Tag Archives: Competition Bureau

Roundup: Final debate on the amendments

Posted on by

While the Commons is not sitting this week, the Senate is, with several bills now on their Order Paper for consideration, most especially the assisted dying bill, which is under a court-imposed deadline (that has already been extended thrice). At issue are the amendments that the government accepted, rejected, and otherwise modified from what the Senate sent back to the Commons a few weeks ago (where the Conservatives then held it up).

The Government Leader in the Senate, Senator Marc Gold, is taking the line that this is a “historic example” of collaboration between the two Chambers that has resulted in better legislation, but I’m not sure just how historic that is, and by “better legislation,” it’s a fairly marginal case because the government reduced the attempt to render this legislation fully compliant with the constitution with one of its famous half-measures that means that people’s suffering will be prolonged as a result, and yet more others will need to embark on yet more court challenges in order to fully access what should be guaranteed rights.

Ultimately it does look like this will pass without sending it back to the Commons again, as most senators are taking the line that the House has had their say, and because they’re democratically elected, it can go ahead now (though there have been instances where the Senate made a second insistence on certain bills in order to make a point – though I’m not sure that will be the case here), and that it could pass and get royal assent before the court deadline. Nevertheless, the amount of time this has taken for something that had court-imposed timelines is a sense of just how vulnerable the parliamentary calendar really is when you had determined opposition to bills, and it’s not over yet because the proposed changes in this legislation will impose a two-year timeline for more consultations on aspects of the law that currently remain prohibited (where that prohibition remains unconstitutional), but that the government is dragging its feet for the sake of politics. Ultimately, nobody comes out of this exercise looking particularly good.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hybrid heckling

Posted on by

In a case of being careful what one wishes for, it turns out that all of the hopes that hybrid sittings would mean an end to heckling didn’t happen. In fact, MPs are now complaining it’s worse because when someone unmutes to heckle, it creates even more disruption as the camera shifts to them (but of course, this is also a completely selfish thing because it causes even more strain for the interpreters, who are burning out and MPs just don’t care).

What the Hill Times piece missed, because none of their reporters have shown up to QP during the pandemic, is that there are still shenanigans in the Chamber while the exchanges are happening over zoom. Most days, it’s Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen (the most consistent Designated Liberal™ in the Chamber) sniping back and forth with one or two Conservatives opposite – often Pierre Poilievre or Gérard Deltell, and this can be fairly distracting because you can’t hear the exchanges happening on screen. The worst was the Friday where Poilievre decided he was going to have a running commentary on everything going on on-screen, and when I say that he has a singular wit, I mean that he’s the only one who thinks he’s funny. He’s not. It was so bad that I couldn’t hear what was happening on the screen because of the constant running commentary that the Speaker wasn’t cracking down on. And I get it – they’re bored because there’s nothing for them to do but sit there as room meat as the charade carries on over Zoom, but it’s terrible.

Hybrid QP is actually pretty demoralizing. There is no spark or energy to what happens. It’s a lifeless recitation of talking points where they can’t inhabit the same space, and thus there is zero frisson to any of it. It’s unnatural and yet MPs seem to want more of this rather than fighting to have proper sittings in a safe way.

Continue reading →

QP: Reminder that it’s a novel virus

Posted on by

It was Thursday, and neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, which generally means a less exciting day. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and poked out inconsistencies in the story around the Global Public Health Information Network, to which Patty Hajdu related early actions by the government and Dr. Theresa Tam, as well as citing that she would say more about the GPHIN soon. O’Toole tried to call out inconsistencies in early pandemic advice, to which Hajdu reminded him that it’s a novel virus that we are still learning about. O’Toole called the decision around GPHIN politically motivated, to which Hajdu said that when she was alerted to the changes, she ordered and external investigation, and she would have more to say about that soon. In French, O’Toole accused the government of losing control of the pandemic, and Hajdu listed federal actions. O’Toole then concern trolled about testing, to which Hajdu listed the rollout of new rapid tests. For the Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron trolled the prime minister about his call with the president of France, to which François-Philippe Champagne pointed out what was wrong about the premise of the question, and reminded him that Canada defends freedom of expression around the world. Bergeron asked when there was going to hold a debate on acceptable limits to freedom of expression, to which Champagne rebutted his assertions. Jagmeet Singh was up next to lead off for the NDP, and in French, he worried about the record profits of web giants, to which Steven Guilbeault reminded him at they are now treating web giants the same as traditional players in the creative market. Singh switched to English to rail about the Westons making profits in the pandemic, for which Sean Fraser said that they were supporting front-line workers, and that they raised taxes on the top one percent, which the NDP voted against. 

