A freezing Thursday in the Nation’s Capital, and the only major leader in the Chamber was Thomas Mulcair, as the Prime Minister apparently had better things to do, while Justin Trudeau was off in Calgary. Mulcair led things off by asking about the Target liquidation sale, and wondered what the government would do for those workers. Jason Kenney responded by saying that they were working on an accelerated EI process for those employees and touted their new and improved job bank. Mulcair then trolled for support for the opposition day motion on “creating jobs,” which James Moore outright rejected. Mulcair gave some meandering outrage about the government’s treatment of the premiers and wondered if it would be applied to the mayors meeting in town. Peter Braid responded by praising their “largest ever” infrastructure programme. Rosane Doré Lefebvre was up next, and asked what CSIS would be allowed to do to “disrupt” terrorists under the new bill. Peter MacKay skirted the question and called it “comprehensive.” When she pressed, MacKay continued to give bland assurances. Stéphane Dion led for the Liberals, decrying the backloading of the Building Canada Fund. Braid insisted that they have spent three times the amount on infrastructure than the Liberals did when they were in government. Scott Brison called that false and gave more facts and figures about when those funds would be available. Braid continued to insist that the Fund was the best thing ever. Brison went harder in his final supplemental, to which Braid skirted an answer by praising the doubling of the gas tax.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: The Liberals say okay
It is not politically insignificant that the Liberals came out yesterday to say that they would support the new anti-terror bill, despite its flaws, but would work to try and get changes to it, in particular around the need for more oversight and to build in legislative reviews such as a sunset clause. In effect, it is a move that tries to blunt the Conservatives’ attack lines that the Liberals don’t support fighting terrorism (as some of their MPs still tried to peddle while making the rounds on the political talk shows last night). And if the Conservatives shoot down their amendments? Well, the Liberals plan to fix them once they form government (and parliamentary oversight is something the Liberals have been pushing for since they tried implementing it under the Paul Martin government, but the government was toppled and we all know what happened next). That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot to be concerned about with this bill, in particular that there is a broad expansion of powers with few limits, particularly that it doesn’t bar psychological harm. James Gordon writes how the strong language used to describe terrorists is letting them win, while Andrew Coyne wants a more reasoned debate on the bill rather than just lighting our hair on fire.
The individual freedoms we enjoy and cherish as Canadians cannot exist without collective security. 1/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
Bill C-51 can be improved, but on the whole, it does include measures that will keep Cdns safe. As such, #LPC will support it. 2/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
There are gaps in this bill, specifically on oversight and mandatory reviews. #LPC will offer amendments to address these gaps. 3/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
When a gov’t asks its citizens to give up liberty, it is that gov’ts responsibility to guarantee that its new powers will not be abused. 4/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
We are hopeful that #CPC is serious about reaching across the aisle to keep Canadians safe, while protecting our rights & our values. 5/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
The gov’t can accept that Canadians want greater oversight & accountability, or #LPC will offer that in our election platform. 6/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
We are a nation of fairness, justice, and the rule of law. We will not be intimidated into changing that by anyone. 7/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
QP: Arthur Porter, come on down!
A blustery winter day in Ottawa, and there were a few sour faces among the official opposition ranks following the Board of Internal Economy directive the previous evening. All of the leaders were in the Chamber, and Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about more layoffs in Toronto. Stephen Harper said that it has to do with particular decisions of particular companies, but their Economic Action Plan™ has created more jobs than were lost. Mulcair insisted those new jobs were part time and precarious, then listed more retail layoffs. Harper retorted the NDP position was simply to raise taxes. Mulcair then moved to the issue of CSIS, and whether the thirty year-old SIRC has the tools to oversee the agency today. Harper insisted that the system was robust and had safeguards, but the solution was not to go after the police but the terrorists. “Arthur Porter, come on down,” Mulcair quipped and noted SIRC’s report saying that CSIS had misled them just last year. Harper said that the example shows that the system works. Mulcair gave a line about freedom and safety going hand-in-hand, and saying that Harper has been decisive about it. Harper insisted that the bill already enhances oversight. (Really? Where?) Justin Trudeau was up next, demanding income splitting be cut in favour of more investment in infrastructure. Harper insisted that they were already running the largest, longest infrastructure programme in history and that he recently announced more funding — and that the Liberals want to raise taxes. Trudeau pointed out the massive difference difference in funding over the last two years and that an April budget meant municipalities would miss construction season. Harper repeated his insistence that they were already spending record amounts and accused Trudeau of being bad at math. Trudeau repeated the question in French, and got much the same answer in French, with an added promise for a balanced budget and targeted tax breaks.
