Tag Archives: CRA

QP: The Goldilocks of pipelines

Posted on by

In the wake of yesterday’s big pipeline announcement, it remained to be seen if that would finally knock the fundraising questions off of the agenda. Rona Ambrose led off, lamenting that saying no to the Northern Gateway robbed hope and opportunity from 31 Aboriginal communities who had an equity stake in the project. Justin Trudeau noted that his government did what the previous one could not, and they would protect the environment while still growing the economy. Ambrose went or another round of the same, and Trudeau shot back that they we flailing about for something to talk about. Ambrose worried that Trudeau didn’t have a plan to deal with the Trumpocalyse (not her word) particularly with their tax plans, and Trudeau reminded her that they would engage constructively while working to diversify Canada’s trade markets. Ambrose then wondered when Trudeau would head to BC to get pipeline opponents onside, and Trudeau insisted that he was going about things the right way. Ambrose pivoted to CBC’s proposal to go ad-free for a bigger subsidy, and Trudeau replied that her party didn’t understand cultural industries and their importance. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and raised the issue of 59 First Nations opposed Kinder Morgan. Trudeau said that there were groups on all sides and that the balanced the various interests to make a decision. Mulcair switched to French to lament that the decision was done with Stephen Harper’s process, and Trudeau reminded him of their work with the provinces, particularly with new climate plans. Mulcair moved onto the appeal of a Manitoba case involving First Nations survivors, and Trudeau mouthed some platitudes about working together to move ahead in the relationship. Mulcair’s final question was on electoral reform, demanding that Trudeau keep his election promise, and Trudeau replied that he awaited the committee report and the consultations with Canadians.

Continue reading →

QP: A singular focus on CETA

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau returned from the APEC summit somewhere around 5:30 this morning, it was not a real surprise that he wasn’t present in QP as a result. Then again, none of the other major leaders were present either. Denis Lebel led off, railing about the lack of new trade agreements signed and wondered if the government would fumble other agreements. Chrystia Freeland assured him that they ensured that CETA got signed, and when Lebel repeated the question in English, Freeland didn’t stick to her notes, but reminded Lebel that it was her government that got CETA signed for real. Lebel tried to switch to softwood lumber, but Freeland stuck to chastising him about CETA. Gerry Ritz tried to move the topic to the TPP, but because he mentioned CETA, Freeland stuck to those points with a reminder that they were still consulting on TPP. Ritz tried to press on TPP, and Freeland reminded him that there was a two-year consultation period on TPP, which they were pursuing. Tracey Ramsey led off for the NDP, railing about the flaws in CETA, and Freeland hammered on the progressive credentials of the agreement and the fact that socialist governments in Europe supported it. Ramsey pounded on the effect that CETA would have on drug prices, but Freeland stuck to her points about CETA’s progressive credentials. Ruth Ellen Brosseau then rose on a pair of questions decrying the inadequate compensation for dairy producers under CETA, but Lawrence MacAulay assured her that they sat down with the producers and designed a programme based on that, and that they were protecting supply management.

Continue reading →

QP: Hugging it out

Posted on by

As is traditional on Halloween, we got a number of tortured metaphors and references during members’ statement. As well, all leaders with the exception of Thomas Mulcair were present, and no one was in costume. Rona Ambrose led off with a question about fundraising — again. Justin Trudeau tried to turn the question on its head, talking about their open engagement and public consultations. Ambrose tried to keep it about the ethical guidelines, but Trudeau kept up his praise for their unprecedented levels of engagement. Ambrose demanded an end to preferential access, and Trudeau insisted that there was no preferential access, and that they were in fact being accused of consulting too much. Ambrose moved onto carbon pricing and how it hurt families. Trudeau noted their middle class tax cut, and made a plug for tomorrow’s fall economic update. Ambrose lamented the lack of job creation, and Trudeau instead took a moment to praise the signing of CETA, giving credit to the Conservatives while he was at it. Romeo Saganash led off for the NDP, demanding the deadline for increasing First Nations child welfare funding. Trudeau noted his commitment to First Nations, and that they were continuing to work on that file. Saganash didn’t get an answer on the deadline, and pressed for one. Trudeau said it was a problem that goes back generations, and that they need to build capacity in the system. Charlie Angus picked it up in English, and Trudeau repeated his response. Angus brought up a particular case where there was a legal battle over the fees, and Trudeau insisted that they were committed to working in partnership on a solution.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fundraising fears

Posted on by

It’s been a curious thing the last few days, watching in QP as the Conservatives are tearing their hair out over this Bill Morneau fundraiser in Halifax and raising the spectre of the wealthy contributing to politics, and calling Bill Morneau a millionaire like it’s a bad thing. As though suddenly the Conservative Party of Canada has become overrun by socialists or something. Really, it’s just their cheap populism run amok, trying to cast themselves as champions of ordinary Canadians (never mind that their policies disproportionately aided wealthier Canadians during their decade in power), and if they really were the champions of the working class, you would think the rest of their policies to date would be different (such as around labour unions or the Canada Pension Plan, or anything like that), but no. And if you think this is really a question about ethics or conflicts of interest, well, no, the Ethics Commissioner herself has stated that this fundraiser was above board, but hey, if they wanted to tighten the rules around fundraising, she’s been asking them to do that for years and after a decade in power, they wouldn’t do that either. So here we are, with a desperate attempt to frame perfectly above-board fundraising as “cash for access” and somehow comparable to the situation in Ontario, which it’s not. Meanwhile, Howard Anglin had a perfectly apropos tweet storm on this, so I’ll let him finish off here.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A warning or a betrayal?

