For a second day in a row, all leaders were present in the Commons, ready to go for QP after a morning of caucus meetings. Rona Ambrose led off, asking about the secrecy over whether our Forces were on the front lines in Iraq. Justin Trudeau said that their role in assisting and training was important and dangerous but necessary work. Ambrose worried that the lack of transparency with no technical briefings, and Trudeau noted the need for operational security. Ambrose asked again in French, got the same response. From there, Ambrose went onto fundraising and tried to link ministers going to fundraisers with the former system in Ontario, and Trudeau reminded her that there are strict and transparent rules. She pressed again, but Trudeau responded a bit more forcefully. Thomas Mulcair kept up the fundraising questions, calling activities “unethical” and wanted tougher rules into law. Trudeau reiterated the strict federal laws, and they went another round of the same in French. Mulcair then moved onto funding for First Nations children, demanding support for their Supply Day motion on the subject tomorrow. Trudeau spoke about respect and working in partnership and the noted the investments to date. Mulcair asked again in English, and got much the same response.
Tag Archives: First Nations
QP: Demanding a firm commitment on Yazidis
All leaders, permanent or interim, were present for QP today, and it feels like a while since that has been the case. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, demanding to know how many Yazidi refugees the government would bring to Canada in the next 120 days. Trudeau thanked her for her leadership on the file, and committed to doing so, but didn’t provide a number. Ambrose asked about the call for Chancellor Merkel in Germany to create security zones in Iraq, and Trudeau committed to more aid for refugees. Ambrose moved onto CETA, and demanded Trudeau get on a plane and do anything necessary to get the deal signed. Trudeau reminded her that they already made progress on getting ISDS, and he expected good news in the coming days. Ambrose changed topics again, raised the Medicine Hat by-election as a pronouncement on the carbon tax schemes, and Trudeau promised more visits to Alberta. Ambrose then moved again, this time onto “cash-for-access” fundraisers, and Trudeau reminded her that the low personal limits in Canada ensured that there were no ethical problems. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and tried to go after the same issue, and Trudeau reminded him that looking south of the border, our system was well above and repeated that the low limits meant there were no ethical issues. Mulcair tried again in French, got the same answer, and then moved onto the situation at Muskrat Falls and the health of those Aboriginals who rely on fishing in the area. Trudeau reminded him that the provinces were working on the issue, and he trusted them, and they went one more round in English.
https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/790982900221091841
QP: Demanding adult supervision
Despite the fact that it was a Monday, none of the leaders save Elizabeth May were present in the Commons. Denis Lebel led off, blaming Chrystia Freeland for being unable to conclude the Canada-EU trade agreement, or any other trade agreement. Freeland insisted that Canada had done its job, but this was an internal dispute for the EU to resolve and then come back to Canada, and that she remained committed to it. Lebel repeated the question in English word-for-word, and Freeland elaborated on her answer. Lebel demanded that the PM head to Europe to salvage the deal — as though that was how negotiations work, and Freeland started getting feistier about the previous government’s record. Gerry Ritz picked up the torch, and took on a more bullying tone with a pair of questions that belittled Freeland for her visible emotion in Brussels, and saying that she needed the “adult supervision” of the Prime Minister. Freeland had none of it, and hit back on the previous government’s record on the stalled agreement and expensive signing ceremonies for a deal that wasn’t done. Murray Rankin led off for the NDP, and kept up the same topic, but from the angle that they needed to drop the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism. Freeland listed socialist governments in Europe who had signed onto the deal, trying to prove it’s not just an ideological divide. Niki Ashton then got up to decry the comments from the Finance Minister about “job churn,” decrying precarious work. MaryAnn Mihychuk said that the new work environment had a lot to do with technology but they were helping Canadians. Ashton demanded that Morneau and the PM attend their precarious job summit, to which Mihychuk reminded her that they have a youth workers council.
I guess this is to be expected. But CPC's line on this today is transparently disingenuous.
— Michael Den Tandt (@mdentandt) October 24, 2016
Conservatives demand Trudeau put an "adult at the table" to get CETA done – which seems to be an unsubtle dig that a girl can't do it.
