Tag Archives: Border

Roundup: An unnecessary proposal to cover for abdicated responsibility

Posted on by

When Parliament resumes next week, and the final push of legislation before the summer break starts, I can pretty much guarantee that there will be some gnashing and wailing of teeth in the Senate about the crush of bills headed their way, and the fact that there isn’t a plan to manage it. And from Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, we’ll get a reminder that he’s proposed a business committee to do said managing of the Order Paper. And lo, in Policy Options yesterday, we got an endorsement of the notion of a business committee from a former political science professor, Paul G. Thomas, which read a lot like it was could have been commissioned by Harder’s office.

To wit: One of the reasons why I object to the creation of a business committee is because it will create a powerful clique that will determine the legislative agenda of the chamber in a manner that has the very real possibility of trampling on the rights of individual senators in the name of expediency. Currently the rules allow for any senator to speak to any item on the Order Paper on any day – something Thomas notes has the potential to delay business, but under most circumstances, this can be managed through negotiation, and if abused, a vote can be used to clear that obstruction. But what Thomas’ glowing endorsement of the notion of a committee ignores is the fact that sometimes, it can take time for a senator who sees a problem with legislation to rally other senators to the cause. We have seen examples of that in the current parliament, with bills like S-3, which wound up getting majority support from senators to fix the flaws in the bill, or even with the amendments to the omnibus transportation bill last week, where Senator Griffin’s speech convinced enough senators that there was a real problem that the amendment was meant to correct. Having a business committee strictly lay out timelines will stifle the ability for the Senate to do its work when sometimes it needs time to do the work properly.

One of the reason why this kind of committee should be unnecessary is because the Senate has operated for 151 years on the basis of the caucuses negotiating the timelines they need at daily “scroll meetings,” but it requires actual negotiation for it to happen, and since Harder took on the role of Government Leader, he has eschewed his responsibilities to do so, believing that any horse-trading is partisan. Several of the new Independent senators follow a similar mindset, which is a problem. And while Thomas acts as Harder’s apologist in trying to downplay the criticism that a business committee will simply allow Harder to stage manage the legislative process – and it is a possibility that he could, but only in a situation where there are no party caucuses any longer, and that the Senate is 105 loose fish that he could co-opt as needed – my more immediate concern is that he would use the committee to avoid his actual responsibilities of negotiation and shepherding the government’s agenda, more so than he already has. We already don’t know what he’s doing with this $1.5 million budget and expansive staff, so if he is able to fob off even more responsibility onto this clique, what else does that leave him to do with his budget and staff? It’s a question we still don’t have any answers to, and yet another reason why the creation of such a committee is likely to lead to more problems than it does solutions that aren’t actually necessary if he did his job.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Border agent woes

Posted on by

When the House of Commons returns on Tuesday, it’s a pretty safe bet to say that the news that the Canada Border Services Agency is shifting customs agents from the GTA to the Quebec border is going to be one of the main topics of conversation. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that it’ll come up in Question Period on the first day back. Why? Because amidst this news, a memo from Air Canada pilots claims that they may face delays of up to an hour, being kept on the tarmac because of this lack of agents. There are denials all around (and I’m a bit skeptical myself – I can see big lines in the airport, but I have a hard time seeing why they’d detain them on the tarmac), but the line is going to be that Trudeau is making you wait on the tarmac because he can’t enforce the law on the border.

It’s not exactly true, of course. Whether we see actual delays at airports remains to be seen, but the continued insistence that he can somehow snap his fingers and the border will somehow seal itself is this specious bit of political fiction that nobody wants to seem to own up to. I’ve written about this before – he can’t unilaterally declare the entire border to be an official port of entry, nor can he amend the Safe Third Country Agreement because that requires the buy-in of the Americans, and that’s not going to happen. If he suspends the agreement, like the NDP demands, that will cause a flood at border crossings of people who are jurisdiction shopping while making asylum claims, which was the whole reason the agreement was made in the first place. Direct engagement with the communities where the influx is coming from had success with the Haitian community and the government is looking to repeat it with Nigeria, where most of the new claimants are coming from (and no one has yet explained why that’s the case), but we’ll see when they can actually start engaging.

