peter MacKay blatantly misconstrued in QP). What’s more baffling is that the government, by way of Jason Kenney, is now arguing that the bill doesn’t need more oversight because it gives more power to the courts to provide it. (Funnily enough, this is the same party who likes to moan about judicial activism). The problem with judicial oversight is that it also isn’t really oversight, and we have actual demonstrated cases where CSIS didn’t tell the truth when they went to the courts for a warrant. One of those cases is now waiting to be heard by the Supreme Court, because CSIS failed in their duty of candour. This is not a minor detail, but rather a gaping hole in the government’s argument. Oversight is a very important and necessary component, and it makes no sense that the government can keep ignoring it because it’s going to come around and bite them in the ass if they don’t get a handle on it, particularly when the bad things that happen come to light, and they always do, and we’ll have another Maher Arar-type situation.
Jason Kenney: anti-terror bill #C51 "doesn’t give new power to police or intelligence agencies but rather to judges" pic.twitter.com/fviUIo4J7Z
— Dylan Robertson (@withfilesfrom) February 19, 2015
QP: Questions on counter-radicalization
Despite it being only a Thursday, attendance in the Commons was already on its way down — Stephen Harper was off in BC, and Justin Trudeau in Toronto. Thomas Mulcair was still present, and led off by asking about the US summit on countering extremism, and wondered where this government’s support for counter-radicalism was, and gave a swipe that the government was anti-Muslim while he was at it. Peter MacKay gave some outrage and said that C-51 was giving tools to prevent terrorism. Mulcair wanted examples on disruption in the bill, to which MacKay insisted that Mulcair was incorrect in his characterisation. Mulcair wondered if the bill would give CSIS the power to investigate environmental groups or First Nations, to which MacKay insisted that Mulcair was simply fear-mongering as the bill specifically prohibits lawful dissent or advocacy. Mulcair changed topics and demanded expadited hearings for EI claimants at the Social Security Tribunal. Pierre Poilievre agreed that the backlog was unacceptable, and noted that his predecessor put in a plan to eliminate the backlog by summer. Mulcair said that was nonsense and decried the number of “Conservative buddies” being appointed to the tribunal, which Poilievre refuted. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, denouncing the economic uncertainty of a delayed budget. Andrew Saxton stood up to read some standard talking points about how great the government was doing. Ralph Goodale asked the same again in English, got the same answer.
Roundup: Laying out their C-51 positions
Not that it was any surprise what they were, but the opposition parties laid out their explicit positions on the new anti-terror bill in advance of the start of debate yesterday – the NDP firmly opposed, the Liberals walking the line by listing the things they support in the bill and the things they don’t, and vowing to make it an election issue if the Conservatives don’t make the necessary amendments. But while it’s certainly within the right of the NDP, as official opposition, to call for the bill’s defeat, if you scratch beneath the surface a little, much of their messaging on it is a mess. At his press conference yesterday, Mulcair was simultaneously saying that they want the bill defeated writ large and voted down at second reading (agreement in principle), while saying that it needs more debate and amendments at committee, and then reiterating that it’s beyond saving, that there were no amendments that could make them live with it. From a procedural standpoint, that’s all over the map. And then there’s the conspiracy theory aspect, where Mulcair is going on about how a government could use CSIS to spy on their political adversaries under these broad definitions, and then to the Francophone media, he goes full-bore on re-fighting 1970, and it’s all October Crisis and the War Measures Act. That, of course, has to do with his Quebec voter base, which is polling its support for stronger anti-terror measures, discomfited by the terror-inspired hit-and-run last October, and probably the Charter of Values xenophobia around Muslims that is still an undercurrent. Suffice to say, the scattershot of arguments against make it hard to follow the plot. For her part, Elizabeth May is going full-on conspiracy theory, insisting the bill will turn CSIS into a “secret police” – err, except that they have no arrest powers, and then tried to say that such a bill would basically turn Rosa Parks into a terrorist in CSIS’ eyes. I’m not sure that’s helpful. Terry Glavin makes the point that while there are alarming things in the bill, hysteria doesn’t really help the debate. As for Peter MacKay, whose use of “cultural” causes with relation to the not-really-would-be-terror-attack in Halifax, when asked what he thought the definition of terrorism was, MacKay told reporters to “look it up.” He’s all class.