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau made some comments to Le Devoir about the reduced sense of urgency around electoral reform, and a bunch of people – notably the NDP – freaked out. Trudeau said:

Under Stephen Harper, there were so many people unhappy with the government and their approach that people were saying, ‘It will take electoral reform to no longer have a government we don’t like’. But under the current system, they now have a government they’re more satisfied with and the motivation to change the electoral system is less compelling.

And then comes the parsing of the rhetoric – is he trying to walk back on his election promise that 2015 was the last election under first-past-the-post, or is he trying to give signals to the electoral reform committee as they begin to draft their report after their summer of consultations across the country? To the NDP (and Ed Broadbent of his eponymously named Institute), Trudeau’s comments are a betrayal because to them, he can only deliver proportional representation or bust. Their working premise is that Trudeau was saying that because the system elected Liberals it’s fine, but when it elected Conservatives, it was broken. But I’m not sure that’s what Trudeau was actually saying, because the prevailing popular discussion pre-election was that reform was needed because any system that delivered Conservative majorities was deemed illegitimate – one of those kinds of talking points that gives me hives because it presumes that electoral reform needs to be done for partisan reasons. And to that extent, Trudeau is right, that the sense of urgency has decreased because the Conservatives are no longer in power, so there’s less clamour for it to happen. There is also the theory that what Trudeau was signalling was that there are degrees of acceptable change, and that without as much broad support that smaller change like ranked ballots could be something he would push through (seeing as we all know that the committee is going to be deadlocked).

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/788788763854077952

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/788789074228371457

Kady O’Malley, on the other hand, thinks that Trudeau is signalling to the NDP and Greens that they should be willing to compromise on PR during the committee deliberations, or he’ll deem it a stalemate and either walk away or put it to a referendum, where it would almost certainly be doomed. Rona Ambrose says that it could signal that Trudeau is backing down, which the Conservatives would like (and to be perfectly honest, I would too because the system is not broken and electoral reform is a solution in search of a problem). That he may have found the excuse to back down and admit this election promise is a failure – and then move on – would be the ideal move in my most humble opinion.

Continue reading →

QP: More shovels in the ground

Posted on by

Caucus day, and nearly a full house in the Commons as QP got underway. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on desk, was terribly concerned about 190 conditions attached to the Pacific Northwest LNG approval. Justin Trudeau reminded her that the last government’s cheerleading didn’t get them anywhere and they needed to do things differently. Ambrose demanded they get shovels in the ground, but Trudeau stuck to his points about sustainable development. Ambrose shifted gears and was concerned that the first round of deficit spending didn’t spend jobs, to which Trudeau praised the investments they were making in communities. Ambrose went for another round, and Trudeau insisted that the Conservatives didn’t learn the lessons of the last election, and they went one more round on the same question in French. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and he railed about the lack of consultation with local First Nations on the LNG project. Trudeau praised economic growth with environmental protection and they “folded in” the consultations. Mulcair decried that it was now impossible to meet GHG targets, to which Trudeau noted that they need to grow the economy while working to meet targets, so they are working with the provinces to do so. Mulcair wanted approval for their supply day motion for parliamentary oversight over arms sales, and Trudeau spoke instead about participating the arms trade treaty. Mulcair asked again in English, and got much the same answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Sanctimony and escalators

Posted on by

With none of the leaders were present, Denis Lebel led off, railing about the non-existent negotiations for an extradition treaty with China. Harjit Sajjan responded that it was a high-level security and rule-of-law dialogue, which included talk of extradition. Lebel asked again in English, got the same response, then moved on to the moving expenses of one of Dion’s staff. Bardish Chagger noted that they were committed to changing the rules. Candice Bergen got up to deliver some unctuous sanctimony about moving expenses, but Chagger stuck to her prepared lines. Brigitte Sansoucy was up for the NDP, decrying the fact that the government won’t increase the healthcare transfer escalator. Jane Philpott said that they would be making investments in priority areas like home care and mental health care. Sansoucy went another round, got the same answer, before Don Davies went up to ask the same again in English. Philpott chided him that the NDP platform would have been hard pressed to use the old escalators and still balance the budget, then they went one more round of the same.

