Tag Archives: Ethics Commissioner

Roundup: Mandate letter madness

Posted on by

Yesterday was the big day that the mandate letters for the new cabinet minister were finally released, and the Cabinet committees got a bit shake-up. You can get an overview of the letters here, and some deeper analysis on what’s being asked of Jim Carr in international trade, Dominic LeBlanc in intergovernmental affairs, and Jonathan Wilkinson in fisheries. Reading through the letters, however, I found that almost all of the new letters – either with established ministries or with the new ones that they are establishing – were all giving them specific direction on which other ministers they should be working with to achieve specific goals. Very few of them were goals that they were to pursue on their own, which I find to be very curious from a governance perspective.

The big question mark remains around Bill Blair and just what he’s supposed to do as Minister of Looking Tough on Stuff – err, “border security and organized crime reduction.” We got no insight as to whether he has any actual operational control over a department or an agency like CBSA. Rather, his list of goals included looking at a ban on handguns and assault rifles as part of the existing Bill C-71, and that as part of his duties in relation to the border, he should have discussions with the Americans about the Safe Third Country agreement, but it was all rather vague. (There was also some talk about opioid smuggling as part of his border security duties, for what it’s worth). Nevertheless, it was another one of those letters that was focused on which other ministers he’s supposed to be working with as opposed to providing oversight of a ministry, which I find weird and a bit unsettling as to what this means for how the machinery of government works under Trudeau.

Meanwhile, the number of Cabinet committees was reduced, and some of the files that certain of these committees were overseeing got shuffled around. We’ll see how this affects governance, but it’s all a peek into the sausage-making of governance (which, it bears reminding, that the Ford government in Ontario refuses to give any insight into as he refuses to release his own ministers’ mandate letters).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh’s pipeline waffle

Posted on by

On yesterday’s Power & Politics, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh gave an interview that was probably as close to a car crash as I’ve seen him give to date, which should probably start to worry some people. His insistence that he’s in this “for people” is baffling, because that seems to be the most basic, elementary thing that politicians are in politics for. He spoke about the “housing crisis” that the federal government is supposed to do something about (he won’t exactly say what, because in places like Vancouver, supply is an issue), he rattled off the lie that the federal government had cut healthcare (a changed escalator is not a cut, and that particular lie went unchallenged), and he insists that he can do more as an opposition member to make the government keep promises than a Liberal backbencher could. (This kind of spin is something that the Liberals will play with the exact reverse – that a backbencher can do more because they can talk to ministers in the caucus room). He also denied that seeking this seat was because of caucus pressure to get a seat (this was indeed an issue), and is promising to move there if he wins (and good luck finding a house in that market, even to rent), but won’t say what he’ll do if he doesn’t win (and it was a close three-way race in the last election).

The more painful part of the interview, however, had to do with his commentary on the current spat with Saudi Arabia, during which Singh started pontificating about energy sovereignty, and not getting oil from the Saudis any longer. Okay, great – they currently supply a mere 11 percent of Canadian oil imports, so that’s not a big deal, but energy sovereignty means pipelines going west-to-east, which the NDP had a big problem with already in a proposal called Energy East. But when asked about pipelines, Singh deflected and started talking about refineries, which is a different thing altogether. Falling back on NDP catchphrases like “value-added” and “rip-and-ship,” his argument not only didn’t make any sense (the question wasn’t refineries – but that is an issue because East Coast refineries aren’t built to handle western heavy crude), particularly economically (seriously, there’s a reason why we haven’t built new refineries and have in fact shuttered others), it ignored the question about how you have energy sovereignty without pipelines that will run through Quebec – a voter base that the NDP is desperate to hold onto.

