Tag Archives: Canada Post

Roundup: Announcing a limited plastic ban

Posted on by

The big news yesterday was that the federal government finally unveiled the first phase of their single-use plastics ban, focusing on six primary culprits – plastic bags, straws, stir sticks, cutlery, six-pack rings, and polystyrene take-out containers (though I’m not entirely clear if the can’t-recycle-in-this-country black plastic take-out containers would also be included). Most of these items are things for which there are alternatives that are fairly easily obtainable, and will likely become more affordable the more their production ramps up and they get scale in the economy that had thus-far been denied to them.

But there is immediate push-back. The Chemistry Industry Association of Canada bristles that in order to achieve the ban, the government is using the toxic substances mechanisms available to them, and the industry is aghast that they are in the same category as asbestos and lead – err, except that the proliferation of microplastics, particularly from plastics that break down, would quite probably fit that bill very well. The Alberta government is also grousing because they think this will affect investment in their petrochemical industry, even though the ban is quite limited and wouldn’t affect high-quality plastics which are will still see broad use, nor would it really affect their plans to turn Alberta into a hub of plastics recycling (which is important because there is very little plastics recycling in North America as we had relied on off-shoring the work to places like China, which shut their borders to it). The province’s energy minister also found it “ironic” that this announcement was made a day after Jason Kenney made his own announcement on plastics and recycling being part of Alberta’s “diversification” efforts, even though a) it’s not actually ironic, and b) this has been something the federal government has been talking about for over a year, did the necessary consultation process required under the Toxic Substances Act, and as a minister, she knows that these kinds of announcements aren’t dreamed up overnight but take some fair amount of planning and coordination. But Alberta is going to Alberta, whatever happens, so this is nothing new.

Continue reading →

QP: Melting down over court challenges

Posted on by

While the prime minister was off meeting with big city mayors before heading off to Ethiopia, Andrew Scheer was indeed present, and he led off and he read a bunch of complete lies about the supposed plan to “license” media, to which Steven Guilbeault, who reminded him that the panel recommendations specifically excluded news media and the government would not regulate news media. Scheer insisted that wasn’t good enough and the report somehow would impact free speech, and Guilbeault repeated his answer in English. Scheer tried again, and Guilbeault said that he would be happy to sit down with the opposition when they tabled a bill. Scheer then moved onto UNDRIP, and claimed it was an effective veto on energy projects, to which David Lametti said that they were moving ahead with legislation that would be co-developed with Indigenous people. Scheer tried to use the scare tactics of veto powers, and Lametti suggested that Scheer look at BC’s UNDRIP legislation and see that it is not a veto. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he railed about the Court Challenges Programme funding a challenge against Quebec’s “secularism” bill, for which Guilbeault said that the government doesn’t have any control over that funding, and that they Bloc should understand the notion of independence. Therrien asked if the government supported the challenge, to which Pablo Rodriguez said that the legislation is being challenged by Quebeckers and that the government was following with interest. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and demanded changes to the federal bankruptcy laws to prioritise workers, to which Navdeep Bains said that they had made some commitments in the last budget. Singh then demanded to know how much had been spent on legal fees for the challenge around the First Nations compensation, to which David Lametti said that reports of legal fees are calculated according to a set formula.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No contrition

Posted on by

Despite the Liberals having floated that the notion that Justin Trudeau may be striking a more conciliatory tone over his handling of the Double-Hyphen Affair, when he called an early morning press conference before getting on a plane to Iqaluit (and having to turn back because of weather), Trudeau was decidedly not conciliatory. Or apologetic. But he did say that they were always learning lessons, and this too was one more of them. Of course, I’m not really sure how conciliatory he really could be – he has basically boxed himself into a corner where he can’t admit wrongdoing, because that would mean he undermined the rule of law, but he also has to look like he’s sensitive enough as to why Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned while still trying to brazen it out. It’s one hell of a juggling act, but nobody seems to be buying it. And so, while mouthing words about leadership styles and trying to put forward the notion that Wilson-Raybould didn’t come to him with her concerns where the door was open, one of his soon-to-be departing MPs, Celina Caesar-Chavannes tweeted that she tried to do so, twice, and was apparently rebuffed (and then refused all media entreaties to clarify). So there’s that.

In related content, some Indigenous and Métis leaders say that Wilson-Raybould could have effected real change had she taken over the Indigenous Services portfolio that she rebuffed. Here’s a list of outstanding questions we have after discrepancies between Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, and that of Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick. And since the opposition members of the justice committee have seen fit to recall the committee next week, they may have the opportunity to call past witnesses back…again. The National Postrounds-up the international and Quebec reactions to the ongoing story. And of course there are the premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta (and Brad Wall) whinging that this shows special consideration for Quebec-based jobs, while conveniently ignoring that Trudeau bought a pipeline and has been shovelling federal dollars into the energy sector of late. Here’s a look at what a 10-year ban on federal contracts could mean for SCN-Lavalin, as they are now lobbying for leniency if they are convicted, and updates to the integrity framework could be flexible enough that they could avoid debarment.

