With the premiers in town for a Council of the Federation meeting, Justin Trudeau took the opportunity to have a sit-down with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, and amidst the chiding of the PM for not deigning to make an appearance, one of the things they talked about was carbon pricing. Trudeau is walking a particularly fine line when it comes to the role of the federal government and the provinces in combating climate change, and this is nowhere illustrated better than in the way that different media organisations wrote up the comments. CBC focused on the fact that Trudeau thinks the federal government should leave it up to the provinces, but still have a role to play. The Canadian Press, meanwhile, wrote it up as the federal government needing to take a leadership role, and that the absence of that has forced the provinces to go it alone. Now, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but it does point to the ways in which attempts to have nuanced policy can lead to misinterpretation and trouble, and it also becomes apparent that Trudeau will need to come out with a much more clarified position as to just what kind of leadership role he thinks that the federal government needs to play on the file while still letting the provinces do their own thing. Open federalism is a real thing, but there will need to be some kind of clarity as to roles, expectations, and of course the important question of who is paying for what, that will need to form part of that discussion going forward.
Tag Archives: Corrections
Roundup: Hedging the messages
Justin Trudeau continued his tour of southwestern Ontario over the past couple of days, meeting with local mayors and touring a Ford plant, and so on. But while he was talking about moving away from traditional manufacturing while in London, his stop in Windsor spoke about the need to support the auto sector as a pillar to diversify around, which seems to me to be a fairly big hedge since much of the problem with the auto sector is that it pretty much requires the government to keep feeding the beast with ever larger cash subsidies lest those manufacturers relocate elsewhere, which they generally end up doing anyway, while not enough is being done to transition those communities away from the expectation that they’ll get a decent paying job at the auto plant with a pension and benefits. Also, he needs to stop saying that the government put all of their eggs in the oil basket, because it’s like four percent of GDP, so it’s just not true. Another curious statement Trudeau made was that carbon pricing should be up to the provinces, which seems like a fairly fraught proposition because one can rather easily imagine the headaches that having a patchwork of pricing schemes around the country will create – carbon tax in one province, a technology levy in another, and cap-and-trade in yet another, while the federal government tries to book the overall reductions with no real commonality between them.
(1/n) Re: @JustinTrudeau and GHGs: I've worked on GHG policies at fed and prov level – we need a new way to deal with fed/prov on GHGs.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 22, 2015
(2/n) Federal regs end up pleasing the lowest common denominator – coal, autos, oil and gas, EITE, etc. and stringency drops for all.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 22, 2015
(3/n) A new framework, in the spirit of healthcare where fed gov't sets the boundaries, directs traffic, etc, has some promise.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 22, 2015
(4/n) but, in order for it to work, fed gov't needs clear def'ns for stringency, and a tasty carrot or a big stick to make provinces move
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 22, 2015
(5/n) Without that, we're in the world we're in now – each province does what it wants to do, and the fed gov't does little else.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 22, 2015
(6/n) So, let's see what details @JustinTrudeau puts on the policies, but this is a good/promising direction for Canada. #cdnpoli
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 22, 2015
Roundup: Voting attendance matters
The Ottawa Citizen has been carrying on their look at MP attendance in its many forms, and this time turned to the voting records of ordinary MPs. The best ones tended to be Conservative MPs, while the worst were independent and Bloc MPs for the most part, though a few other exceptions were noted, in particular because those MPs were battling cancer (like Judy Foote and Peter Kent). One of the notables for terrible voter attendance was Sana Hassainia, an NDP-turned-independent whose reasons for leaving the party were apparently over the position on Israel, though there was backbiting at the time about her attendance. Hassainia’s issue is her small children – she’s had two since she became an MP, and since most votes tend to be around 5:30 in the evening three, sometimes four nights per week, she claims she can’t get childcare and has to miss them. That’s always one of those claims that bothers me because it’s not like these votes are surprises – they happen on a scheduled basis, so you would think that she would be able to better schedule childcare. As well, she’s not without means – she makes a lot of money as an MP, and has the wherewithal to hire a minder or a nanny who can accommodate those times when she’s needed to vote. And it doesn’t matter how engaged she says she is with her constituents – her job is to vote, and that means showing up to vote, and to stand up and be seen to be voting, which not only has symbolic import, but it’s also a time when MPs are actually all in the same place so contacts can be made, and she can engage with ministers on files she has concerns with because they’re right there. This is an important thing, and it should be considered nothing less than a dereliction of her duties if she can’t see that.