Roundup: Baird bows out
In the wake of John Baird’s resignation from cabinet (and coming resignation as MP – in the “coming weeks,” likely so that a by-election won’t need to be called before the general election), there is plenty of reaction to go around. There hasn’t been a lot of genuine speculation as to the reasons for why now was the time to go, other than the obvious calendar reason that with the parties looking to get their nomination races squared away in advance of the election, that he would need to clear the way so that his riding association could find a new candidate and get them into place in time. It has also been pointed out that Baird has had a keen sense of timing, knowing when it was time to get out of the Ontario PC party as it was on its way down, and the same may be the case federally (despite Baird’s effusive praise during his resignation speech). More than that, it seems clear that he’s got a plan for a corporate position to head to, but he needs to ensure that he’s got the ethics clearances in place. And no, I really don’t think he has any ambitions to come back and pursue the party’s leadership as he never had such ambitions and was more than willing to play the loyal number two. John Geddes has a longer-form treatment of Baird’s career. Michael Den Tandt says the departure leaves a problem for the Conservatives in Ontario. Don Butler writes of his “two-faces,” both partisan and collegial. Matthew Fisher notes that while Baird travelled widely, he didn’t really seem to accomplish much, and that the department will be glad to see him gone. CBC has thirteen of the more memorable Baird quotes, and seven of his files as minister of foreign affairs. And post-speech, Harper gave Baird the first of many awkward bro-hugs that followed.
On behalf of all Canadians, I thank John @Baird for his years of tireless devotion to Canada. http://t.co/P6Vg5HzKhm pic.twitter.com/FtAZmypv6y
— Stephen Harper (@stephenharper) February 3, 2015
QP: Let’s keep repeating quotes!
With John Baird’s big resignation speech out of the way, and all of the leaders present in the Chamber, it had the makings of a more exciting day. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the job losses at Target and wondered where the budget was — odd, considering that Target’s closure has absolutely nothing to do with the government. Harper insisted that he put out a number of economic measures, and read a quote from the CFIB that called the NDP’s measures “dumb and anti-small business.” Mulcair read a competing quote where the head of the CFIB praised an NDP proposal, then asked the same question again. Harper, in turn, doubled down on his answer. Muclair read the same quote yet again, then gave an anecdote about being in a Legion Hall in Sudbury before demanding to see the budget again, giving Harper yet another option to repeat the “dumb and anti-small business quote.” Mulcair railed about all of the eggs being in the “extractive basket” — not remotely true mathematically — and Harper bashed on the NDP being high tax. Mulcair gave a convoluted question about corporations sitting on dead money before demanding help for the middle class and a budget. Harper listed off a number of actions he announced. Justin Trudeau was up next, and decried the problems of the middle class and wondered why the government was giving tax breaks to those who didn’t need them. Harper praised the help they were giving families including a tax cut. Trudeau noted the cuts to infrastructure investments, and said the government’s priorities were wrong when they wanted to help the wealthiest 15 percent of Canadians. Harper reiterated how great his policies were for families. Trudeau then changed topics and wondered about a statement that Peter MacKay once upon a time about the need for parliamentary oversight of national security. Harper insisted that SIRC was robust and functioned well.
Roundup: Baird on the way out
The big news is that John Baird is about to resign as minister, with the notion that he won’t run again in the next election for whatever reason, though it is suggested he feels the time is right to move over to the private sector, and the way things operate these days is that if you don’t wan to run again, then you’re no longer in cabinet. There hasn’t been any whispering of any scandal, and he doesn’t have a family to “spend more time with,” so the notion that he feels the time is right to make the transition to the private sector is certainly plausible. This after former Australian PM Kevin Rudd was just in town to try and recruit Baird to help him reform a number of UN agencies (though from what I’ve heard about Rudd, Baird not wanting to work with him may be completely understandable). I have no idea who Harper will name as the new foreign affairs minister in Baird’s place, though Jason Kenney is certainly a good possibility. (After all, there is a good tradition of leaders sticking their rivals in foreign affairs in order to keep them out of the country). In the interim, though, Ed Fast is taking the job on an interim basis, which makes sense as he has been doing the diplomatic work on the trade file. It certainly keeps things exciting. Paul Wells puts Baird’s time in Foreign Affairs into some context, which shows why this is a real loss for the government.