Continue reading →

QP: Imagining a diplomatic snub

Posted on by

It being Wednesday, the prime minister was present and ready to respond to all of the questions being posed. Erin O’Toole led off, and lied about what David Lametti said about judicial appointments, and Trudeau said he would answer in a moment, but wanted to first assure Canadians that they were monitoring what is happening in the United States. O’Toole accused him of a cover-up and of politicising appointments, to which Trudeau read a script about major reforms to the process to make it independent after Conservative mismanagement. O’Toole tried in French, and got the same answer. O’Toole then worried that federal guidance on masks was stricter than in Quebec, and wondered who Quebeckers should listen to, and Trudeau said that they respect the advice of local public health authorities but they are trying to provide guidance. O’Toole tried again in English, and got much the same response. Yves-François Legault got up for the Bloc and accused the prime minister of preferring Biden and weakening the relationship with Americans, then wondered if he had spoke to the president of France. Trudeau reminded him that regardless of the outcome of the election, they would stand up for Canadian interests and those of allies including France. Blanchet tried to pivot this to freedom of expression, and Trudeau listed things that Canada stands with France on, and that he would be speaking with Macron in the near future. Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, and in French, demanded to know when the federal standards on long-term care was coming — because you can wrangle the provinces overnight. Trudeau reminded him that they are working with the provinces. Singh then lied about federal ownership over certain long-term care homes and demanded an end to for-profit care, to which Trudeau reminded him that they respect provincial jurisdiction on long-term care but are there to support provinces.

Continue reading →

QP: An unequivocal clarification

Posted on by

While everyone’s attention was on the election south of the border, things got underway in the House of Commons for our own (superior) system of democracy. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern and quoted Pierre Elliott Trudeau about the importance of free speech, to which Justin Trudeau rebutted that Canada always stands up for freedom of expression. O’Toole demanded to know if the PM stands up for freedom of speech, and Trudeau responded that nothing justifies violence or terrorism. O’Toole tried again, and Trudeau was even more forceful in his defence of free speech than the previous two times, without any of the equivocation that was being called out after this comments last week. O’Toole switched to French and recounted how the French president called the Quebec premier, and chided Trudeau on not getting a similar call, to which Trudeau repeated that they always stand up for free speech and will stand against terrorism and violence. O’Toole again brought up Trudeau’s father, and Trudeau reiterated for the fifth time that they unequivocally defend free expression and denounce terrorism. Yves-François Blanchet led off for the Bloc and he carried on with the same question, accusing Trudeau of twisting himself into knots over it, to which Trudeau again reiterated that they will always defend freedom of expression.  Blanchet was not mollified, and they went for another round of the same. Jagmeet Singh was up next and in French, asked about flu vaccine supplies — orders for which is once again a provincial responsibility. Trudeau responded that they ordered more than usual, and it was good that more people were getting it. Singh tried again in English, to which Trudeau reiterated that they preordered more than usual, and that they would work with the provinces to get more.

Continue reading →

QP: Assertions of no PMO interference

Posted on by

All of the leaders were absent for the day, and not even the deputy PM was present, making it feel a little more like a Friday than a Monday. Gérard Deltell led off in English, lamenting that the prime minister wouldn’t protect the unconditional freedom of speech, and feeling there should be limits on it. François-Philippe Champagne responded with condolences for the people of France, and saying that Canada would defend freedom of expression around the world. Deltell repeated the question in French, to which Champagne warned him against politicising such a horrific incident. Deltell tried to put forward the notion that it took Trudeau twelve days to condemn the murder of that teacher in France, to which Champagne rebutted that he made a statement the following day. Deltell reminded Champagne that he is not yet prime minister, and insisted that the government was not standing by its ally in France, and Champagne rebutted that the government speaks as a whole. Deltell again returned to Trudeau citing that there are limits to freedom of expression, for which Champagne again chided him about politicising the issue. Stéphane Bergeron led for the Bloc, and he too hammered on Trudeau saying there were limits to freedom of expression, for which Champagne reiterated his that Canada stood by France and to defend freedom of expression. Bergeron accused the government of downplaying Islamic terrorism and hurting Quebec’s special relationship with France, to which Champagne repeated that Canada was standing by France. Jagmeet Singh was up next by video, and in French, after mentioning the attack in Quebec City, he demanded increased funding for mental health services, for which Patty Hajdu reminded him that they have been increasing funds for provinces for mental health services. Singh switched to English to worry about small businesses paying commercial rent, accusing Trudeau of helping “Liberal insiders” instead. Sean Fraser responded with a list of programmes available for small businesses. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another brave demand for money without strings

Posted on by

Four nominally conservative premiers convened in Ottawa yesterday to once again bravely demand that the federal government give them more money for healthcare and infrastructure, and to not attach any strings to it. In total, they demanded at least $28 billion more per year for healthcare, $10 billion for infrastructure, and retroactive reforms to fiscal stabilization that would give Alberta another $6 billion. Of course, two of those premiers – Jason Kenney and Brian Pallister – were in the Harper government when health transfers were unilaterally cut, to which we must also offer the reminder that the numbers at the time show that provincial health spending was not rising nearly as fast as the health transfer escalator, which means that the money was going to other things, no matter how much the provinces denied it. As well, most provinces have not actually been spending the current infrastructure dollars that are on the table for one reason or another (some of which have been petty and spiteful), so why demand more when they already aren’t spending what’s there.