Continue reading →

QP: Overwrought cheap outrage

Posted on by

The Prime Minister having met with the Chinese Premier earlier in the day, he and the other leaders were now ready to go. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on desk, gave an overwrought tale of a single mother worried about losing her house and reading about the moving expenses of PMO staffers. Justin Trudeau noted that the rules were followed, and the PMO overall was smaller than in the Conservatives’ day. Ambrose launched into a somewhat misleading tirade about all of the things they government cancelled for families (conveniently ignoring the enhanced benefits that they replaced those programs with), and Trudeau thanked her for reminding Canadians about their helping the middle class. Ambrose went again another round in French, got the same answer, and Jason Kenney took over to lament policy changes in Alberta to denounce a “job-killing carbon tax.” Trudeau reminded him that he’s in Ottawa, not Alberta, and that farmers were pleased with the settlement of the canola issue with China. Kenney then gave one last go at trying to declare ISIS to be a genocide, and Trudeau chided him for political grandstanding on such an important issue. Thomas Mulcair got up next, and accused Trudeau of being a dictatorship apologist with respect to an extradition treaty with China. Trudeau noted that this was about a dialogue that allows them to bring up difficult cases, and they would not bend their principles for anyone. Mulcair went another round in French, got the same answer, and then moved onto the Site C Dam in BC. Trudeau noted the commitment to a renewed relationship with Indigenous communities, and when Mulcair pressed, Trudeau kept insisting that they were respecting and consulting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Leitch keeps digging

Posted on by

So many hot takes on Kellie Leitch and her need to keep digging when it comes to her “Canadian values” test proposal. Leitch continued to insist that this is a topic worthy of discussion, and proposed yet more “Canadian values” to back up her claim, and this time, those values include “equality of opportunity, hard work, generosity, freedom and tolerance,” with a focus especially on the tolerance part. She also denies that this targets Muslims in any way and doesn’t think that characterisation is fair. So there’s that. Oh, and you can add Deepak Obhrai to the list of leadership candidates opposing Leitch’s position, and Maxime Bernier gave a somewhat muddled response that he believes there are Canadian values but you just can’t test for them.

In terms of pundit reaction, Michael Den Tandt seems to think that Leitch is going nativist for the sake of deepening her fundraising coffers, while Matt Gurney sees Leitch’s proposal as unworkable, but not really offensive per se. Susan Delacourt sees problems for Leitch from the perspective of a party that doesn’t seem to want to embrace a young female leader, though she may have tapped into an anti-immigrant sentiment within the ranks, while Madeline Ashby looks at the inherent contradictions in Leitch’s position. My own Loonie Politics column on Leitch’s campaign looks at the ways in which she and some of her fellow campaigners are picking and choosing which intolerances to run on, and her own tone-deafness about it (which, given today’s added comments, seem to really fit the bill).

In other Conservative leadership news, Brad Trost thinks that he can unite the party around his economic ideas while still running as a social conservative, and Deepak Obhari has filed his papers and is officially in the race.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More awful electoral reform questions

Posted on by

Another day, another meeting of the electoral reform committee, which produced yet more kinds of awful. Marc Mayrand, the outgoing Chief Electoral Officer, gave a few facts to MPs, like the fact that a referendum (if the enabling legislation were changed) would cost about $300 million to run, or the fact that Elections Canada could be ready in time for a 2019 election under a new system, provided that everything was settled by May of next year. (Note: This may be overly optimistic considering the constitutional questions raised by some kinds of voting systems). But some of the worst moments were around questions raised to both Mayrand and his predecessor, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, about things like online voting.

No. No, no, no, no, no. The problem with online voting has zero to do with encryption technology and everything to do with the secrecy of the ballot, and anyone who confuses the two needs a smack upside the head. The secrecy of the ballot is ensuring that nobody sees who you are voting for, so that you can’t be rewarded or punished for it, you know, like in the era of “rum bottle politics.” And you can’t ensure the secrecy of the ballot with online voting. “But what about mail-in ballots?” you ask. Well, the proportion of those is so small that it’s a compromise that we have to make. Online voting is not comparable.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/751122720520282113

This particular intervention is complete nonsense. Does David Christopherson not take the phone calls of his constituents unless they can prove that they voted NDP? Does he not present their petitions in Parliament? Oh, so he does? Then they don’t “get nothing,” and it’s fundamentally wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise, and proof that they don’t know what it means to be an MP.

And then there’s this specious and utterly wrong nonsense, because it’s fundamentally dishonest. Do you know how many voters it took to elect Elizabeth May? 37,000 votes. We have ridings, where people decide who gets to sit in each seat. We don’t apportion seats based on the number of votes they receive, and to try and present it as such in order to prove some point is basically lying. And yes, this is the kinds of discourse that this process is bringing out, so well done everyone.

And then there are the editorials and op-eds. Christina Spencer is not at all impressed with how this committee has gotten started (and I can’t say that I blame her – it’s been pretty awful). Kelly McParland thinks the Liberals are counting on apathy in order to get their preferred electoral system through (hence their reluctance for a referendum), while Michael Den Tandt thinks the insistence of “focus grouping” their electoral reform consultations is really a shell game of “trust us” while they push ranked ballots through. Colin Horgan suggests that the “electoral reform toolkit” is an attempt at making the conversation appear to be more grassroots.

Continue reading →