Public Safety minister Stephen Blaney talked about how exit controls at Canada’s borders can help to prevent homegrown terrorists from leaving the country, or at last tracking them as they go. And great – except that this is just the latest in a series of justifications for exit controls. Previously it was for immigrants who were spending too much time out of the country to qualify for their permanent status, or refugee claimants who returned to their home countries for one reason or another, and before that it was for people on EI who end up going on holiday which means they must be frauds and this is how we crack down on them. It does seem to be reminiscent of the way that the government suddenly started using the need to combat cyberbullying as a way of justifying lawful access laws to get access to Canadians’ IP addresses and metadata.
Tag Archives: Border
Roundup: Sweeping, questionable changes
The House and Senate have both risen for the summer, but as they did, Jason Kenney and Chris Alexander unveiled their massive overhaul of the Temporary Foreign Workers Programme. It proposes to try and make the programme harder to use, with ever-diminishing caps on the number of workers (who were a fraction of one percent of the total workforce in the country, incidentally) with the aim of getting more unemployed Canadians, as well as Aboriginals, new immigrants and people with disabilities into these low-wage jobs. But Kenney seemed tone deaf to some of the massive labour challenges in Alberta, to demographic issues, to incentivising labour mobility, to the problems of aging populations in rural regions that are depopulating, but most especially to the attitude change that needs to happen if they think that university graduates will think that low-wage jobs in the food service industry or even higher-wage jobs in processing jobs like meat packing are going to be the answer to their labour shortages. The NDP condemned the changes without actually reading them, and all of their objections were addressed, not that it mattered. The Liberals made some pretty salient comments about the implausible changes to inspections and the giant loophole going unaddressed through the youth labour exchange programme. The restaurant and small business associations are really unhappy with the changes, which hamstring their ability to find workers in tough markets. John Geddes starts picking out the flaws in Kenney’s case, including demographics and the notion that it’s likely that non-Canadians made for cheaper and more reliable hires. Andrew Coyne says that the changes are simply bad policy, which punishes the service sector where a government goes out of its way to prevent a manufacturing job from offshoring. Coyne notes that if Canadians don’t want to take these jobs, then they shouldn’t be artificially shoehorned into them, but rather to spend their efforts creating value elsewhere in the economy while those who do want those jobs should be made to be Canadians by using the TFW programme as a pathway to citizenship.
Roundup: Planning for a quick confirmation
The nominee for Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, will appear before the Commons Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee, as well as the Senate in Committee of the Whole, on Tuesday, in the hopes that they will confirm him shortly thereafter. Why this matters is because the “cyberbullying” bill is under consideration and the privacy commissioner needs to weigh in on it as testimony. The outgoing interim commissioner, Chantal Bernier, had opted for a June 5th appearance as opposed to May 29th in order to have more time to prepare, and to see if a new nominee would be named by then or if her term would be extended. This means that she won’t appear to testify on that bill, though it also remains to be seen if Therrien would appear, days into the position and not fully briefed, or if another official from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner will testify instead. Nevertheless, it does raise problems, and is a reminder to the government why they shouldn’t back-load everything to the last couple of weeks before summer, because these kinds of pile-ups happen frequently and it just becomes a huge mess for everyone.
