Tag Archives: Environment

QP: Pipelines and weed puns

Posted on by

It was Justin Trudeau’s first day back since the Francophonie and since Castro’s death, and one just knew that it was going to be everyone’s preoccupation. Rona Ambrose led off on the subject of pipelines, the big announcement coming after the markets close, and she wanted assurances that he would ensure that any approved pipelines get built. Trudeau started off by reminding the Commons that strong environmental protections were fundamental to economic growth, and that was a principle he was following. Ambrose then moved to the Castro issue, wondering what he was thinking of when praising him. Trudeau reminded her that whenever he travels, he always brings up human rights and he did in Cuba as well. Ambrose repeated the question in French, got the same again, and then moved onto the allegation that Bill Blair was hitting up marijuana lobbyists for donations. Trudeau fell back to the talking points about the rules, and when Ambrose raised that he admitted to talking up investment at his own fundraisers, Trudeau wasn’t moved, and stuck to praising the rules that were being followed. Thomas Mulcair was up next, insinuating that there was someone with canola interests at a fundraising dinner. Trudeau noted the widespread concern about the canola restrictions and his government secured market access for all farmers. Mulcair asked about the Blair fundraiser in French, Trudeau gave the rules points in French, and then Mulcair moved onto the Kinder Morgan process, calling it a betrayal. Trudeau noted the consultations they had with all sides, and that they were in the balance between a party that wants blanket approvals and another party that wants all things shut down. Mulcair went another round in French, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Senate theatre a distraction

Posted on by

In the event that you haven’t been paying attention to the Senate this past week, some Conservative senators took it upon themselves to amend the government’s legislation regarding their much-vaunted “middle-class tax cut,” and changes the various tax brackets therein to deliver bigger savings to some, less to others, and supposedly closes the $1.7 billion gap that kept the Liberal bill from being “revenue neutral.” It’s an unusual move, and one that may be beyond the Senate’s powers given that the Senate is not allowed to initiate money bills, and this might qualify as treading up on that restriction, though they claim an early twentieth-century precedent that would allow it. While this is interesting in and of itself, what it demonstrates is the way in which the Conservatives are using this manoeuvre to try and take one last partisan kick at the can to try and “prove” the worth of organised opposition in the Upper Chamber as “government representative” Senator Peter Harder is manoeuvring to try and eliminate the official opposition designation in order to do away with parties in their entirely in the Upper Chamber.

While John Ivison rightly calls this a bit of convoluted political theatre, what the calculation the Conservatives in the Senate are likely going for is for those amendments to be defeated in the Senate as a whole (as all amendments get reported back from the committee in the form of a report that the full Senate then votes to either adopt or not in the aptly-named Report Stage vote) with the strength of the new independent senators. At this point, they can go “Aha! See! I told you these new ‘independent’ senators were all just Liberal stooges!” and pat themselves on the back for being oh, so clever. Unfortunately, while there is a lot of merit in the pushback against Harder and company’s attempts to eliminate the role of parties in the Senate as part of modernisation, the Conservatives insist on shooting themselves in the foot and undermining their own efforts by trying to prove that the new independent appointments are all closet Liberals. Instead, they should work with the Senate Liberals to expose Harder’s ambitions and efforts to build a personal power base out of the independents, and maybe they’d catch the attention of the rest of my journalist colleagues, who dismiss this as partisan antics and turf protection while they continue to dwell on the non-issue of committee assignments (that can’t be reconstituted until a prorogation happens anyway). This petty theatre is distracting from the actual issues and dangers of undermining the role of the Senate, and proves that the Conservatives haven’t learned enough lessons from the last election.

Meanwhile, the trans rights bill is headed to the Senate, and all eyes are turning to see what kinds of shenanigans that Conservative Senator Don Plett will get up to in order to slow or hamper the bill’s progress. Of course, because it’s now a government bill and not a private members’ bill, his avenues for obstruction are much diminished, and the political climate has changed meaning that he won’t likely find too many allies to back him up, and Harder will have tools to shut down any obstructing tactics if they carry on too long, so I doubt it will be much of an issue, but it’s another last kick at a can that won’t get too much more traction.