Senate QP: Solitary confinement under scrutiny
The Senate was sitting early on a Friday morning as part of the final push to get the last of the bills that need to be passed done so before they rise for the Christmas break. Routine proceedings in the Chamber proceeded swiftly, and Question Period began early.
Senator Cordy led off, asking about an issue of a specific home care case in Alberta that she had raised with the leader of the government in the Senate weeks ago and had not yet heard a response to. Senator Carignan, who answers on behalf of the government, noted that he had raised the issue with Ministers Kenney or Alexander. Cordy updated the file with issue of work permits for a caregiver who was already in the country as a temporary foreign worker, but whose paperwork was being delayed for several more weeks. Carignan asked Cordy to have the woman in question send a letter directly, so that he could follow up with the ministers directly. Cordy noted that the woman in question has tried already and had no response, nor from her MP who insisted that nothing could be expedited, but would forward all of her correspondence to him in the next few minutes.
Roundup: An ignored anniversary
A very important anniversary passed yesterday that concerns our history and development as a country, but you didn’t hear a single MP remark on it in the Commons yesterday. It was the anniversary of the Statute of Westminster, which not only gave Canada full control over its foreign affairs – one of the final pieces of sovereignty from the United Kingdom that had not yet been transferred to our control – but more crucially was one of the defining moments in the independence of the Canadian Crown. The Statute helped solidify the notion that the Crown is divisible, and henceforth the same monarch would wear separate Crowns for each of the realms that he or she ruled. That’s why the Queen of Canada, the Queen of the UK and the Queen of Australia are separate legal entities even though Elizabeth II wears each hat. It’s one of the most fundamental underpinnings of our sovereignty and constitutional architecture, but not a single MP could be bothered to mention it. Well done, everyone. Also of note: Royal historian Carolyn Harris uses the discussion around the DNA of Richard III to remind us that our current Queen reigns by an Act of Parliament, not by divine right, which is a worthwhile lesson when it comes to how the modern monarchy works.
https://twitter.com/onshi/status/542685207938084864
QP: Waiting for harmonized regulations
The last Wednesday QP of the year is one without any leaders present. The three main leaders were in Montreal for the Jean Béliveau funeral, while Elizabeth May remains at the climate conference in Lima, Peru. Megan Leslie led off, pointing out that Harper calling oil and gas regulations “crazy” flies in the face of his previous promises and wanted an apology for the government not doing their job. Colin Carrie responded by reading that the PM said that we wouldn’t take unilateral action but that we want to work collaboratively with the Americans. Leslie pressed about previous ministerial stats, and got another recitation of talking points about unilateral regulations. Leslie wondered when Harper had last spoken to President Obama about harmonised regulations, but Carrie instead read a talking point about how reckless the NDP are. Peter Julian was up next, and wondered if the government abandon their court case against veterans. Parm Gill said that he wouldn’t comment on a court case, and instead listed all of their recent initiatives. Julian noted Harper calling the New Veterans Charter a “Liberal programme” before reading his indictments against Julian Fantino. Gill insisted that the NDP were simply trying to protect “big government union jobs.” Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, and noted the lapsed spending and cuts at Veterans Affairs, but noted the increase in ministerial staff and bonuses to managers. Gill read praise for their new initiatives. Goodale noted Rick Hillier’s call for a public inquiry into the treatment of veterans, but Gill insisted that they were following the recommendations of the Auditor General. Marc Garneau gave one last kick on the “back office” cuts, to which Gill insisted that they would make no apologies for eliminating bureaucracy.