In pundit reaction, Chris Selley is having none of Butts’ explanations for the Cabinet shuffle math. Jason Lietaer offers suggestions as to how Trudeau could have fixed the situation (but that would mean showing contrition, which is risky for him to do). John Geddes makes the point about how Trudeau promised not to centralise power in his office, but certainly appears to have anyway. Robert Hiltz has a hard time figuring out just what lessons Trudeau says he’s learned, given that he seems oblivious to it all.

Continue reading →

QP: Last shout in the Centre Block

Posted on by

For the final QP of 2018, neither the prime minister nor the leader of the opposition were present (though Andrew Scheer did hold a press conference just hours before), leaving it up to Candice Bergen demanded urgent action on the opioid crisis, to which Ginette Petitpas-Taylor said that they were taking it seriously, and as a public heath issue and not a criminal one, which was why they were increasing harm reduction measures that Conservatives resisted. Bergen raised comments that she overheard Bardish Chagger say, apparently minimising the scope of the crisis, to which Chagger said that her comments weren’t meant to minimise the scope of the tragedy and she apologised. Bergen, with a script to follow, demanded Chagger to account for her comments again, and Chagger apologised a second time. Jacques Gourde then got up read the same demand for an apology in French, but Petitpas Taylor got up to talk about the measures they are taking. Gourde stuck to his script and demanded again, and got the same response from Petitpas Taylor. Guy Caron got up next for the NDP, and railed about VIA Rail not choosing Bombardier for its new fleet. Marc Garneau, noting that he had answered this repeatedly, said that Siemens did agree to at least twenty percent of Canadian content in their trains. Caron tried again in French, and Garneau more pointedly listed other investments that VIA made in Quebec. Pierre-Luc Dusseault got up next to demand action from the CRA on tax evasion, to which Diane Lebouthillier forcefully pointed out the investments they made and the number of new audits that have been conducted since they came to power. Peter Julian asked the same thing in English, and Lebouthillier repeated the actions they have been taking.

Continue reading →

QP: Bigger deficit fears

Posted on by

It being nearly the last day of the season, the benches were filling up, and both Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were present. Scheer led off in French, worrying about the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer who says the deficit could be bigger than anticipated. Trudeau stood up without a script, and talked about how much better off Canadians are now and how great the economy was doing. Scheer reiterted the question in English, and Trudeau deployed his talking points about bringing up the growth rate and the lowest unemployment rate in modern records. Scheer said that Trudeau doesn’t care about spending because he came from wealth, and Trudeau hit back with the $150 billion debt the Conservatives left with nothing to show for it. Scheer tried to respond by burnishing the Conservative record and accused Trudeau of squandering the good fortunes left to him, for which Trudeau listed the ways in which cuts made to ensure a “phoney” balanced budget hurt Canadians. Scheer tried to get pointed in his retort, that Trudeau was “darn right” that they were obsessed with treating taxpayer dollars with respect before repeating his slight about Trudeau’s family wealth, and Trudeau noted that Scheer was resorting to personal attacks because he had nothing else to offer. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he railed that trade deals meant that VIA Rail couldn’t prefer Bombardier for its fleet renewal. Trudeau took up a script to read that they wanted to ensure that people got the best value for money and that government interference would be bad for business. Caron changed topics to talk about the CUPW court challenge of the Canada Post back-to-work legislation, and Trudeau noted that they undid the labour law changes from the Conservatives and how they worked with labour to ensure tripartite agreements. Karine Trudel repeated the question in French, and Trudeau read that the litany of measures they took to ensure that negotiations kept going and that the recently appointed a new arbitrator to deal with the outstanding issues. Tracey Ramsey then repeated the VIA Rail question in English, for which Trudeau said that those trade deals mean that Canadian firms can access procurement in other countries.