He’s been leader for almost a year now – this kind of talking point word salad is getting a bit thin for someone who should be able to provide answers on issues of the day, and who shouldn’t just fall on reheating non sequitur talking points. But this is what the party chose (well, in as much as we’ll see how many of those memberships stay active).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Covering up non-existent data

Posted on by

With the Conservatives still railing about the supposed Carbon Tax Cover-Up™ (yes, Pierre Poilievre is still trying to make fetch happen), their allies are trying to get in on the action. Jason Kenney tried, and Andrew Leach took him to task for it – and it’s some pretty crucial context because pretty much everything he and the Conservatives are saying is utter bunk. But they’ve set up the narrative that this document they’re demanding is some kind of smoking gun, because they’re building the narrative that this is all some cash grab by a government dire to pay for its spending (never mind that the revenues are going back to the province from which it was collected and not federal coffers, but the truth has never mattered here).

Later in the day, Lisa Raitt tweeted about how one gas station in her riding lowered its prices and there were line-ups around the block! People are struggling! Carbon taxes will devastate families! Again, Leach took her to task, especially the point that this is the whole point about carbon taxes – to change behaviours through price signals. You know, something a free market conservative should espouse (but Raitt is not a free market conservative, but a right-flavoured populist, and said as much during her leadership campaign).

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne points out the fact that what the Conservatives are demanding is a mix of publicly available data combined with provincial implementation and offsets that nobody has yet, so the government can’t actually provide the data (as some of us have been saying for weeks now), while adding that there is more than a little hypocrisy for a party that keeps demanding disclosure but won’t offer any of their own when it comes to their own supposed plan. But hey, this is about politics and coming up with a scary number that won’t have any proper context or that makes assumptions that no behaviours will change, which misses the point. But, as I’ve said time and again, this isn’t about the truth. This is about the Conservatives building a scary straw man to go to war against, because that’s how they think they’ll win in 2019. And maybe it’ll work. Time will tell.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another useless voting marathon

Posted on by

Unless a miracle happens and someone buckles, MPs will still be voting when this post goes live, because the Conservatives decided to demand another marathon vote session on the Estimates in order to prove a point. The point was that they want the government to table a document prepared by the public service about carbon pricing, which allegedly shows the fiscal impact – but it was redacted when released. The Conservatives see this as the smoking gun they need to “prove” that the federal carbon price backstop is a cash grab. Err, except the federal government isn’t keeping the revenues, and the provinces have until this fall to announce how they will be recycling the revenues, whether through tax cuts or whatnot, and lo, the government last month tabled a report that basically showed the efficacy of carbon pricing and that they’re waiting for the provinces to announce what their systems will be.

The Conservatives decided that their pressure tactic would be another round of line-by-line Estimates – because that worked so well the last time when they tried to force a meeting on the Atwal Affair™, only to buckle before votes could go into the weekend, and then they blamed the government for creating their own discomfort. Kind of like blaming someone else for when you hit yourself in the face on purpose to get attention. “You made me do this!” they cried. No, they didn’t, and worse, it was not only tactically incompetent (the votes had nothing to do with the demand then, and it doesn’t this time either), but by overplaying their hand, they voted against line items in the Estimates for things like funding veterans pensions or public services, all of which went into attack lines. And this time, because the government scheduled the vote for 10:30 PM, the fact that the Conservatives forced the 200 votes rather than the single vote means that Liberal MPs can complain that the Conservatives were keeping them from attending Eid celebrations in their ridings at dawn (some of them going so far as to cry Islamophobia). It’s a reach, and both sides are self-righteous about this, but come on.

As for the Conservatives’ demand, well, it’s a lot of disingenuous nonsense because the costs will be determined by how the revenues are recycled, which the federal government has no control over. Poilievre has been trying the semantic arguments that because it’s a federally-imposed tax that they need to know what the impact will be, focusing only on the cost before revenues are recycled, which is again, disingenuous and the precursor to misinformation. And if they were so concerned, they can do the analysis themselves – as Andrew Leach points out. But they don’t want to do that – this is all cheap theatre, performative outrage that the government is “covering up” information that they’re characterising as something it’s not. But as truth and context have become strangers in this parliament, none of this is unexpected.