QP: Seeking independent legal advice
After the Auditor General released his Spring 2014 report this morning, the question was whether its findings would lead off QP, or if some of the other matters of recent import — the telecom data, the fight with the Chief Justice, the deployment of our forces to Eastern Europe — would take precedence, given that Stephen Harper was present today. Thomas Mulcair led off by wondering which version of the story around the call from the Chief Justice or her office was correct. Harper said that it was suggested that he wasn’t aware there was an issue with appointing Nadon, and insisted that he was aware there was an issue and that he acted according to the legal advice he had been given. Mulcair wondered why nothing was said if the call was so inappropriate. Harper said that he didn’t refuse the call, and repeated that he was aware of a potential legal issue that could wind up before the courts, which is why he got legal advice. Mulcair wondered why there was so much trouble spent having this fight, and wanted Harper to categorically rule out attempting to re-appoint Justice Nadon. Harper said that he was clear he wouldn’t, and repeated his previous answers. Mulcair stuck to his script and repeated it in French, to which Harper complained that the ruling would undermine the ability to appoint Quebec judges and harm the federal institution. Mulcair brought up the objections of the former bar association presidents, and called on Harper to apologise to the Chief Justice. Harper dodged, and repeated his earlier answers. Justin Trudeau was up, and called on Harper to withdraw his remarks about the Chief Justice. Harper fell back on his line about independent legal experts. Trudeau changed tracks, and noted that Canada was on track to bring in more temporary foreign workers than immigrants, but Harper tried to insist that the Liberals wanted to bring in more TFWs and he wanted Canadians to get a first crack at jobs. Trudeau wanted Harper to agree to their opposition day motion on fixing the TFW programme — dubious with regards to being a question on government business — and it was no surprise that Harper didn’t agree.
Roundup: Precious illusions and appeals to reason
As part of their campaign against the Fair Elections Act, the NDP have taken to a number of…precious tactics, from Craig Scott writing to Pierre Poilievre to ask him to withdraw the bill in order to start over with all-party consultation (good luck with that), to targeting individual MPs and ministers to vote against the bill, Michael Chong and Bal Gosal thus far. Chong may seem like fair game considering his new role as the so-called “champion of democracy” with his Reform Act bills, and his curious defence of the elections bills thus far (or at least his evasion of taking a stand until they are through the committee stage). But if they think that Gosal is going to break cabinet solidarity on a government bill, they’ve really lost touch with our contemporary reality, and it makes one wonder how they feel about one of the most important conventions about how we form governments under our system of Responsible Government. Would an NDP government not speak with a single voice? I doubt that very much, which makes this particular tactic all the more eye-roll inducing.
Roundup: “Captain Canada” remaining neutral
An election has been called in Quebec, but in Ottawa, Thomas Mulcair has declared that as there is no provincial NDP, he will remain “neutral.” And yes, he did just last weekend insist that he was going to be “Captain Canada” and fight for national unity. To that end, he says that he’ll support the federalist side (recall that he was once a provincial Liberal), but he doesn’t want people to vote only on that issue, especially because there are some Quebec Liberals who are in favour of private healthcare and so on. But wait – he also said that Marois would try to force a referendum if she wins a majority. So, he doesn’t want federalism to be the only factor, but it’s a major factor because she’ll launch a referendum that nobody wants. No doubt this has nothing to do with keeping the soft nationalists in the party fold. The Liberals, meanwhile, are on the attack saying that Mulcair can’t be neutral while the issue of separatism is on the table, while the Conservatives (who aren’t a big presence in the province) are holding back but saying that they would prefer Quebeckers choose the federalist option. Aren’t Quebec politics fun?
Roundup: Budget date set
Jim Flaherty has announced that the budget will be delivered on February 11th, in the midst of the Olympics. Because remember that Canadians would be too distracted by the last Olympic games to even have Parliament sitting? Apparently that’s no longer a concern, and Flaherty is confident that Canadians can pay attention to both the games and the budget at the same time. Well, that and he apparently has a few measures that are important to pass sooner than later. John Geddes notes that Flaherty’s tone has changed lately to one of striking informality of late, where he seems to be freelancing some opinions and hinting that others may be to blame if there is added spending in the upcoming budget.
