Tag Archives: Andrew Scheer

Roundup: Don’t be fooled by Friday’s childish meltdown

Posted on by

You may have heard that there was a bit of a meltdown in the House of Commons yesterday. You may also have heard a bunch of suspect commentary about what it was about, and some particularly dubious ruminations about how noble it was that these opposition MPs were standing up for their rights to examine the Estimates and to ensure that all government spending was properly voted for, and so on. The problem is, is that those sentiments demonstrate that they’ve been taken in by the ruse that this is all related to.

So, to recap: Yesterday the parties were on notice that Government House Leader Bardish Chagger was going to move the motion to start late-night sittings in the House of Commons for the last four scheduled sitting weeks, in order to get bills through and off to the Senate. After all, it’s likely that the government wants to prorogue and have a new Throne Speech in the fall, and it’s better to get as many bills off the Order Paper before that happens. But just before Chagger is going to move that motion during Routine Proceedings yesterday, the NDP’s Daniel Blaikie conveniently stands up to raise a point of order and starts to demand that the Speaker allow them to delete Vote 40 from the Estimates. Vote 40 is related to the $7 billion fund that the government wants to use to get a move on budgetary matters that haven’t made it through proper Treasury Board review yet. The figures are all in the budget, laid out in a table, on how it will be spent. The opposition has decided that this is really a “slush fund” that can be spent on anything (the government is quite insistent that if they spent it on anything other than what’s in the table in the budget that it would constitute unauthorised spending, which is a significant thing). After Blaikie started a lengthy speech about it, the Speaker said he’s heard enough, that the matter is before committee and not the Commons, so it’s not in order. When he tried to move onto other business, Blaikie kept demanding he be heard. The Conservatives joined in. And thus began an eight-minute childish tantrum of shouting and desk banging that drowned out other business, and once that calmed down, endless cycles of points of order regarding whether or not they could hear the motion or the interpretation, and so on. There was no greater principle being expressed or upheld – it was a procedural filibuster. And we know this because they tried other tactics after that one failed, including points of personal privilege over the earlier meltdown, and a concurrence debate on a committee report (which, as Kady points out, is kind of fun to watch because almost no one has prepared speeches for them, so they’re forced to think on their feet, which they should be doing anyway, but whatever).

Procedural shenanigans I’m fine with. It’s a necessary part of Parliamentary democracy. I’m less fine with the infantile tantrum that they threw when they didn’t get their way. That’s the part that needs to be called out for what it was. And I especially resent the fact that you have a bunch of pundit who should know what a filibuster looks like after being on the Hill for so many yearswho were all “They have a legitimate point!” That legitimate point, as meritorious as it may be in a more existential conversation about reform of the Estimates process, was not what this was about, and to treat it as though it was is to fall for the game. I will additionally add that I am especially displeased with the commentary on the Power & Politicspower panel, where pundits who are not in Ottawa and who don’t cover this place got space to ruminate about how the Speaker was acting partisan because the government is on its heels a bit, of that this $7 fund was just like an omnibus bill that they swore they would never use, and nobody pushed back about how bogus this commentary was. (Paul Wells offered the actual take, bolstered by Aaron Wherry, for the record, but regardless). I will reiterate that procedure matters, and it would really help if people covering and commenting on this place understood that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On lying with statistics

Posted on by

Over the weekend, Andrew Scheer tweeted that there was “devastating” job news released on Friday, with “zero total jobs created” in April, and that 41,400 jobs had been lost so far this year. Investment is apparently being driven away from the country. It’s all doom and ruins. Except that it’s all complete bullshit. It’s lying with statistics.

What do the actual figures show? For starters, unemployment has been at a 40-year low for the past several months at 5.8 percent. This while the participation rate and employment rate have remained relatively steady throughout. Those “devastating” numbers in April were a net loss of 1,100 jobs, but that net showed a loss of 30,000 part-time jobs and an increase of 28,800 full-time jobs, and industry-wise, the losses were mostly in either construction or retail and wholesale trade. Wages have been increasing over 3 percent year-over-year for several months now. And yes, there was a brief correction in job numbers in January, but it was after a spike in November and December, while the trend cycle remains upward. And if you ask any credible economist, they’ll tell you the underlying numbers indicate that the economy is strong, which puts a lie to Scheer’s tweets.