Continue reading →

QP: Taking allegations outside

Posted on by

While the PM took a personal day after his return from the G20, Andrew Scheer was off in Winnipeg to talk guns and gangs. Pierre Poilievre led off concerned about the PM’s supposed “celebrity lifestyle” that referred to the pre-planned tweet around funds for women and girls’ education, before he suddenly pivoted to Bill C-69, demanding it be scrapped. Amarjeet Sohi reminded him that the system the Conservatives put into place that wasn’t working, so they were working to get a one project-one-review process. Poilievre railed that the PM was at the G20 talking about how there were negative consequences when male construction workers went to rural communities,  before returning to the demand to scrap C-69. Sohi reiterate his response, and when Poilievre went for another, more boisterous round of the same, he got much the same answer. Alain Rayes took over to ask about the report in the National Post about a potential investigation on a land deal that might involve Navdeep Bains and Raj Grewal, to which Bains told him the allegations were false and invited him to repeat them outside of the Chamber. Rayes tried to insist on Liberal connections to the situation, to which Bardish Chagger read a statement that functionally repeated Bains’ response. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, railing about high-protein milk under Supply Management, to which Lawrence MacAulay deployed his usual lines about defending the system. Caron then turned to the Oshawa closure and demanded action by the government, to which Bains read that the sector was strong, that they had the auto innovation fund if GM wanted to use it. Tracey Ramsey demanded action on Oshawa, to which Bains reiterated his previous response. Ramsey then railed that steel and aluminium tariffs were still in place, to which Mélanie Joly read that the NDP celebrated the deal behind closed doors.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ginning up the Grewal resignation

Posted on by

As the stories on Raj Grewal’s gambling debts and intended resignation continue to trickle through, a number of them have taken on a vaguely conspiratorial tone. A lot of facts that shouldn’t be out of the ordinary are treated as suspicious for absolutely no reason at all. For example, people keep wondering why he was reassigned from the finance committee in September “with no warning.” Gee, what else happened in September that would have affected committee memberships? Could it have been the fact that the parliamentary secretaries all got shuffled, so committee assignments need to be rejigged? Maybe? And whoa, he asked questions on catching money launderers to law officials and FINTRAC agents during a study on – wait for it – “Confronting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing: Moving Canada Forward.” Such an amazing coincidence that is totally suspicious. And the latest “revelation” is that Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais says that a retired Mountie told him a year ago that he heard Raj Grewal was under investigation, and he therefore thinks PMO should have known then. Erm, except that neither the OPP nor the RCMP tell the PMO what they’re investigating because they operate at arm’s length, and more to the fact, Grewal was a backbench MP, which I cannot stress enough.

To that end, Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at the issue of parties policing MPs’ off-hours, considering the Clement and Grewal situations, while Susan Delacourt cites those same two cases, and wonders if we need to do a better job of screening backbenchers. And I’m pretty dubious because backbenchers are not ministers. They don’t have access to secret materials (Clement, I remind you, is a former minister and thus a member of the Privy Council, and his activities on NSICOP are outside of the usual activities of a backbencher), nor are they public office holders. Their job is to hold government to account – they are not part of the government, and it doesn’t matter what committees they’re on. Treating them as the same thing is not only a gross overreach, but frankly it will give MPs a wrongheaded sense of their place in the system, which is already suffering because of civic illiteracy.

Are Grewal’s debts concerning? Yup. Is it a crisis that he was mentioned in passing as part of an investigation into other suspicious characters? Maybe, but we don’t know enough to say whether it is or not, and the baseless speculation and ginned up allegations aren’t helping. Should Trudeau and the PMO have been more candid from the start about the reasons Grewal was resigning? Probably, and given this government’s inability to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, their approach once again blew up in their faces. But treating this affair with clickbait headlines and spinning random facts out of context in order to make them seem sinister is bad reporting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A noble bill with problems below the surface

Posted on by

It’s not often that I’ll go out of my way to comment on poor reporting (as opposed to columns), but in this particular case, I’m going to make an exception. The story is the fact that Rona Ambrose’s bill on mandatory sexual assault training for judges has been stalled in the Senate. Ambrose appeared on Power & Politics to express her shock and dismay, but there was very little research done in terms of the concerns that have been raised with the bill to date, and the fact that its passage through the House of Commons was problematic in and of itself (most especially the fact that it was referred to the Status of Women committee instead of the Justice Committee in order to ensure swift passage, with a committee that was sympathetic and didn’t have the expertise on the matter). The written story on the CBC website was simply a recap of Ambrose’s interview with no comment from anyone else, or recounting any of the concerns or pushback from the debates on the bill.

So I decided to take twenty minutes and skim over the Second Reading debates in the Senate on the bill, and lo, there are some pretty important concerns being raised. Senator Jaffer, who is a lawyer who has done judicial training, pointed to the fact that the bill mandating written rulings in all sexual assault cases not only takes away from the fact that there are procedures for clear oral rulings that can be appealed, but that it will cause other delays. The training also disadvantages rural lawyers, and can tip the hand of a lawyer in a firm that they are applying to be a judge.

