About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: Discovering the domain of private members’ bills

Liberal MP Massimo Pacetti has a private member’s bill up for debate that proposes a tax credit for domestic travel that crosses three provinces – in order to help Canadians discover their own country instead of always travelling south. He calls it the “Discover Your Canada Act,” and it is a laudable goal, as domestic travel is ridiculously expensive in this country but – and this is a very, very big but – it’s not the domain of a private member’s bill. In fact, it is so far outside of the domain of private members’ business that it demands expenditure – which tax credits are in effect – and expenditure requires a Royal Recommendation if it’s not government legislation. And this is not government legislation, nor will the government endorse this because we’re living in an era of “fiscal austerity,” and it’s not a boutique tax credit that will appeal enough to the supposed Tim Horton’s crowd. But seriously – MPs really need to knock off this foolishness of trying to make government policy from the opposition benches. Private members’ business has its place, but these kinds of stunts, while trying to capture the populist imagination, just end up looking ridiculous.

Update: I’m reliably informed that tax credits are a way of getting around the requirement for a Royal Recommendation – but that kind of technicality doesn’t mean that this is still the domain of private members’ business. My criticism of this kind of stunt stands.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Long-term damage and hidden changes

The former Chief Electoral Officer has big concerns about what Thursday’s Supreme Court decision on Etobicoke Centre means for future elections – especially when it come to people trying to vote at polls they’re not assigned to, and the future court challenges around those rules. Meanwhile, here are five of the outstanding issues that remain from the last election.

CBC delves in the Omnibus Budget Bill 2: The Revenge and finds 22 changes in the fine print to things like public sector and military pensions, changes to environmental legislation, eliminating boards, changes to the Indian Act, and so on. It’s definitely worthwhile reading. Oh, and those changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act? Are about navigation because of changes made to the bill through the back door four months ago when the government gutted the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in the first omnibus budget bill.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Opitz keeps his seat

In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the election result in Etobicoke Centre, allowing Ted Opitz to remain as the MP. It’s a difficult decision, because it leaves open some questions as to how many procedural errors we bother to enforce so long as we ensure that people can vote, whether or not it is actually proper for them to do so in that manner, rather than see anyone’s right to vote taken away. Here are the reactions, from Opitz, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Bob Rae, and others. Paul Wells parses some of the meaning of the split decision, the players on both sides, and throws some cold water on those conspiracy theories of stacked courts (and if anyone believes them, then they obviously haven’t paid any attention to the Supreme Court of Canada in the past). Emmett Macfarlane, who has literally written a book on the Court, discusses what he believes would have happened if they had ruled the other way. Adam Goldenberg uses this decision as a reminder about how our Supreme Court is not partisan, unlike the one in the States.

Continue reading →

QP: Ridicule and non-sequiturs

Things were a bit more subdued in the House today as QP got underway, as Thomas Mulcair asked about a Conservative MP’s accusation that the Canadian Association of Retired Persons was a partisan organisation. Harper responded that his government was preserving pensions while still eliminating the deficit. Mulcair wondered if the Calgary Chamber of Commerce was next on the enemies list after their criticism of the foreign takeover review process, but Harper joked about how their ideological differences with the NDP were vast. For his final question, Mulcair asked when they would get clarification on the takeover rules, to which Harper said the decision was still with the minister. Jack Harris was up next, curious about that letter Harper sent Peter MacKay about the cuts to his department, but MacKay would only respond that under their watch, spending for defence had gone up every year. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, asking about reciprocity agreements with foreign takeovers, but Harper responded with ridicule and the canard that there was no growth in trade with China under the Liberals, unlike his government. (Goodale later tweeted that under the Liberals two-way trade increased 669 percent, whereas it was only 77 percent under Harper). For his final question, Goodale asked about how they could enforce conditions with those takeovers, but Harper didn’t even bother trying to answer the question, and instead read a selective quote from this morning’s Supreme Court decision on Etobicoke Centre – a complete non-sequitur if there ever was one.

Continue reading →

Roundup: What fake parts?

The Americans discovered a problem that some of their military hardware was being sold to them with counterfeit parts, most of them from China. We buy most our military hardware from the Americans. So what is DND doing about this possible threat? Nothing. You’re welcome, Canada.

The Conservatives have consented to allowing ten different committees study aspects of the Omnibus budget bill, for what it’s worth. The NDP moved a motion to break it up into eleven parts, not that the government will take them up on it. Meanwhile, John Geddes parses what the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act means, and why the government talking points about it aren’t really all that accurate.

Not unsurprisingly, the recession derailed the government’s debt retirement plans, and even less surprising is the fact that they haven’t come up with any new plans. Seeing as long-term planning isn’t really this government’s forte and all.