Of course, I tweeted that Scheer was wrong over the weekend, and I was bombarded with apologists insisting that we should really be looking at the US unemployment rate, which is 3.9 percent. Err, except the Americans use a different measure, and if we used that same measure, our rate would be 4.9 percent. I was also told that all of these new jobs were part-time (not true – as explained above, they’re mostly full-time jobs displacing part-time ones, and have been for several months now), or that this is all because people have run out of EI and have stopped looking for work (please see: participation rate). Oh, and then there were the anecdotes being thrown my way as “proof” that those figures are wrong. Because anecdotes trump statistical data, as we all know. The data are all there. Scheer’s particular cherry-picking is ludicrous on its face, but he’s counting on the low-information voter not having enough know-how to look up the figures at StatsCan, or to read some actual economic analysis about how yes, the economy is doing quite well right now and we can expect interest rates to start going up as a result. It seems to me that if they were in government and an opposition party was doing the same thing he was doing, they would be howling about how awful it was that the opposition was talking down our economy. Funny how that is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sending amendments back a second time

Posted on by

There’s drama with the Senate, after they sent back the omnibus transport bill back to the Commons a second time, after the government rejected several of the nineteen amendments proposed. We haven’t seen this happen in twelve years, that last time being in 2006 when there was back-and-forth on Harper’s Accountability Act, when he had a minority in the Commons, and the Liberals had a majority in the Senate, giving them the necessary leverage. But while much of the focus is on whether or not there’s going to be a constitutional crisis over this (there’s not, and quit being such drama queens about it), there is actually some nuance here that should be explored a bit more.

There are a couple of reasons why the Senate eventually voted to insist on some of the amendments, and one of those had to do with the way it creates unfairness for the Maritimes when it comes to rail transportation rates, as there is a monopoly in the region. What’s very interesting about this is the fact that after PEI Senator Diane Griffin made her speech about the regional unfairness, all subsequent debate became spontaneous and unscripted – something we almost never see in either chamber. This is how Parliament should work, and based on that speech, some senators changed their votes, which shows that the process does work as it’s supposed to, from time to time. It also shows that the Senate is fulfilling its role when it comes to standing up for regions, as they are doing for the Maritimes in this case. (Griffin, incidentally, says she’ll likely back down if the Commons rejects the amendments a second time).

The other reason the Senate is sending these amendments back, however, is the fact that when the government rejected them, they didn’t offer an explanation as to why, and this is important (and I haven’t seen anyone reporting this fact). And this puts the onus on the government, because they owe senators that explanation as to why their sober second thought is being rejected. Just about a year ago, when the Senate sent back amendments to the budget implementation bill, the House rather snippily stated that such amendments would impede the privileges of the Commons – but never stated how they would do so. While the Senate passed the bill, they did send a message back to the Commons that yes, they do have the ability to amend budget bills thank you very much, but they did make sure to let Bardish Chagger know their displeasure the next time she appeared at Senate QP, where they wanted the explanation as to how the amendments would impact the Commons’ privileges (and she never did give them an answer). Trudeau keeps saying he respects the independence of the Senate, but he should demonstrate that respect by offering explanations and not treating the work of the Senate in such a dismissive manner.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Woe be the social conservatives

Posted on by

Oh, the poor social conservatives, always being played by mainstream conservative parties, both federal and provincial, for the sake of their votes at leadership conventions only to be dumped when the going gets tough. We have two provincial examples to now add to the list, for what it’s worth. In Ontario last weekend, Progressive Conservative leader dumped former leadership rival Tanya Granic Allen as a candidate after comments she made about same-sex marriage came to light, and everyone was shocked! Shocked!That the woman whose entire leadership campaign was the disingenuous fear that Ontario’s new sex-ed curriculum was going to indoctrinate children to anal sex was going to be a problematic homophobic candidate. But hey, Ford used her second-choice votes to get himself over the top for the leadership and let her run for a nomination and win, despite everyone knowing that she not only made homophobic comments, but also disparaging comments about Muslims, and it was okay until the weekend before the writ-drop. How terribly cynical. Chris Selley walks us through that particular bit of theatre that abuses social conservatives’ trust, while Martin Patriquin notes that while her ouster makes Ford look more centrist, Granic Allen’s replacement is far more of a credible threat to Liberals, for what it’s worth.