What this does illustrate is that the government still has a way to go in order to re-capitalize CBSA and ensure that they have enough border guards and customs agents. (They also need to fill vacancies in the Immigration and Refugee Board, and to give them additional resources, but that hasn’t been happening expeditiously either). And yes, this is something that Conservatives can share in the blame with as well, because they cut CBSA to the point where they were having to suspend a number of programmes like screening for drugs being exported, and they had to let go of most of their sniffer dogs because they no longer had the budget. Will this light a fire under the government to properly rebuild their capacity? We’ll see. They insist they’re re-investing but it may be of little use if the situation sounds as dire as it is right now with these rotations in and out of the border crossing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The problem with coalition speculation

Posted on by

We’re only a few days into the Ontario election campaign, and we’re already hearing far too much of the c-word for my liking. And by c-word, I mean “coalition” (though I have no doubt that the other c-word is being uttered by trolls over social media). And it’s so utterly frustrating because most of the time, the talk isn’t accompanied by any particular understanding of how Westminster governments work so you get a ham-fisted attempt to force coalition talks into the early days of a campaign, during which the polls could easily swing (and have in the past). And yet here we are.

Paul Wells did a great service by calling out this kind of talk in Maclean’syesterday, reminding everyone – and especially We The Media – that this kind of talk, especially on the back of torqued headlines, doesn’t really help anyone. Why? Because, aside from the fact that it’s just pure speculation, and that it distracts from actual issues at play, it also forces leaders to start ruling out hypotheticals that aren’t in play but one day might be. He also makes the salient point that post-election, things are not on a level playing field – the incumbent government is still the government, regardless of how many seats they won, and it sets up interesting scenarios if the seat counts are close, as what happened in BC last year. And time and again, media commentators seem to utterly forget that fact, which becomes extremely frustrating as they give authoritative commentary about things that are in contradiction to the realities of how the Westminster system operates.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/996229744285794304

Now, I sort of appreciate what Wherry is saying there, but the problem is that unless and until our media commentators bother to learn how the system operates, we will continue to trade in misinformation, that gets torqued for the sake of headlines, and it will exacerbate the situation and make it worse. Remember the prorogation crisis of 2008 that was precipitated by a potential coalition government willing to step in if they defeated the Harper government on a vote of non-confidence? And how the government’s talking heads were giving all kinds of nonsense answers about it being “anti-democratic,” or that they were going to “go over the head of the Governor General” and incite civil unrest if she let Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton form government? Don Newman was the only journalist who challenged these statements to their faces at the time, and, well, Don’s retired from the news business, and the rest of the pundit class hasn’t learned much since then, unfortunately, so I really am not confident that there would be pushback to wrong notions that will get promulgated if a coalition does become a reality in Ontario post-election. But as Wells pointed out, this kind of pointless speculation is the kind of empty calories and time-wasting that is irresistible to the media landscape. Meanwhile, I’ll be right here, head exploding.

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 →

QP: Performative abortion politics

Posted on by

The Commons was on Wednesday hours to give Conservatives the ability to go to the funeral for Gord Brown earlier in the day. Justin Trudeau was off to Saguenay, Scheer still at the funeral, and even Guy Caron, who is always present Monday to Thursday, was absent. Alain Rayes led off, and demanded that the government hold off on legalising marijuana until all police forces in Canada were equipped and trained to deal with drug-impaired driving. Catherine McKenna got up to reply, and instead brought up Ted Falk’s outburst yesterday about women not having the right to choose, and invited the opposition to recant that position and affirm a woman’s right to choose. Rayes claimed that the words weren’t spoken in the House — not true — and he repeated his question. McKenna repeated her own admonition, and Rayes tried a third time, and this time Ginette Petitpas Taylor responded that they were working with partners to ensure a responsible transition. Diane Finley repeated the question in English, and this time Ralph Goodale got up to remind her that drug-impaired driving is already an issue, not a future one, and that he’s glad they now support Bill C-46 and should encourage the Senate to pass it. Finley tried again, and Goodale elaborated that it’s already in the Criminal Code. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led for the NDP, accusing Kinder Morgan of having privileged access to the government. McKenna retreated to her usual platitudes about the environment and the economy going together, and when Brosseau tried a second time, Marc Garneau assured her that the Trans Mountain pipeline was in the national interest. Nathan Cullen got up to accuse Kinder Morgan lobbyists of attending Liberal fundraisers, to which McKenna reiterated her previous platitudes. When Cullen laid on further sanctimony, McKenna noted that it went through a full review, and it would go ahead.