QP: Demanding examples of promoting terrorism
Caucus day, after both opposition parties came out with some significant positions in the morning, and all leaders were present to begin the debate. Thomas Mulcair led off, wondering if he had any examples he could share about “promoting terrorism” as is outlined in C-51. Harper gave a general statement about the importance of fighting terrorism. Mulcair wondered about the economic stability definition in the bill, to which Harper assured him that lawful protest was exempt. Mulcair wondered about what new kinds of “economic interference” did the bill have in mind, but Harper went on about the need for the power to disrupt. Mulcair repeated much of what was said before in English, to which Harper reassured him that the bill did no such thing, and that the defence of security undermines freedom. Another round of the same was no less enlightening. Justin Trudeau was up next, noting that he spoke with Mohamed Fahmi last night, and wanted Harper to make direct interventions about his extradition to Canada. Harper assured him that they have intervened with Egypt “at all levels.” Trudeau then turned to the question of vaccines, and wanted the government to cancel its partisan ads in favour of vaccine promotion. Harper assured him that the programme had not been cut and that vaccinations were good. Trudeau then turned to the Supreme Court decision on medically-assisted dying, and wondered if Harper would begin the process now and now wait for the election. Harper gave a bland reassurance that they were going to engage in consultations.
Roundup: Closure and privilege
It was wholly depressing the way in which the whole matter was rushed through. After the imposition of closure – not time allocation but actual closure – the government rammed through their motion to put all Hill security under the auspices of the RCMP without any safeguards to protect parliamentary privilege. After all, the RCMP reports to the government, and Parliament is there to hold government to account and therefore has privileges to protect that – the ability to have their own security being a part of that. Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger tried to amend the government’s motion to make it explicit that the Speakers of both chambers were the ultimate authorities, and the government said good idea – and then voted against it. And so it got pushed through, privilege be damned, with minimal debate and no committee study or expert testimony. The Senate, however, is putting up more of a fight, and the Liberals in that chamber have raised the privilege issue, and the Speaker there thinks there is merit to their concerns, and has suspended debate until he can rule on it. And this Speaker, incidentally, is far more aware of the issues of privilege and the role of Parliament and the Senate than his Commons counterpart seems to be, and he could very well rule the proposal out of order. One hopes so, and once again it seems that our hopes rest on the Senate doing its job, because the Commons isn’t doing theirs.
I don't know about you all, but I'm actually not willing to predict how Senator Nolin will rule. Senate speakers are tricky.
— kady o'malley (@kady) February 17, 2015
QP: Telling the truth about the costs in Iraq
Tuesday in a frigid Ottawa, and all of the leaders were present, ready to take on the day. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the role of our forces in Iraq, and the their refusal to turn over figures to the PBO about the costs of the mission. Stephen Harper said that they gave the costs — $122 million — and that the NDP hated any money going to the mission. Mulcair asked again in French, got much the same answer, and for the second supplemental, Mulcair changed topics to the definitions of activities that CSIS could disrupt in the new anti-terror legislation. Harper said that Canadians felt these measures were necessary. Mulcair tried again in English, and Harper accused Mulcair of conspiracy theory and black helicopters. Mulcair changed topics yet again, asking about Harper’s comments about Radio-Canada employees hating conservative values. Harper said that he believed the majority of Quebeckers agreed with him, and that the Orange Wave was over. Justin Trudeau was up, and ramped up the language on the questions, accusing the PM of attacking the ethics of CBC/Radio-Canada, to which Harper gave a non sequitur about high taxes and lax terrorism laws. Trudeau turned to the measles epidemic, and wondered why the government was not running any ads on the benefits of vaccination. Harper insisted that the minister of health was clear on the benefits of vaccines, and that vaccines were great.
Roundup: Narrowly avoiding back-to-work bill
It was only the flow of routine proceedings that kept the back-to-work legislation for CP Rail from being tabled yesterday, as the Teamsters ended their strike and announced that they would enter into arbitration with CP. In fact, the government has already put the procedural wheels in motion to limit debate on said legislation to a mere three-and-a-half hours for all stages, but the strike ended a mere half-hour before the actual bill was due to be tabled. So there’s that. I was curious to see how the government was going to get around the whole Supreme Court ruling on the right to strike, but alas, it didn’t see the light of day. This all being said, there were questions being put to the NDP about whether the rail should be considered an essential service because of the way that they have monopolies – particularly in the prairie provinces – but they refused to answer, instead giving yet another paean to workers’ rights. It would be nice if the debate could acknowledge that this is complicated rather than just yelling “fragile economy!” and “workers rights!” at one another the whole time.