Senator Joyal, a formidable constitutional lawyer who had a career fighting for minority rights (and who helped write the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) expressed some serious concerns about the powers given to a federal commissioner to determine what qualifies for training. He raised the very real point that the bill stipulates that training must be done by sexual assault survivors and organisations that support them, which automatically biases the training and the presumption of innocence (and others have raised the point that these trainers are often called as expert witnesses, which creates further biases). Joyal also noted the constitutional implications of the bill given that judicial independence includes the ability to maintain control over their education.

Senator Pratte, while not a lawyer, raised the salient logistical issue that for every 500 judicial applicants, maybe 50 make it through, meaning that if everyone needs training before they can be appointed, it delays assessment of applicants and has the potential to create problems with the quality if the training. He also raised the notion that if sexual assault survivors are needed for this training, how long will it be before other victims’ groups demand to be heard for other judicial training?

Senator Fraser, whose objections were briefly noted in the CBC piece, also made points about the inappropriateness of the bill mandating that reports on the number of judges who have taken the training be tabled in Parliament because judges report to Chief Justices in their regions, not to the minister. As well, because the majority of these cases are actually heard in provincial courts, this could qualify as interference in provincial jurisdiction.

The story also went onto state that Senator Joyal, who chairs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee, wouldn’t give a date for when the bill will be studied, but it didn’t mention that government bills always take precedence at committee, and as you can see from the committee’s schedule, they have a pretty full slate for the coming weeks, possibly months.

Frankly, I’m more than a little dismayed at the lazy reporting on this bill. While it may look like a slam-dunk issue on the surface, there’s a lot beneath the surface that’s not being reported on, which is actually fairly irresponsible. Would that political reporters at the CBC take twenty minutes to do some actual research on their stories than simply transcribe an interview.

Continue reading →

QP: Fighting for Oshawa

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in town but meeting with the head of Unifor, Andrew Scheer decided to show up for the first time in almost two weeks. Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he read that he met with workers at the GM plant in Oshawa earlier that morning, before he concern trolled around “massive deficits,” before wondering if the support for workers was factored into the fall economic update (obviously it wouldn’t have been), or if it meant higher deficits. Navdeep Bains responded by saying that they stand up for workers, and touted their innovation fund. Scheer demanded they cancel the carbon tax to protect jobs, to which Bains praised the business environment and the auto sector in Canada. Scheer demanded a second time, and Bains noted new investment in the sector. Gérard Deltell took over to reiterate the demand in French, to which Bains read his bland assurances in French. Deltell listed the various other job losses in other sectors, to which Bains retorted in English about the good economic news that countered those individual challenges. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he worried about the Oshawa news, and got the usual reply from Bains. When Caron demanded that GM repay any funds that the government provided them, Bains assured him that all options were being explored to protect workers. Peter Julian was up next to reiterate the question in English, and Bains took exception to his characterisation of events before listing the economic figures. Julian insisted that the fall economic update was a giveaway to corporations, but Bains again pushed back against the rhetoric and proclaimed about their plans to invest created growth.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Refusing to learn their lessons

Posted on by

A former PQ minister wants to run for leadership of the Bloc, and I just cannot. Can. Not. The challenger this time is Yves-François Blanchet, who served in Pauline Marois’ short-lived Cabinet, and has since taken on a political pundit career since being defeated in 2014. He apparently met with the caucus yesterday, and the majority of them – including their past and current interim leaders – all seem to like him, but I keep having to circle back to this simple question: did you learn nothing from your last disastrous leader?

I can’t emphasise this enough. Since their demise in 2011, the Bloc have had a succession of seatless leaders, including Mario Beaulieu (who now has a seat, incidentally, and is the current interim leader), and while he stepped aside so that Gilles Duceppe could return (unsuccessfully), they keep going for leaders who aren’t in caucus, and time after time, it goes poorly for them. Every single time, I have to wonder why they don’t simply do as our system was built to do, and select a member from caucus. Constantly bringing in an outsider does nothing for their profile (ask Jagmeet Singh how that’s going), and their leaders keep being divorced from the realities of parliament. And time and again, they keep choosing another outsider. Why do you keep doing this to yourselves? Why do you refuse to learn the lessons that experience has to teach you?

There is one current MP who is considering a run, Michel Boudrias, and if the Bloc was smart, they would choose him by virtue of the fact that he’s in the caucus, he’s in the Commons, and he knows how Parliament works. Of course, if they interested in ensuring he’s accountable (especially given just how big of a gong show their last leader was), then it would be the caucus that selects him so that the caucus can then fire him if he becomes a problem (again, if history is anything to go by). But that would take some actual political courage by the party, and given their apparent reluctance to learn the lessons from their mistakes, that may be too much to ask for.

Continue reading →