As for Alberta’s demand for retroactive fiscal stabilization, one should also add the caveat that the current formula asserts a certain amount of moral risk for provinces who rely too heavily on resource revenues for their provincial coffers – that they should be looking at other forms of revenue (like sales taxes) so that they aren’t so exposed to the vagaries of things like world oil prices. Retroactively changing the formula means that the federal government becomes their insurance for the risks they undertook on their own balance sheets, which hardly seems fair to the other provinces in confederation, who have to pay higher provincial taxes.

And then Kenney dropped this little claim:

This is patently untrue. The province still has tremendous fiscal capacity because they still have the highest per capita incomes in the country and the lowest taxation. Sure, that fiscal capacity has diminished, but not that much. The province’s deficit is a policy choice because they refuse to implement a modest sales tax that could actually pay for the services that Kenney is now in the process of slashing, having ordered up a report to tell him that they have a spending problem instead of a revenue problem. Err, and then he spent billions on a money-losing refinery and another pipeline that will actually make said refinery an even bigger money-loser. So no, the quality of healthcare in his province isn’t being jeopardized by the state of his economy – it’s because he won’t stabilize his revenues (and because he’s launching an ill-conceived war against the doctors in his province in the middle of a global pandemic, because he’s strategic like that).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A curious case for declaratory legislation

Posted on by

A curious story showed up on the CBC website yesterday, wherein justice minister David Lametti stated that if it looked like pandemic delays were going to cause criminal trials to essentially “age out” of the court system as a result of the Jordan decision – meaning that once they reach a certain point, they are deemed to be stayed because they took too long and have become unconstitutional – that he would introduce legislation to “clarify” how the Supreme Court’s Jordan decision was to be clarified. It’s curious because it seems to be a bit of a made-up issue – the Jordan decision already stated that the 30-month timeline allowed for exceptional circumstances, and we can all agree that a global pandemic is by definition an exceptional circumstance. This isn’t to say that declaratory legislation isn’t a valid exercise, because it can be – but it just seems wholly unnecessary in this case, when there are other ways that the government could be better dealing with the criminal justice system and juries than worrying about the Jordan timelines.

In any event, here is defence lawyer Michael Spratt with some thoughts on the story:

Continue reading →

Roundup: A shock-and-awe number

Posted on by

The Conservatives are crowing about their membership numbers in the lead-up to their leadership vote, where some 269,000 Canadians are now eligible to vote – not that they all will, but it’s a shock-and-awe number that they say are bigger than any previous Conservative (or its predecessor parties’) leadership contest – though not quite as large as the Liberal contest that elected Justin Trudeau. And while on paper it’s great that there are so many people who have joined the party, this is one of those traps that have created so many of our problems in this country.

The original sin in Canadian politics was the Liberals’ decision in 1919 to move away from caucus selecting their new leader after Wilfrid Laurier’s death to a delegated convention. From then on, under the guise of being “more democratic,” they ensured that their leaders could henceforth not be held to account by the MPs of their caucus – nor the party, really, because “leadership reviews” are largely bogus exercises (sorry, Thomas Mulcair!). And what ends up happening is that when you have a big number like 260,000 party members, when the leader who winds up being selected in this manner gets into trouble, he or she tells their caucus “I have the democratic legitimacy of these 269,000 votes – the average riding has 75,000 electors. I have the bigger mandate.” It has been the way in which the centralization of power has been justified, and all of abuses of that power have followed.

The other problem is that these kinds of memberships tend to be transactional for the duration of the leadership contest. A good many of these members won’t stick around and to the work of nominations or policy development, which is another reason why these shock-and-awe numbers wind up being hollow in the long run. We do need more people to take out party memberships in this country, but it has to be meaningful engagement, and a leadership contest is not that. It only serves to perpetuate the problems in our system.

 

Good reads: Continue reading →

Roundup: Previewing more subsidies and army intervention

Posted on by

Monday’s presser from prime minister Justin Trudeau provided a few more details on the planned wage subsidy, and made it clear that this was no longer just going to target small and medium-sized businesses, but businesses of any size, including those in the charitable and non-profit sectors – provided they see a 30 percent drop in revenues as a result of the pandemic. It’s a very big outlay by government, which is predicated on the notion that once the pandemic is effectively over, it will shorten the time needed to get the economy back in gear. The real details on the programme won’t be unveiled until later today, with ministers Bill Morneau and Mary Ng, but the assurances to businesses not to let their staff go is being signalled very loudly – as was a warning that businesses shouldn’t try to game this subsidy because when the audits are done after this is over, there will be consequences for those who do (though Andrew Coyne makes a very good point about how that may go). Trudeau also noted that the Canadian Forces have been put on alert, and that 24,000 troops who are set to be deployed have already been sequestering themselves so as to avoid any potential infection. The real distinction worth pointing out here, however, is that it’s less that they’re planning on using troops to police quarantine zones, but rather to ensure that they are there to help deal with floods or fires that may happen during this particular period – given that it is the season for floods especially – when communities are at reduced capacity.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1244708307337609217

Meanwhile, there does seem to be a sense of frustration and fear among medical providers across the country, particularly with the rationing of personal protective equipment as supply chains are affected. Some doctors are threatening to walk off the job if they can’t get the equipment they need, which is obviously something nobody wants.

Continue reading →