Continue reading →

QP: Conflicts, subsidies, and elections

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was off in Charlevoix, and Andrew Scheer in Laval as part of his “listening to Quebeckers” tour, there were no leaders in the Commons today except for Elizabeth May. Candice Bergen led off, raising new allegations from the Globe and Mail about the Arctic surf clam fishery, to which Dominic LeBlanc assured her the allegation was false, before reminding her that they included Indigenous people in the fishery when the previous government didn’t. Bergen reiterated the previous allegations about the process including the accusation that his family will benefit, and this time LeBlanc was a little more sharp in his reiteration that the allegations are false, and the fact that he has no family connection in the case. Bergen demanded that the prime minister remove him from the file, and LeBlanc assured her that he would cooperate with the Ethics Commissioner, but pointedly reminded her that she should stick to the facts. Jacques Gourde took over to ask the same again in French, and LeBlanc called out the fact that they were simply reiterating the same falsehoods in French. After a second round of the same, Ruth Ellen Brosseau led off for the NDP, demanding an end to fossil fuel subsidies by 2019 and to know how much would be given to Kinder Morgan. Bill Morneau got up to say that they were on track to phase out subsidies by 2020, and that they were still talking with Kinder Morgan. Nathan Cullen reiterated the same in English, with a heap of added sanctimony, to which Morneau repeated his same answer. Cullen then got up to moralise about  getting multi-party support for the elections bill, to which Karina Gould praised it going to committee to get the “study and interrogation” that it deserves. Brosseau repeated the same in French, and got the same response.

Continue reading →

QP: Elections, Hamas, and subsidies

Posted on by

On a pleasant Wednesday afternoon in the nation’s capital, the benches were full in the Commons as MPs gathered for what was not only Question Period, but the practice of proto-Prime Ministers Questions, something that has never quite worked out in practice. Andrew Scheer led off, concerned about the electoral reform bill, and the fact that it would allow for American-funded groups to campaign and that the government could make announcements on taxpayer’s funds. Trudeau reminded him that most of those changes were recommendations from Elections Canada, and the previous government tried to ruin our electoral system. Scheer then asked why the government didn’t choose their first candidate for Chief Electoral Officer, to which Trudeau took up a script to read about how great the chosen candidate is. Scheer then changed topics to demand that Trudeau walk back on his statement about the shootings in Gaza and blame Hamas, to which Trudeau said that he spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu about the incident and the fact that a Canadian civilian doctor was shot by an Israeli sniper, and that demanded an investigation. Scheer took exception to this, insisting that Israel goes out of its way to protect civilians, and Trudeau chastised Scheer for politicising the Israeli question. Scheer railed that Trudeau was not condemning Hamas and that they were the ones who politicised the situation, and Trudeau responded by regaling him with Conservative protesters picketing the home of a Toronto Jewish leader who openly supported the Liberal party in the last election. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, demanding an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and Trudeau took up a script to say that they were working on their plan to phase out emissions and that Trans Mountain was part of that plan. Caron demanded to know the ceiling for the “subsidy” to Kinder Morgan, and Trudeau responded off the cuff that they have strengthened measures to ensure that Kinder Morgan got their approval and that it sends a signal that projects could get built. Jenny Kwan took over in English to reiterate the same questions, and Trudeau took up his script to reminder that the G7 plan was by 2025. Kwan railed that the government had no intention to phase out the subsidies, and Trudeau reiterate their commitment to growing the economy while lowering emissions. 