Meanwhile in Alberta, Jason Kenney is now twisting himself in a pretzel to defend the social conservative policies adopted at the UCP convention over the weekend, coming up with bogus equivocations about the anti-GSA resolution being “poorly worded,” or how the policy around “invasive medical procedures” had its roots in a minor getting a “controversial vaccine” and totally has nothing to do with abortion, no sir. Jen Gerson notes that this is the chickens coming home to roost after Kenney so deliberately courted these social conservatives and made this “grassroots guarantee” about them making the policies – only for that pledge to vanish down the memory hole, and him insisting that platforms aren’t made by committees and how it’s his pen that will translate it all, and you can take his assurances that they won’t out LGBT kids “to the bank.” (I personally wouldn’t cash that cheque, but I may be biased, being gay and all).

The common lesson here? That conservatives both federally and provincially are quick to insist “big blue tent” to draw in the social conservatives and the Red Tories but are quick to disappoint both in pursuit of populist measures that they hope will get them votes. It’s not about being centrist, because if that were the goal, you’d see way more Red Tory appeals than we do (and in fact, if the last federal leadership convention was any indication, Red Tories like Michael Chong were often derided as Liberals and traitors to the cause). It’s more about the cult of personality around the chosen leader, and policy is almost an afterthought, and those identifiable groups within the big tent are just fodder to get that leader into place. It’s a sad state of affairs for political parties, and these latest examples are just more proof of that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about Scheer’s assertions

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer went to Calgary yesterday to talk to that city’s Chamber of Commerce and said a few things that I feel should probably stand a bit of questioning. Like the fact that he thinks it’s a “red flag” to use taxpayer funds to backstop the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. And it’s fair that there’s scepticism about governments essentially subsidizing private business, but it’s his assertion that “governments investing tax dollars in energy projects is not the optimal solution.” Sure, it’s not optimal, but it’s complete and total historical revisionism to suggestion that this is somehow new or novel. Given the ways that governments, both federal and provincial, have de facto subsidized the development of the oilsands with generous royalty breaks and other tax incentives has been sinking a hell of a lot of taxpayer dollars into energy projects. And yes, there was a whole national crisis that had a hand in bringing down a federal government around the government sinking money into a cross-country pipeline.

But the other statement that Scheer makes that I find a bit puzzling is this continued insistence that somehow provinces were forced to “take matters into their own hands” over the Trans Mountain issue because the federal government showed a lack of leadership. And I’m still trying to figure out how this works. For starters, which provinces is he referring to? BC, which took it upon themselves to challenge federal jurisdiction in a naked attempt to appease a coalition partner? Or Alberta, who escalated tactics on the basis of a press release? “They should use all of the tools at their disposal,” Scheer insists of the federal government, and yet I’m not sure what exactly they were supposed to do. They already have jurisdiction – trying to re-assert it would imply that there was a question when there isn’t one, and creating doubt would embolden opponents. There wasn’t anything to challenge in the courts because BC had only put out a press release, and nobody even had a clue about what specific questions BC was raising until they filed their court reference this past week. How would going half-cocked have helped matters? But demanding they “use all the tools” sounds an awful lot like hand-wavey nonsense that serves to only invoke the politician’s syllogism than it does to suggest meaningful action. Kinder Morgan, meanwhile, has used this exercise in threatening to pull out in order to exact political leverage (and the fact that a private company is attempting to blackmail governments is not a good look), but there remain questions outside of all of this as to their own obligations to fulfil the conditions imposed on them by the National Energy Board for continued approval of the project. That can’t be glossed over.

I’m also curious what else he thinks the federal government should have done to silence BC’s objections, considering that he’s also supporting the Saskatchewan government’s attempt to push back against the imposition of the federal carbon backstop price. Is his position that federal governments should bigfoot provinces to get pipelines, but that they don’t dare interfere in areas of shared jurisdiction like the environment? That’s an interesting needle to thread, and somehow, I doubt we’ll see him attempting to do so anytime soon.

Continue reading →

Tributes for Gord Brown

Posted on by

Question Period was cancelled today upon news that Conservative MP Gord Brown had died of a heart attack in his office earlier in the morning. MPs assembled in the House of Commons as they usually do, but rather than members’ statements, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer stood to pay tribute to Brown.

Scheer noted that he and Brown were both elected in 2004, and were both long-time volunteers going back to the PC Youth in Ontario. At the start of the current parliament, Brown was appointed whip by interim leader Rona Ambrose, while Scheer had been named House Leader, and they shared the same suite of offices. After Brown’s staff got him a bull whip as a joke, Scheer would often hear Brown crack it.

“I was always worried he was going to hurt himself,” Scheer quipped.