Continue reading →

QP: Accusations of rigged rules

Posted on by

For caucus day, all leaders were present (for a change), and when Andrew Scheer led off, he read some scripted concerns about carbon taxes raising the price of everything, and demanded to know how much it would cost families. Trudeau got up to respond that the Conservatives tried doing nothing and were trying to justify it now. Scheer switched to English and said that the PM was gleeful there were high gas prices in BC and accused him of not caring because he’s a millionaire. Trudeau said that it wasn’t what he said, and that this was just an attempt to create fear and division from a party that doesn’t have a plan. Scheer switched back to French to accuse the government of trying to game the electoral system for their own benefit, and Trudeau noted that this was about taking the influence of money out of politics. Scheer accused Trudeau of rigging the system to punish those who disagree with him, listing a number of conflated incidents that were “proof” of such behaviour. Trudeau responded that Conservatives tried to make it harder to vote while his party was trying to make it easier. Scheer accused the government of imposing fundraising restrictions because the Liberals can’t raise as much money as they can, and then demanded that ministerial travel be restricted in the pre-writ period, to which Trudeau said that the record number of voters in the last election was not because of the Conservative changes, but rather, it was about getting Stephen Harper out of office. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, complaining that they didn’t have enough time to evaluate the candidate for Chief Electoral Officer. In response, Trudeau took up a script to read some praise for the candidate, and then Nathan Cullen asked the same in English, but with a truckload of added sanctimony. Trudeau read the English version of his same script. Cullen then accused the government of rigging the Trans Mountain approval process, to which Trudeau assured him that they enhanced the assessment process. Caron took over to ask the same again in French, saying that putting a financial stake in Kinder Morgan was the kind of subsidy that the government promised to end, but Trudeau repeated his response, insisting that any stake was about the project being in the national interest.

Continue reading →

QP: Tax credits vs carbon taxes

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was away in Toronto, Andrew Scheer was absent once again (despite having been in Ottawa for the National Prayer Breakfast), leaving it to Lisa Raitt to lead off, worrying that Atlantic Canadians haven’t had a real wage increase which would be made worse by a carbon tax. Catherine McKenna reminded her that climate change impacts will make things worse and more expensive, and wondered why the other party didn’t have a plan. Raitt concerned trolls that high fuel prices would mean people can’t make choices to walk, to which McKenna turned the concern around to point to the children in the Gallery and the world they will inherit. Raitt demanded the government support their Supply Day motion about not imposing carbon taxes, and McKenna reminded her of the costs of climate change, and the trillion dollar clean energy opportunity. Alain Rayes then raised in French all of the tax credits that the government cancelled to decry the imposition of a carbon tax, to which McKenna again asked what the Conservative plan was. After another round of the same, Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, raising the changed candidate for the new Chef Electoral Officer, to which Brison reminded him that they should respect the privacy of those who engage in the appointment process. Caron asked again in English, to which Brison reiterate his admonishing. Hélène Laverdière was up next to raise the federal report on use of Canadian LAVs in Saudi Arabia, questioning its veracity. François-Philippe Champagne reminded her that they are passing legislation to strengthen control of arms abroad. Laverdière quipped that the bill has holes in it, and then reiterated the question in English before calling on the government to suspend arms exports to Saudi Arabia. Champagne reiterated his remarks about the bill, thanking MPs for their input.

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 →

QP: Sob stories about carbon taxes

Posted on by

While the PM was present today, following a meeting with the Prince of Monaco, Andrew Scheer was absent, yet again. Alain Rayes led off, listing off a torqued and misleading litany of supposed ills of carbon taxation — numbers that did not reflect reality — to which a Justin Trudeau noted that while the previous government didn’t take action, his government would do so. Rayes railed on about cancelled tax credits before trying to wedge it into another carbon tax question, and Trudeau reiterated his answer. Pierre Poilievre took over, accusing the Pm of having lived “most of his life” in government-owned mansions and of living in the lap of luxury while raising taxes on everyone, but his mention of BC in his preamble set Trudeau off on an explanation of how BC’s decade-old carbon tax has led to economic growth and lower emissions. Poilievre gave another list of disingenuous accusations, and Trudeau noted that everting in that was wrong before launching into a well-worn list of things his government accomplished. They went another round of the very same before Guy Caron got up for the NDP, railing about tax havens and the registration of corporations in Canada. Trudeau took up a script to read that they had international treaties to share data with partners, and that they reached agreements with provincial and territorial governments to have transparency on who own corporations. Caron asked again in English, got the same answer, and then Tracey Ramsey railed about secret negotiations around NAFTA. Trudeau noted that an agreement in principle was about the broad strokes being agreed to so that they could move forward to a legal scrub. Karine Trudel asked the same in French, but got a much blander response about trade.

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 →