Sources have told @CBCNews Ed Fast will be named acting Foreign Affairs Minister in wake of John Baird departure: http://t.co/cCBr678Ysa
— CBC News Alerts (@CBCAlerts) February 3, 2015
#JohnBaird asking me for career advice. Funny, I didn't think he was actually listening. pic.twitter.com/YhPHVGZMUK
— Ed the Sock (@EdtheSock) February 3, 2015
QP: Decrying the finance minister’s insults
A blustery Monday in Ottawa, and only one major leader was present in the Commons. Thomas Mulcair led off, decrying the insulting way in which the Finance Minister treated the premiers and the Prime Minister’s lack of attendance at their meeting. Paul Calandra stood up to give a bog standard talking point about how the PM meets with the premiers on a regular basis, so that was getting things off to a good start. Mulcair pushed about the PM shunning those meetings, but Calandra repeated his answer. Mulcair demanded to know why Harper sent out the finance minister to insult the premiers, and again, Calandra repeated the praising talking points about the relationship with the provinces. Rosane Doré Lefebvre was up next, asking about the lack of increased oversight for CSIS if they are to be given new powers. Stephen Blaney insisted that all activities will be under the review of SIRC, which is independent. Mulcair got back up and demanded to know why the minister considered oversight and the protection of rights “red tape.” Blaney continued to insist that SIRC would do the job. Ralph Goodale got up for the Liberals, and wanted the government to redirect the funds for income splitting and direct it to infrastructure instead. Jason Kenny insisted that theirs was the better plan, and how the Liberals just wanted to raise taxes. Goodale then turned back to the question of oversight for national security, and how Canada was the only Five Eyes country without parliamentary (or congressional) oversight, not Blaney was undeterred, praising their new appointments. Dominic LeBlanc followed up in French, and Blaney tried to claim that our system was the envy of the world.
Roundup: Odd dismissals of oversight
We’ve had the weekend to look over the new anti-terrorism bill, and it’s not really winning a lot of praise, other than being noted for changing the election narrative from one of economic stability to national security. The fuzziness around what constitutes “terrorist propaganda” that they want the powers to scrub from the Internet (and good luck with that task) is certainly one of the issues that will need to be examined in further detail. The mother of a Calgary man who went over to fight for ISIS, and later died doing so, says that it’s not enough to just take away passports – the government needs to offer some kind of de-radicalisation programmes to go along with the new powers. In fact, one thing the new powers desperately need are more oversight mechanisms and bodies for CSIS and others, but according to the government, that’s just “needless red tape.” No, seriously. SIRC is not effective oversight, and no, Canada is not so different from other countries that we don’t need these mechanisms. But hey, apparently we’re special for not having this kind of oversight, but I don’t think it’s something we should be patting ourselves on the back for.
Roundup: More security, no more oversight
The new anti-terrorism bill was unveiled today, but in the government’s singularly dickish fashion – sending journalists to a lock-up off the Hill where they couldn’t even see the bill for the first hour, while Harper made the announcement in a pre-campaign stop in a suburb of Toronto. While the bill would largely expand the powers of CSIS greatly, it lowers the legal thresholds for preventative arrest and peace bones, criminalising the “promotion” of terrorism, allowing CSIS to “disrupt” would-be terror activities, removing terrorist materials from the web, sealing court proceedings, and overhauling the national no-fly list. Oddly enough, nobody would say how any of these measures could have prevented the October 22nd shooting in Ottawa. What it doesn’t do is provide any new or additional oversight to the agency, unlike all of our allies (but hey, they finally filled one of the empty seats on SIRC yesterday, but it’s still not up to full strength and there’s no permanent chair. Yay oversight!). It’s a strange kind of obstinacy, and only serves to make it like the government has something to hide. And then of course there are the concerns from civil liberties groups and the Privacy Commissioner, which goes to the breadth of activities and again the lack of proper civilian oversight. Tyler Dawson writes that the need to criminalise that “promotion” of terrorism is an admission of being afraid of these terrorists.
Canada's privacy commissioner weighs in on anti-terror bill; takes aim at oversight. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/BSq6cR18RQ
— Dylan Robertson (@withfilesfrom) January 30, 2015
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/561220364957933569
Roundup: Open federalism vs carbon pricing
With the premiers in town for a Council of the Federation meeting, Justin Trudeau took the opportunity to have a sit-down with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, and amidst the chiding of the PM for not deigning to make an appearance, one of the things they talked about was carbon pricing. Trudeau is walking a particularly fine line when it comes to the role of the federal government and the provinces in combating climate change, and this is nowhere illustrated better than in the way that different media organisations wrote up the comments. CBC focused on the fact that Trudeau thinks the federal government should leave it up to the provinces, but still have a role to play. The Canadian Press, meanwhile, wrote it up as the federal government needing to take a leadership role, and that the absence of that has forced the provinces to go it alone. Now, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but it does point to the ways in which attempts to have nuanced policy can lead to misinterpretation and trouble, and it also becomes apparent that Trudeau will need to come out with a much more clarified position as to just what kind of leadership role he thinks that the federal government needs to play on the file while still letting the provinces do their own thing. Open federalism is a real thing, but there will need to be some kind of clarity as to roles, expectations, and of course the important question of who is paying for what, that will need to form part of that discussion going forward.