QP: Treasury Board rules are being followed
With Michael Chong’s Reform Act having taken up the morning’s news cycle, it was going to be a switch to get back into battle mode over the outstanding questions in the ClusterDuff affair. As well, Thomas Mulcair was the only major leader in the House once again, owing to appearances at the Demarais funeral in Montreal, which meant another lacklustre QP. Mulcair started off with by wondering who in the PMO asked to find Benjamin Perrin’s emails. James Moore got up, acting as back-up PM du jour for the first time in months, and reread parts of the PCO letter to the RCMP in response. Mulcair wondered why the head of legal operations wasn’t aware that the emails were frozen, but Moore’s response was little different. Mulcair went onto the rules around emails and the concerns of the Information Commissioner, to which Moore reminded the House that she is independent and can investigate if she wishes. Mulcair went onto a rambling question about PMO employees being warned of the investigation, and didn’t get a response from Moore. Mulcair finally wondered why those emails had been hidden if it wasn’t to further a cover-up, but Moore rejected that premise. Dominic LeBlanc was up for the Liberals, and wondered how it was possible to be unaware of the existence of those emails. Moore repeated that PCO admitted their mistake, and that those emails were now in the hands of the RCMP. Ralph Goodale took over and wondered how PCO could say that they didn’t have the emails in response to his own request for them, but Moore stuck to the PCO letter.
QP: Questions about missing emails
As is becoming the new norm on Mondays, Thomas Mulcair was the only main leader in the House, which meant that another soul-crushing day of Paul Calandra talking points was on the way — though one could always hope for a day free of innuendo and accusation as which happened on Friday (though we could also do without his wounded complaints about how the press didn’t like his answers). Once QP got started, Mulcair immediately asked about the reappearance of those emails from Benjamin Perrin, and asked why the story changed yet again. Pierre Poilievre took this one, somewhat surprisingly, and he quoted from the letter from PCO. Mulcair asked about the “unrelated litigation” that Perrin was involved in. Poilievre indicated that he wasn’t sure, but that they were cooperating with the RCMP. Mulcair pressed, but Poilievre simply reread from the letter. When Mulcair wondered wondered an bout the integrity of the he evidence after the government has been holding onto it for three months, and Poilievre again reiterated a passage from the letter. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, and wanted assurances that nobody had access to those emails who was in a position to doctor or selectively delete them in any way. Poilievre assured him that they were cooperating with the RCMP. LeBlanc wondered if Harper was waiting of it all to go to trial everything was made public, but Poilievre answered with a single no.
Roundup: Michael Chong’s attempt to save Parliament
The story that grabbed everyone’s attention yesterday was the fact that maverick Conservative MP Michael Chong is set to table a bill that would amend the Parliament of Canada Act in order to give riding associations the power to control nomination races instead of the party leader, while giving the party’s National Council the ability to have a veto in place in the event of a hijacked nomination race. This would eliminate the party leader’s ability to threaten MPs that he or she would refuse to sign their nomination papers if they step out of line. It’s the kind of reform that many people have been advocating for some time now, and would remove a substantial lever that the leader currently wields. The bill is also rumoured to contain clauses that would require that caucus chairs be elected and have rules for expelling and re-admitting MPs from caucus, and that the party by-laws must allow for the caucus review of a leader. Those are more problematic suggestions, and the caucus review is especially problematic for a couple of reasons. Number one is that unless leadership selection rules are changed so that it is the caucus that elects the leader, the argument will be that they don’t have the democratic legitimacy to remove said leader – one of the biggest problems with moving to the “more democratic” system whereby the party membership elects the leader (or as the Liberals recently demonstrated, anyone who totally swears that they don’t belong to another party), because that system obliterates accountability. As well, the power to challenge a leader already exists within our system of Responsible Government, whereby all anyone needs to do is declare a loss of confidence in the Prime Minister, and if they can get enough caucus support in the vote – along with the opposition – that leader will go down to defeat. It just requires enough MPs to have the backbone to follow through on it. Paul Calandra insists that his party already allows MPs to have direct input into legislation, which I’m not sure is the point of the bill. Andrew Coyne thinks this bill can save Parliament, and I agree that the first portion would go a long way, but the other portions are more problematic and we should treat them cautiously.