Continue reading →

QP: Something pretty fishy

Posted on by

On a snowy day in the Nation’s Capital, we had a mere single major leader present for QP, that being Thomas Mulcair. Denis Lebel led off, railing about Chinese billionaires and ethics rules, which got some of the usual points from Dominic LeBlanc about fundraising rules, seeing that he was answering in the place of Bardish Chagger (who is up north on small business and tourism-related work). Lebel wonder if the forestry industry needed to fundraise for the party to get heard, and Lebel assured him that they were working on solutions for that sector. Lebel switched to English to re-ask his first question, got the same answer, and then Candice Bergen took a turn on the same topic. LeBlanc assured her that the rules were followed, and on the second go-around, LeBlanc started listed similar fundraisers held by Conservatives while they were in power. Thomas Mulcair was up next, raising the Canada 2020 story and their sudden attempt to create distance between themselves and the government. LeBlanc listed fundraisers that Mulcair attended, and they went for another round in English. Mulcair then raised the limitations that the new CPP enhancements would have against women raising children, and Scott Brison said that this was an issue that was being raised at the next meeting with provincial and territorial ministers. Mulcair went another round of the same, raising that Pierre Trudeau fixed this 40 years ago, and Brison reiterated his response with some added praise for the Canada Child Benefit.

Continue reading →

QP: Having trouble with the concept of a charitable foundation

Posted on by

While the PM headed off to Africa for the Francophonie summit, the other major leaders were present, ready to go. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, railing about the menace of Chinese billionaires, apparently selling out the country for Liberal party donations. Dominic LeBlanc reminded her that only Canadian citizens can donate to political parties, and there was full disclosure. Ambrose insisted there was a conflict of interest with government business being discussed there, and LeBlanc deflected, noting the broad consultations that the government engages in all the time. Ambrose raised the case of a judge striking down a mandatory minimum sentence on a child sexual offence, and railed about the PM defending the judge. Jody Wilson-Raybould noted that they take child sexual offences seriously and that they are looking at criminal justice reform with an eye for maximum discretion for judges. Ambrose asked in French, and got the same response. Ambrose then moved onto the issue of Yazidi refugees and the inadequate number being targeted for relocation, and John McCallum stated that the number quoted was not the one that they were working with. Thomas Mulcair was up next, railing about cash-for-access and insinuating that the country was being sold out to these donors. LeBlanc reminded him that the Chief Electoral Officer praised the fundraising rules. Mulcair switched to French to note the donation by that Chinese billionaire to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation as a conflict of interest. LeBlanc noted that the foundation was an independent charitable organization that former MPs Chuck Strahl and Megan Leslie sat on the board of. Mulcair moved to the topic of Kinder Morgan and its pending approval, to which Jim Carr reminded him of the added consultation process they applied to it. Mulcair thundered about the same approach being taken by the Conservatives, and Catherine McKenna asserted that the process was led by science and fact.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Peter Harder is trying to bamboozle you

Posted on by

Behold Senator Peter Harder, the “government representative” in the Senate. Faced with attacks from his (mostly) partisan detractors, he bravely mounted his steed, and galloped out to the webpages of Policy Options where he oh so bravely slew a straw man to defend his particular moves in modernising the Senate. And in case this wasn’t clear enough, let me spell it out for you – Peter Harder is trying to bamboozle you.

The particular straw man that Harder bravely faced was the notion that those who defend the Westminster model in the Senate are trying to keep it a mirror of the House of Lords. This, incidentally, is complete malarkey. Nobody has ever made this argument. The Senate of Canada has never borne any resemblance to the Lords (aside from the fact that each is an appointed upper body), and nobody has advanced an argument to make that claim. But Harder went on at length to prove how different the two chambers were (again, nobody claimed otherwise), and then went on to showcase all of the other upper chambers in Westminster countries and how different they were too. Look at how flexible the Westminster model is! Harder proclaims. And it’s all very “Father knows best,” as he schools everybody on parliamentary democracy. And then he starts his subtle subversion. Look at Nunavut, he suggests – they don’t have parties there! It’s a consensus legislature.

And this is the point where I want to punch someone in the throat. But I have that urge everyone someone brings up the Nunavut legislature.

The Nunavut legislature works (more or less) on a party-less consensus model because a) it has a mere 22 members; and b) it operates within the cultural context of its Inuit residents for whom consensus-making is a norm. The Nunavut legislature model is neither scalable nor portable, and anyone who tries to suggest otherwise requires a smack upside the head. The other part, which escapes Harder’s point, is that it still has an executive council and an ostensible opposition whose job it is to hold said Cabinet to account. And that’s the basis of the Westminster model that Harder quite carefully ignores in his defence of said model’s mutability. You see, the real basis of the Westminster model is that of Responsible Government, and the exercise thereof needs both a government and an opposition to hold it to account, and that can replace the government when they lose confidence. Oh, but wait – the Senate isn’t a confidence chamber, you might be saying. And that’s right. But they still have a part to play in the exercise of accountability, whether it’s asking questions of the government in their own QP (which is why the Leader of the Government is supposed to be a cabinet minister), and why they have an absolute veto, which is a necessary check on executive power.