— Tonda MacCharles (@TondaMacC) October 24, 2016
Roundup: Lamenting the regional ministries
Agriculture minister Lawrence MacAulay told his local paper that he’s not too concerned that the minister in charge of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency isn’t from the region, but that he’s a Central Canadian, but hey, he’s gotten results so it’s all good. And then people went insane because how dare the government not have a regional development minister from the region, ignoring that the policy of this government has been to eschew the tradition of regional ministers writ large, and that all regional development agencies all report to the same minister – the industry minister – rather than spreading it around to a number of ministers of state (and bloating the size of cabinet while you’re at it). And then from there comes the perennial outrage that we have regional representation at the cabinet level, which ignores that cabinet positions are not actually something that requires subject matter expertise, but that it’s a political position that is largely based on managerial competence, which is fine, particularly under a system of Responsible Government that the legislature can hold them to account for the performance of their duties. After all, they have the civil service to do the subject-matter expertise part for them, and it’s the job of ministers to make decisions that they can then be held to account for. But a few of the exchanges were at least worth noting.
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/790304049916698624
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/790320546814824449
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/790323018631348225
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/790323328108130304
Most of those were all well and good, but this one from Candice Bergen caught my eye, because it actually highlights something that has largely been ignored.
Eliminating Regional Economic Agency & Regional Ministers centralizes power in PMO & gives them ability to push certain provinces around. https://t.co/IGCyFdnFa4
— Candice Bergen Harris (@CandiceBergen_) October 23, 2016
While it may be a little overwrought, the point about centralizing power in the PMO is actually quite astute, and fits the pattern of centralization that Trudeau has been entirely underreported. Within the Liberal Party itself, Trudeau has convinced the party to abolish its regional powerbases and centralize it all within his own office under the guise of “modernization” and “being more responsive.” Once could very well argue that eliminating regional minister has a similar effect. That said, one could also argue that the purpose of regional minister was about pork-barrelling and doing the partisan work of securing votes from those very same regions for the government’s benefit, so their loss wouldn’t be too deeply felt in a move to make a system built to be more responsive to evidence than political consideration. Regardless, the propensity of this prime minister to consolidate power should not be underestimated, and this is something we should absolutely be keeping an eye on.
QP: The menace of millionaires
Despite it being Thursday, there were no leaders present in the Commons today (save Elizabeth May), Justin Trudeau at an Amazon fulfilment centre opening in the GTA, and the others, well, elsewhere. Denis Lebel led off for the opposition, decrying the government not respecting provincial jurisdiction regarding healthcare, and Jane Philpott immediately hit back that the previous government didn’t much care for the file and they were making investments. Lebel asked again in English, and Philpott noted that previous investments did not transform the system as was necessary, which they were engaged in. Lebel then moved onto that Bill Morneau fundraiser in Halifax, and Bardish Chagger stood to take that bullet, assuring him that all rules were obeyed. Candice Bergen took over, decrying the appointment to the Port Authority one of the attendees. Chagger repeated her answer in English, and Bergen took her through one more round of the same. Murray Rankin led off for the NDP, his first time as their new House Leader, and he carried on the same line of questioning. Chagger’s answer didn’t change, leaving it for Brigitte Sansoucy to ask again in French, no avail. Sansoucy moved onto the investments in mental health, to which Philpott insisted that this was not a political issue but one of a responsibility to Canadians and ensuring that the investments translated in better access to care. Rankin asked the same again in English, and Philpott responded with an edge in her tone, assuring him that she does not play politics with mental health.