I think that's @RodgerCuzner shouting "You've had eight years!" when Gill calls the New Veterans Charter a Liberal programme. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 10, 2014
Roundup: Backtracking and disowning
Having pretty much run out the parliamentary calendar for the year, Stephen Harper started dropping bombshells yesterday – some obvious, some subtle – as he answered questions in the Commons. The first was the more obvious one, that those long-promised oil and gas emissions regulations weren’t going to come anytime soon because the Americans weren’t onboard with them, and apparently it would be crazy – crazy! – to get a head start on them. It wasn’t a complete surprise, given that the Conservatives have mentioned needing a continental approach before, but the blanket refusal, wrapped up in this kind of “aww, shucks, I’m as disappointed as you guys – really!” approach, was what was new (and Paul Wells digs into that here). The other, more subtle bombshell, was Harper disowning the New Veterans Charter as he defended Julian Fantino’s disastrous handling of the Veterans Affairs file yesterday. As he was questioned about the government lawyers going to court to say that the “sacred obligation” to veterans was just political rhetoric, Harper shrugged it off saying that the New Veterans Charter at the centre of the legal dispute, which was implemented by his own government, was a “Liberal programme.” Nobody picked up on the significance of this disavowal during the remainder of QP enough to come back about it, and Harper won’t be in QP tomorrow either (nor will Trudeau or Mulcair for that fact), so there won’t be the ability to press him about just what he meant by it. And that’s probably how he wants it too as Parliament prepares to rise for the Christmas break.
QP: Questions on back office cuts
The last Monday of the year, and it was a bitterly cold one in Ottawa. Like many a Monday, none of the leaders were there, and even Elizabeth May was gone, off to the climate summit in Lima, Peru. Megan Leslie led off, and asked about cuts to services at Veterans Affairs that were more than just “back office” cuts. Julian Fantino insisted that the story was false, and read about reducing bureaucratic expense. Leslie twice asked about the reduction in staff for rail safety, to which Jeff Watson insisted that the number of inspectors was up, as was the number of auditors. David Christopherson shouted the veterans cuts question again, got the same robotic answer from Fantino, before a hollered demand for resignation, earning another robotic recitation. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, and asked about the government’s court arguments that there was no fundamental obligation to wounded veterans. Fantino robotically insisted that they were uploading services for veterans. Frank Valeriote listed off a litany of other cuts to veterans, but Fantino read a talking point about increases to front-line services. Valeriote asked a last question about VA managers getting bonuses in the light of cuts to services, but Fantino assured him that the decisions were always taken for the right reasons.
QP: Good administration for veterans
It was a full house for caucus day, and there were numerous paeans to Jean Beliveau before things got started. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about the staff reductions at Veterans Affairs, to which Stephen Harper said that they were increasing services for veterans, before he offered his own statement about Beliveau. Mulcair turned to veterans service centre closures and wondered why he wasn’t firing the minister instead. Harper insisted that they took resources away from back room bureaucracy and were delivering more services, calling it “good administration.” Mulcair moved to the government’s court arguments that the sacred obligations for veterans were just political speeches signifying nothing. Harper insisted that he would not comment on matters before the courts, but that the substantive measure was that they enhanced veterans services in numerous ways. Mulcair pressed, to which Harper insisted that the items he was listing were not political rhetoric but were real action for veterans, which the opposition voted against. Mulcair promised that an NDP would reopen every one of those offices, before pivoting to the issue of funding for thalidomide victims. Harper said that the meetings were ongoing, before returning listing to the veterans programmes that the NDP voted against. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked about the underfunding of military cemeteries, to which Harper insisted that the government enhanced funeral services for veterans, which Liberals voted against. After another round in French, Trudeau asked about the government meeting with an École Polytechnique survivors group, Harper insisted that they knew why Marc Lepine targeted those women and they would continue to support victims.
I'm glad that the Commons votes on individual budget line items. Oh, wait… #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 3, 2014
Roundup: MacKay’s turn to blunder
Another day, another minister who appears tone-deaf to the issues of their files – in this case it was Peter MacKay on questions of gun control as we reach the anniversary of the École Polytechnique shootings. It shouldn’t have been a surprise – these kind of questions get raised every year, and the Conservatives have fairly consistently made some kind of gaffe, but normally it’s the Status of Women minister who gets into hot water. This time, MacKay made a couple of nonsense answers during Question Period about the gun control aspect of the anniversary, when he fell back on his bog standard “respect for victims, punish offenders” talking points rather than addressing the issue at hand. The government could sell a case for their bill, C-42, if they would actually bother to do so rather than just accuse the Liberals of trying to resurrect the long-gun registry (which, for the record, Trudeau has said that they would not do), or bringing up the supposed plight of the law-abiding duck hunter. Instead, MacKay put his foot in things again, tried to claim the reason for the shooting was mysterious, tried to backtrack when he got called out on it, and again the government looks worse for wear.