Harder’s other suggestion – that perhaps instead of an official opposition, there instead be an “opposition representative” to mirror his role as “government representative,” is as much about undermining the ability of senators to organise opposition to the government agenda as it is about extending his own power base among the independents. 101 loose fish cannot be an effective opposition force just as much as they cannot be a consensus body (not that the Senate’s role is consensus). Harder’s attempt to delegitimise the role of partisanship in the Senate has nothing to do with trying to respect the chamber’s constitutional role (which he uses revisionist history to assert) and everything to do with his own ambitions, and he’s willing to slay as many straw men along the way as it takes to convince everyone that he’s on the right path. Don’t let him get away with it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Partisan crybabies and skewered straw men

Posted on by

As machinations and protestations go, the current drama in the Senate is starting to try my patience, particularly because so many of the players seem to be getting drawn off onto silly tangents at the expense of the bigger picture. In particular, the Conservative senators continuing to push this conspiracy theory that all new independent senators are just Liberals in-all-but-name is really, really throwing them off the message that Senator Peter Harder is trying to destroy the Westminster traditions of the Senate, and has a stated goal of removing any sense of official opposition from the Chamber. But when the complaints about Harder’s machinations are drowned out by their conspiracy theorizing, they’re only harming their arguments by making themselves look petty. And it is concerning what Harder has been up to, his latest move being a closed-door meeting for all senators to “discuss short-term and long-term government business.” Add to this are a number of the more established independent senators, who previously felt shut out, excusing Harder’s actions because he’s trying to bring them in, oblivious to the fact that this is how he’s trying to build his little empire.

Add to this conversation comes former senator Hugh Segal who penned an op-ed for the Ottawa Citizen, bravely skewering straw men all around him about those darned partisan senators not giving up committee spots to independent senators (when he knows full well that it’s an ongoing process and that committees don’t get reconstituted until after a prorogation), and coming to the defence of Harder, with whom he worked together all of those years ago during the Mulroney government before Harder transitioned to the civil service. Poor Peter Harder, whose budget has been cruelly limited by all of those partisan senators and how he can’t get the same budget as Leaders of the Government in the Senate past (never mind that Harder has no caucus to manage, nor is he a cabinet minister as the Government Leader post is ostensibly). Gosh, the partisan senators are just being so unfair to him. Oh, please.

So long as people are content to treat this as partisan crybabies jealously guarding their territory, we’re being kept blind as to what Harder’s attempts to reshape the Senate are going to lead to. His attempts to dismantle the Westminster structure are not about making the chamber more independent – it’s about weakening the opposition to the government’s agenda. Trying to organise coherent opposition amongst 101 loose fish is not going to cut it, and Harder knows it. The Senate’s role as a check on the government is about to take a serious blow so long as people believe Harder’s revisionist history and back-patting about how great a non-partisan Senate would be. Undermining parliament is serious business, and we shouldn’t let them get away with it because we think it’s cute that it’s making the partisans angry.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A badly needed review

Posted on by

The Criminal Code is a mess. The government knows it, and the judicial system knows it, but the question is whether anyone has the guts to do anything about it – particularly because it’s been a particularly easy target to do one-off laws without worrying about the broader consequences. The number of private members’ bills dealing with singular tweaks to the Criminal Code are innumerable, because it’s seen as something that individual MPs can use to take a stand on some issue or another while at the same time considering it to be something that won’t impose a cost on the government as no dedicated spending must be attached to it that would otherwise require a Royal Recommendation. (This is wrong – there are tremendous costs attached to it, but it’s a loophole in the rules that there is no appetite to plug either). And when governments want to increase sentencing to look tough on an issue, they pass new laws to “crack down,” to the point where there is no semblance of a logical sentencing grid any longer. I remember sitting in on a Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee meeting during the Harper years when they were passing another marijuana bill and the Liberal senators were expressing frustration that things were such a mess that these new pot offences were giving more jail time than some child sex offences.

The government’s recent move to repeal some archaic laws around gay sex (including an unequal age of consent) is an example of one place where the government is doing something about a “zombie law” – one that has been struck down by the courts, but remains on the books because Parliament has yet to take the time to actually repeal it. (This was another case were the Conservatives outright refused to when given the opportunity when they were raising the age of consent for hetero teens). But there are plenty of zombie laws still sitting on the books and nothing is being done about them. The CBC has a look here at some of those laws, and expert urging to deal with them – particularly given that murder trial in Edmonton where the judge accidentally handed down a verdict that was predicated on a “zombie” law and he had to go back and give a lesser verdict after the fact to correct the mistake. Clearly this is a problem, but the government isn’t promising much action beyond vague assurances that these sorts of things will be part of their broader criminal justice review – the same review that will be looking at doing away with a number of mandatory minimum sentences. But this is something that they really do need to get cracking on, not only dealing with “zombie” laws, but also sentencing reform so that there is a coherent sentencing grid once again. Part of the problem, however, is that the justice minister and her office are moving at a glacial pace. Everything they’ve been doing, from judicial appointments to moving on certain bills, is taking far longer than it reasonably should, and that’s concerning especially when this criminal justice review is so badly needed. Let’s hope we hear more about it sooner rather than later.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The scourge of billionaires