Scheer noted that as whip, Brown wanted to ensure that members of caucus supported one another on a personal level and not just a professional one. He also noted that while the wanted Brown at an event last week, Brown didn’t make it because he had a date night scheduled with his wife, Claudine, which he intended to keep, and Scheer said that now, he was glad that Brown made that choice. Scheer noted that Brown’s love of hockey, and that he was captain of their caucus hockey team, and also mentioned Brown’s recent work on behalf of Thalidomide survivors.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A possible missed deadline on election laws

Posted on by

With a ticking clock over their heads – one whose useful time may already have passed – the government unveiled a new bill yesterday to reform the country’s electoral laws, to not only roll back changes that the previous government made around voter ID, that people complained made it harder for people to vote, while also enhancing some privacy safeguards, and limiting the writ period to 50 days while imposing more spending limits on pre-writ and third-party spending (so long as there’s a fixed election date). In the event that you thought there was already a bill on the Order Paper to roll back those Conservative changes, well, you’d be right, but they’ve abandoned it and rolled those changes into this new bill – a tactic they have been using with increasing frequency for whatever reason. Of course, Conservatives are already grousing that the Liberals are trying to make voter fraud easier by reducing the ID restrictions – never mind that they were never able to prove that there were problems with the pre-existing system, with one MP being forced to apologize for misleading the House after insisting that he saw people collecting voter registration cards when he actually just made the story up. But why ruin a narrative about the Liberals trying to game the next election?

The point about timing is going to be a tough one, because ideally these changes should have been made months ago if Elections Canada was to have enough time to ensure that they’ll be in effect for 2019 – and this also has to do with their need to migrate to a new data centre in advance of that election. Why the government couldn’t get this bill out months ago – or advance the previous bill on electoral measures, for that matter – is a question that they have yet to answer. As to whether Elections Canada can make these changes in time, the fact that there is now a bill that they can look to could mean that they’ve been saved in time – maybe – but we have yet to see how long it will take for them to bring it to debate and get it to the Senate, which has been keen to both amend bills and take their time doing it.

Meanwhile, Elections Canada is working with CSE and outside contractors to provide iPads to polling stations in the next election for things like voter registration so that they can eliminate some of the paper systems at advanced polls. In other words, trying to speed up the process electronically while still keeping the paper ballots that are so necessary to have proper accountability in our system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scheer’s vague hand-wavey promises

Posted on by

We’ve been through a week of particularly misleading rhetoric about the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on the impact of a $50/tonne carbon tax on the Canadian economy, where the figures about the “damage” it would cause to our economy supposes that the money collected would be either lit on fire, or given in lump sums to individual families rather than recycled in provincial tax cuts or other measures. But confident that it reinforces their narrative, the Conservatives have been parading it around as “proof” that they are right to oppose carbon pricing. To that end, while doing the rounds on the Sunday political shows, Andrew Scheer said that his party’s climate plan – yet to be revealed, but he promises that’ll happen before the 2019 election – will both meet Paris Accord targets but won’t impose a carbon tax. That’s…special.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/990706861056839680

Given previous Conservative positions on this, it’s likely that this will involve either magic, or some particularly onerous and costly regulations of industry that will simply internalize the costs (which get passed onto consumers) rather than having that cost be out in the open so that people can see it in front of them and make choices appropriates – you know, a market pricing mechanism that you would think a conservative party would favour over red tape and regulations. (This of course assumes that they are actually a conservative party instead of a right-flavoured populist party, which we know that they’ve become). They will claim that they had a record of carbon reduction while in office, but it had zero to do with their own politics, and everything to do with Ontario shuttering their coal-fired electricity plants and the economic downturn. Remember that their “coal-fired regulations” applied to new plants which hadn’t been built yet, and their sector-by-sector regulations were slow to roll out, and steadfastly strayed away from our biggest-emitting sectors, like the oil sands (which they still haven’t given any indication how they would mitigate their emissions without carbon pricing to drive innovation). I suspect we’re going to be looking at some hand-waving about future technology that will magically remove carbon from the atmosphere, but I leave myself room to be pleasantly surprised.

Meanwhile, on the subject of carbon pricing, here’s Andrew Leach to correct some of the performative outrage and bad economics that have been passed around in the past week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The struggle of independent senators

Posted on by

Despite the news being a day-old yesterday, the departure of Senator David Adams Richards from the Independent Senators Group got a bunch of tongue wagging, and even more wannabe comedians making lame jokes about Senate independence. Richards stated repeatedly over the past two days that he wasn’t pressured to vote or do anything by the ISG, but wanted to be “truly independent,” though I’m not sure he quite understands what he’s signing up for. Amidst this, the memo written by Senator Gold to his ISG colleagues about his conflict with just how independent they can be without defeating government bills also hit the news (despite the fact that I wrote about this in my weekend column), which got even more wannabe commentators to start opining about who is really independent in the Senate without having a clue about what is going on. (I will credit Althia Raj as being the only person who did have a clue yesterday, so there’s that).