Continue reading →

QP: They’re not cuts, they’re changes

With Members’ Statements getting rowdy before Question Period even started, Speaker Scheer warned, “let’s not have this again.” And really, we didn’t. QP was fairly listless overall. Thomas Mulcair started out reading a question on the $10 billion in cuts to Old Age Security, to which Harper said that no, there were no cuts but changes coming in 2023. Mulcair moved onto the topic of the Parliamentary Budget Officer not getting the information he requested, to which Harper responded that they wrote the Act that created the position, and they report that information to Parliament. Megan Leslie was up next wondering why it was that the FAQ page on about the Navigational Waters Act was pulled down from the government’s website, to which Lebel said that they were fixing “erroneous information” about that Act on the site. Down the memory hole it goes (excepting of course for Google cache and the Library and Archives Canada backup copy). Bob Rae was up next, asking if the changes to OAS were really worth it considering the negligible percentage of money that it affected, but Harper insisted it was all about future sustainability. For his final question, Rae asked why the government wasn’t prosecuting some HSBC tax evasion cases, to which Harper insisted that they don’t tolerate that behaviour, and that CRA was investigating.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A day of many reports

The big news yesterday was the Auditor General’s report, and most people were talking cyber-security and problems at Veterans Affairs, but the report also highlighted the problems the government has with its long-term fiscal sustainability. More specifically, approving big spending items without doing any kind of analysis on the long-term impact on the state of the nation’s finances – you know, stuff the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been trying to get information about. Gosh, it’s a good thing that we have MPs to scrutinise the estimates and public accounts to catch this sort of thing – oh, wait…

The Security and Intelligence Review Committee’s report also came out yesterday, which pretty much trashed the no-fly list.

Yet another report that came out yesterday was that of the Correctional Investigator, and it highlighted the problem of self-harm that is growing in the prison system. Yeah, we really do need to do something about the problem of mental health in the prison population, and somehow I doubt that cutting chaplains contributes to that solution.

Continue reading →

QP: We learned from the AG’s report…

The drinking game of the day could have been “We learned today in the Auditor General’s report…” Because for about the first half of QP, nearly every question was prefaced by that statement. Thomas Mulcair started off by reading off a question about cyber-security from the report, who which Harper insisted the report said that they were making progress, and then a pair of questions on the hidden costs of cuts to OAS, which Harper insisted was a misnomer because there were not cuts – just changes coming down the road. Peggy Nash asked a pair of questions about changes to the labour code, to which Tony Clement first gave a bland non-answer about respecting taxpayers and fair changes, before Lisa Raitt answered the supplemental about how these changes gave clear deadlines for payments for employees where they didn’t exist previously. Bob Rae was then up, asking a pair of questions relating to the AG’s report, wondering why our Cyber-security response centre couldn’t be staffed 24/7, to which Harper insisted that they were making investments in cyber-security and had accepted the Auditor General’s recommendations. For his final question, Rae asked about the Correctional Investigator’s report on the skyrocketing number of aboriginal women in prisons, but Harper’s response wasn’t terribly edifying.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Petronas fallout

In the fallout over the rejection of the Petrnoas deal, Stephen Harper stands behind Paradis, yet still insists we’re open for foreign investment. Economist Stephen Gordon calls bullshit on some of the excuses for turning down deals like Petronas. Andrew Coyne calls for the “net benefit” test to be abolished.

The Prime Minister of Jamaica visited Ottawa yesterday, to celebrate 50 years of friendship and our opening a Canadian Forces supply base in the country to serve the region. When asked about Jamaica’s plans to abolish their monarchy, Simpson said that while she loves and respects the Queen, and Jamaica will always be a member of the Commonwealth, she feels its part of her country’s evolution.

Continue reading →

QP: No plans to privatise

Lacklustre and listless – two words that could easily describe today’s Question Period. Harper was absent, which is not unusual for a Monday, and he’d just finished entertaining the Prime Minister of Jamaica before getting ready to head to Toronto to pay his respects to Lincoln Alexander, currently lying in State at the Ontario Legislature. Thomas Mulcair read off his first two questions, in French and English, about the rejection of the Petronas deal, to which Christian Paradis responded that he was not convinced that it would be of net benefit to Canada. And hey, at least it was Paradis responding and not a back-up PM du jour. Mulcair’s third question was about the rumours that the government wanted to privatise the CMHC, which Ted Menzies stood up to say that no, they had no plans to do so at this time. Peggy Nash then stood up and said “At. This. Time.” And then proceeded to read her two scripted questions on privatising the CMHC, where Menzies gave her the very same answer twice more. Bob Rae was up for the Liberals next, and first asked just what constituted “net benefit” with regards to the Petronas rejection, not that Paradis deviated from his message. Rae then asked about the Indian Act – the subject of his private member’s motion that was up for debate – and when the government would consult and head towards true equality with First Nations. John Duncan stood up and accused him of wanting more talk when the government was taking action. For his final question, Rae asked for a judicial inquiry in to the Jeffrey Delisle spy case, to which Peter MacKay told him that the issue was still before the courts.

Continue reading →