Posted on by

If you thought that the temptation to blame elites for everything was simply the crass tactics of Kellie Leitch – herself among the most elite of elites – then you’d be wrong. Yesterday Rona Ambrose decided to take a page from the very same playbook and rail in a speech open to media about how the Liberals were elites who were *gasp!* meeting with billionaires to talk about investment opportunities in Canada. OH NOES! The horror of it all! And not just billionaires – billionaires from Beijing and Dubai! Because it never hurts to get a bit of a protectionist/xenophobic twist to your moral panic. But then again, the Conservatives never could decide if they actually wanted to attract or shut down foreign investment, as they left rules deliberately vague so that they could indulge their protectionist, populist impulses when it suited their needs politically.

Part of what’s galling is the real lack of self-awareness that Ambrose is displaying in this kind of speech. While she’s trying to take a populist tack, her examples are all poor ones to prove her case about those darn elites being against ordinary working folks. Leaving aside that as MPs, they are the elites, the examples of things like cancelling the children’s fitness tax credit don’t even fit their rhetoric. Why? Because the Liberal not only replaced those myriad of tax credits with a broad-based income tax cut, but also with far more generous and untaxed child benefit payments, while those tax credits were non-refundable, meaning that they were generally inaccessible to low-income Canadians who needed them, but rather were far more beneficial to higher-income families who had the money to spend on the sports or arts or whatever to get the full benefit of said credits. In other words, trying to make a “regular families” argument in the “us versus the elites” narrative doesn’t stand up to logic or reality. The fact that they are willing to start indulging in this kind of rhetoric should be alarming, because the last thing we want to do is start trading in the politics of resentment like we’ve seen in the States. Only madness lies that way.

Continue reading →

QP: Questions about NAFTA

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was off in Cuba, and after Rona Ambrose walked in her party’s newest MP, Glen Motz, she led off Question Period by wondering why the government would be so quick to be willing to renegotiate NAFTA. Navdeep Bains responded, talking about how they were looking to protect and advance Canada’s interests. Ambrose then moved onto the Infrastructure Bank, and wondered who would be backstopping overages, and Marc Garneau got up to praise how great infrastructure spending was, but didn’t really answer the question. Ambrose then moved onto Keystone XL and lamented that the PM was “silent” and misled energy workers. Jim Carr stood up to reassure her that they still supported it and the approvals were still in place, but the company themselves had to reapply to the US. Ambrose switched to French to return to the NAFTA question, and Bains repeated his earlier answer in English. Ambrose then pivoted again to UNRWA funding, accusing the government of using those funds to put Israeli citizens at risk. Marie-Claude Bibeau said that they were ensuring that there were robust controls, but they preferred Palestinian children in schools than on the streets.  Thomas Mulcair lamented instances of surveillance of journalists and demanded a full national public inquiry. Ralph Goodale insisted there were no ongoing operations, and they welcomed input from journalists and lawyers on improving the law. Mulcair switched in French to demand concrete steps to protect freedom of the press. Goodale insisted that there was no argument, that they had appropriate safeguards and were open to input on improving the law. Mulcair then switched to the issue of softwood lumber as part of trade deals, and Bains assured him that they were looking to protect Canadian interests. Mulcair switched to English to press the issue, and Bains insisted that they were looking for Canadian jobs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A blistering condemnation of Peter Harder

Posted on by

I’ve long held suspicions about the work that Senator Peter Harder, the “government representative” in the Senate, has been doing, and I will say that I was completely alarmed by some of the things brought to light by Liberal Senator James Cowan yesterday in his speech about Senate modernization. It’s a blistering speech, and I suggest you take the 25 minutes to listen to it all, but some highlights: Harder is engaging in revisionist history to claim that the Senate was never meant to be partisan (which is false), and he is trying to do away with the roles of government and opposition (which are integral to the Westminster system) in order to create a bureaucratic-like structure. In a chamber full of independents, there will be fewer checks on the government, and Harder will amass power by acting like the leader of the Senate as a whole, further weakening the chamber’s role as a check on the power of the executive. Harder has gone so far as to start offering to set up meetings with senators and the premiers of the provinces they represent – meeting he would be present at – which is completely improper and something a government representative should have no role in doing. It’s disturbing to listen to how his plans to reorganise the Chamber would take shape, and Cowan’s speech is blistering in its condemnation.

Continue reading →