So, to recap, the Independent Senators Group don’t whip votes or force attendance but organize for the purposes of logistics and to advance the cause of Senate modernization. Logistics include things like allocating office space, and also things like committee assignments, because of the way the Senate operations work, spots are divided up between caucuses, and the ISG is granted their share of committee seats. Any senators outside of the three caucus groups have a much tougher time of getting those committee seats. This is something that Richards is going to face if indeed he wants to do committee work. If he doesn’t, well, that’s going to be an issue because much of the value of the Senate comes from their committee work, which is superior to committee work coming out of the Commons by leaps and bounds.

As for the struggle for how independent Senators should be, part of the problem is that they’re getting a lot of bad and conflicting information, much of it coming from the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, who is deliberately misconstruing both the history of the Senate, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and how the Senate has operated for 150 years. Part of this stems from the fact that he refuses to do his actual job – he won’t negotiate timelines with the caucuses because he thinks that horse-trading is “partisan,” and he wants to ensure that government bills can’t get defeated by means of a Salisbury Convention so that he doesn’t have to do the work of counting votes to ensure that he can get those bills passed. And the Independent Senators are caught in the middle of this, too new to understand what is going on, and getting a lot of bad advice from people who are trying to force their own ideas of what the Senate should look like, and they’re afraid of accidentally defeating a government bill and having public opinion turn against them as being anti-democratic, and the like. So there are serious issues being contemplated, and the commentary coming from the pundit class right now, who think they’re being clever but who actually don’t have a clue about what they’re talking about, helps no one. And if people want to grab a clue, I have a collection of columns on the topic they can read up on.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Beer still imprisoned

Posted on by

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered their ruling in the Comeaucase yesterday, which deals with the subject of interprovincial trade barriers – in particular, those around alcohol. While this case has been widely championed as “free the beer,” what we got came down to an exploration on the nature of federalism in this country – and many observers were keenly unimpressed as they chose to uphold those particular barriers.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/986964159530057728

First of all, read this Q&A with University of Ottawa vice-dean of law Carissima Mathen about the decision, so that you get some sense of how the constitution operates here, and why the Court is loathe to interfere in something of this magnitude. It’s not just alcohol sales that could be affected – its knock-on effects include supply management schemes (which the Conservatives have yet to reconcile with their “free the beer!” sloganeering), public health prohibitions, environmental regulations, and so on. And more technically, the case that led up to this decision was a lower court judge making an interpretation of settled law that they felt wasn’t robust enough to justify overturning that jurisprudence – not enough had changed – and they upbraided said judge in the ruling. This is also something that can’t be taken trivially in the decision.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/986988440163143681

https://twitter.com/kylekirkup/status/986968367205634048

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/987022846936473602

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/986988440163143681

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/987059335623618560

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/986971152353460224

And then there are the critics. University of Alberta law professor Malcolm Lavoie says the decision privileges some parts of the Constitution over the other, while John Ibbitson looks at what the knock-on effects could be and wonders if the result wasn’t for the best. Emmett Macfarlane is not sold on that, and feels that the Court feels too bound by old JCPC decisions that undermined the text of the constitution when they should instead be upholding it – that the intent of the Founding Fathers was indeed a centralized economic union. Some commentators think that the decision could legitimize Alberta’s bill to limit oil exports to BC, but frankly I think that analysis is beyond absurd. I do have to say that I have a degree of sympathy for the Court in not looking to overturn the entire federal order, because there would be monumental blowback. But it’s not like they said that it couldn’t be done – what it needs is the political will for the legislatures to come to an agreement on this, and there is a new internal free trade framework that is coming into place where there’s a better forum for having these discussions than we’ve had in 150 years of confederation. And I think that perhaps those who felt that the Court needed to do the work of the legislatures on this issue were doing so a bit inappropriately because we keep insisting that the Court do the hard work that the legislatures won’t, and perhaps this is another wake-up call that we need to do the actual work of making tough decisions in this country on our own.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/986991062584582144

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/986975038652821506

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/986976381794861061

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/986968227556179968

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/987049703526187008

Continue reading →