Continue reading →

QP: One of sixty first cousins

Posted on by

On the return of Parliament after a break week and Victoria Day, it was almost a pleasant surprise to see all of the leaders present – something that’s become increasingly rare of late. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he read some great concern that the prime minister had “ordered” Elections Canada to implement the changes of the electoral reform bill before it had even had any debate in the Commons. (Note: I don’t think the PM can issue such an order, because Elections Canada is arm’s length from the government). Justin Trudeau took up a script to read about how they were looking to reverse the changes that the previous government made to make it harder to vote. Scheer demanded that the government commit to not make any spending announcements during the pre-writ period, and this time Trudeau replied extemporaneously that the previous government made changes that were for their own benefit rather than making it easier for Canadians to vote. Scheer then read about the Dogwood initiative getting American funds, and how that was foreign funding interfering in Canadian elections, and Trudeau reminded him that they believe in things like freedom of speech and that they don’t brand groups as eco-terrorists. Scheer then changed tactics to ask about the carbon tax in French, citing disingenuous numbers about the impact on the GDP, and Trudeau reminded him that 80 percent of Canadians already live in jurisdictions with a carbon price. Scheer switched back to English to decry the increase in taxes on hard-working Canadians, and Trudeau reiterated that they are working with the provinces to have their own approaches to pricing carbon, and that the respect for provincial jurisdiction was lacking from the previous government. Guy Caron was up next, and concern trolled that the government hadn’t abolished subsidies for oil companies, and Trudeau didn’t so much respond as say that they promised to grow the economy while reducing emissions. Caron then equated any investment in Trans Mountain to a subsidy and demanded to know how much they would spend on it, and Trudeau reminded him that they don’t negotiate in public. Rachel Blaney reiterated the question in English, insinuating that the government were no longer forward-looking, and Trudeau reiterated his response before adding that they strengthened the process around Trans Mountain. Blaney made the link between billons for Kinder Morgan and boil-water advisories on First Nations, and Trudeau reminded her that they are on track to ending boil-water advisories, and the NDP should listen to those First Nations that support the pipeline.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unnecessary proposal to cover for abdicated responsibility

Posted on by

When Parliament resumes next week, and the final push of legislation before the summer break starts, I can pretty much guarantee that there will be some gnashing and wailing of teeth in the Senate about the crush of bills headed their way, and the fact that there isn’t a plan to manage it. And from Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, we’ll get a reminder that he’s proposed a business committee to do said managing of the Order Paper. And lo, in Policy Options yesterday, we got an endorsement of the notion of a business committee from a former political science professor, Paul G. Thomas, which read a lot like it was could have been commissioned by Harder’s office.

To wit: One of the reasons why I object to the creation of a business committee is because it will create a powerful clique that will determine the legislative agenda of the chamber in a manner that has the very real possibility of trampling on the rights of individual senators in the name of expediency. Currently the rules allow for any senator to speak to any item on the Order Paper on any day – something Thomas notes has the potential to delay business, but under most circumstances, this can be managed through negotiation, and if abused, a vote can be used to clear that obstruction. But what Thomas’ glowing endorsement of the notion of a committee ignores is the fact that sometimes, it can take time for a senator who sees a problem with legislation to rally other senators to the cause. We have seen examples of that in the current parliament, with bills like S-3, which wound up getting majority support from senators to fix the flaws in the bill, or even with the amendments to the omnibus transportation bill last week, where Senator Griffin’s speech convinced enough senators that there was a real problem that the amendment was meant to correct. Having a business committee strictly lay out timelines will stifle the ability for the Senate to do its work when sometimes it needs time to do the work properly.

One of the reason why this kind of committee should be unnecessary is because the Senate has operated for 151 years on the basis of the caucuses negotiating the timelines they need at daily “scroll meetings,” but it requires actual negotiation for it to happen, and since Harder took on the role of Government Leader, he has eschewed his responsibilities to do so, believing that any horse-trading is partisan. Several of the new Independent senators follow a similar mindset, which is a problem. And while Thomas acts as Harder’s apologist in trying to downplay the criticism that a business committee will simply allow Harder to stage manage the legislative process – and it is a possibility that he could, but only in a situation where there are no party caucuses any longer, and that the Senate is 105 loose fish that he could co-opt as needed – my more immediate concern is that he would use the committee to avoid his actual responsibilities of negotiation and shepherding the government’s agenda, more so than he already has. We already don’t know what he’s doing with this $1.5 million budget and expansive staff, so if he is able to fob off even more responsibility onto this clique, what else does that leave him to do with his budget and staff? It’s a question we still don’t have any answers to, and yet another reason why the creation of such a committee is likely to lead to more problems than it does solutions that aren’t actually necessary if he did his job.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Border agent woes

Posted on by

When the House of Commons returns on Tuesday, it’s a pretty safe bet to say that the news that the Canada Border Services Agency is shifting customs agents from the GTA to the Quebec border is going to be one of the main topics of conversation. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that it’ll come up in Question Period on the first day back. Why? Because amidst this news, a memo from Air Canada pilots claims that they may face delays of up to an hour, being kept on the tarmac because of this lack of agents. There are denials all around (and I’m a bit skeptical myself – I can see big lines in the airport, but I have a hard time seeing why they’d detain them on the tarmac), but the line is going to be that Trudeau is making you wait on the tarmac because he can’t enforce the law on the border.

It’s not exactly true, of course. Whether we see actual delays at airports remains to be seen, but the continued insistence that he can somehow snap his fingers and the border will somehow seal itself is this specious bit of political fiction that nobody wants to seem to own up to. I’ve written about this before – he can’t unilaterally declare the entire border to be an official port of entry, nor can he amend the Safe Third Country Agreement because that requires the buy-in of the Americans, and that’s not going to happen. If he suspends the agreement, like the NDP demands, that will cause a flood at border crossings of people who are jurisdiction shopping while making asylum claims, which was the whole reason the agreement was made in the first place. Direct engagement with the communities where the influx is coming from had success with the Haitian community and the government is looking to repeat it with Nigeria, where most of the new claimants are coming from (and no one has yet explained why that’s the case), but we’ll see when they can actually start engaging.

What this does illustrate is that the government still has a way to go in order to re-capitalize CBSA and ensure that they have enough border guards and customs agents. (They also need to fill vacancies in the Immigration and Refugee Board, and to give them additional resources, but that hasn’t been happening expeditiously either). And yes, this is something that Conservatives can share in the blame with as well, because they cut CBSA to the point where they were having to suspend a number of programmes like screening for drugs being exported, and they had to let go of most of their sniffer dogs because they no longer had the budget. Will this light a fire under the government to properly rebuild their capacity? We’ll see. They insist they’re re-investing but it may be of little use if the situation sounds as dire as it is right now with these rotations in and out of the border crossing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sending amendments back a second time

Posted on by

There’s drama with the Senate, after they sent back the omnibus transport bill back to the Commons a second time, after the government rejected several of the nineteen amendments proposed. We haven’t seen this happen in twelve years, that last time being in 2006 when there was back-and-forth on Harper’s Accountability Act, when he had a minority in the Commons, and the Liberals had a majority in the Senate, giving them the necessary leverage. But while much of the focus is on whether or not there’s going to be a constitutional crisis over this (there’s not, and quit being such drama queens about it), there is actually some nuance here that should be explored a bit more.

There are a couple of reasons why the Senate eventually voted to insist on some of the amendments, and one of those had to do with the way it creates unfairness for the Maritimes when it comes to rail transportation rates, as there is a monopoly in the region. What’s very interesting about this is the fact that after PEI Senator Diane Griffin made her speech about the regional unfairness, all subsequent debate became spontaneous and unscripted – something we almost never see in either chamber. This is how Parliament should work, and based on that speech, some senators changed their votes, which shows that the process does work as it’s supposed to, from time to time. It also shows that the Senate is fulfilling its role when it comes to standing up for regions, as they are doing for the Maritimes in this case. (Griffin, incidentally, says she’ll likely back down if the Commons rejects the amendments a second time).

The other reason the Senate is sending these amendments back, however, is the fact that when the government rejected them, they didn’t offer an explanation as to why, and this is important (and I haven’t seen anyone reporting this fact). And this puts the onus on the government, because they owe senators that explanation as to why their sober second thought is being rejected. Just about a year ago, when the Senate sent back amendments to the budget implementation bill, the House rather snippily stated that such amendments would impede the privileges of the Commons – but never stated how they would do so. While the Senate passed the bill, they did send a message back to the Commons that yes, they do have the ability to amend budget bills thank you very much, but they did make sure to let Bardish Chagger know their displeasure the next time she appeared at Senate QP, where they wanted the explanation as to how the amendments would impact the Commons’ privileges (and she never did give them an answer). Trudeau keeps saying he respects the independence of the Senate, but he should demonstrate that respect by offering explanations and not treating the work of the Senate in such a dismissive manner.

Continue reading →