QP: A scrappy anniversary
At long last, all leaders were in the Commons, and Rona Ambrose led off by immediately demanding that the PM stop meeting with billionaires and restoring those boutique tax cuts that the government got rid of. Justin Trudeau reminded her of the tax cuts they made across the board to the middle class. Ambrose worried that the new mortgage housing rules hurting families. Trudeau replied that he was bringing investment into the country and listed the companies that have been moving more operations to Canada. Ambrose went another round in French, and Trudeau listed the ways in which they’ve helped families. Ambrose moved onto the issue of the healthcare accord, decrying waitlists. Trudeau said that Canadians expect healthcare dollars to be spent on healthcare. Ambrose then moved onto the “carbon fuel tax” impacting Alberta, but Trudeau hit back that the last government couldn’t get Alberta’s resources to markets after a decade in power. Thomas Mulcair was up next, decrying a Bill Morneau fundraising event in Halifax which he called “cash for access.” Trudeau insisted that the rules were already the most stringent and they followed them. Mulcair moved onto healthcare funding and the lack of an accord with the provinces, and Trudeau reiterated his previous answer about ensuring dollars are properly spent. Mulcair then moved onto a pair of questions on electoral reform and demanded a proportional system. Trudeau recalled when Mulcair was afraid the Liberals would ram though a new system, and that it was curious that Mulcair was demanding they do just that.
EVERY VOTE ALREADY COUNTS. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 19, 2016
Wait, so apparently Canadians "deserve" a proportional system. Okay then. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 19, 2016
QP: Tributes for Prentice
Half of the leaders were present in the Commons today, and after some tributes for the late Jim Prentice from all parties and a moment of silence, QP got underway. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on desk, asked about the size of the deficit, which is more than had been promised. After a quick rebuke about making investments, Justin Trudeau gave a tribute to Prentice of his own. Ambrose was concerned that jobs were not being created and demanded that he stop spending and focus on jobs instead. Trudeau noted that the Conservative approach didn’t create growth, while he was cutting taxes for the middle class. Ambrose then mischaracterized a whole list of things as taxes before decrying the possibility of a Netflix tax. Trudeau repeated his response about cutting taxes on the middle class. Denis Lebel was up next, decrying the lack of a softwood lumber agreement and how it was hurting families. Trudeau responded with the list of ways they are helping families. Lebel doubled down on the softwood lumber agreement, and Trudeau agreed that they were concerned about the file, but the former government’s broken relationship with the Americans didn’t help. Peter Julian led off for the NDP, demanding money for home care while mischaracterizing the changes to health care escalators. Trudeau reminded him that the Harper approach to healthcare was to write a check and not ensure that the money was spent on healthcare. Julian demanded that the health transfer escalator remain at six percent for another year, but Trudeau was not responsive to his logic. Brigitte Sansoucy repeated both questions again in French, and got much the same response from Trudeau in French.
It's the Netflix Tax™! OH NOES! #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 17, 2016
Peter Julian tries to assert that a funding increase is a cut. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 17, 2016
Roundup: About those revocations…
Everyone has been making a big deal about citizenship revocation lately, particularly post-Maryam Monsef birthplace revelation, but as it turns out, the situation is not as black-and-white as presented, particularly in some media depictions like this one from CBC. So the former chief of staff for the department sent out a tweet-storm of context and correction that is worth reading, and shows why it’s wrong to conflate that issue with the other revocations that are taking place. This is also interesting context to add to the questions that John McCallum faced in Senate QP last week where he stated that he’d look into a moratorium on these revocations that are happening without much in the way of due process or an appeal mechanism, but it does shape the issue in a different fashion, so again, it does give pause as to what the moratorium being demanded is really asking for. It’s something to keep an eye on, but for now, here’s that boatload of context for consideration.
1/ So much sloppiness in this article, hard to know where to begin. Have to really parse it to find useful info. https://t.co/irQUpA0fhW
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
2/ Nancy Caron's comments on behalf of the Dept are the most useful part of the article. She describes the problem and process well.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
3/ But failure to distinguish up front the types of fraud at issue in these cases makes the story blurry and misleading.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
4/ For example, the overwhelming majority of these revocations are for people who lied about being resident in Cda long enough to qualify.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
5/ None of these are refugees (or they wouldn't be going back to their country of persecution). So right there is an important difference.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
6/ Second, the power to revoke citizenship for misrepresentation predates Bill C-24. It's always been the law, for obvious reasons.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
7/ Reasons so obvious Trudeau rightly supported them during the campaign. This has nothing to do w/ revoking citizenship of legit citizens.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
8/ If someone says they've been living in Cda for 3 yrs to qualify for citizenship and they've just been using a fake address, that's fraud
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
9/ They are not legit citizens who have subsequently done something to justify revoking properly granted citizenship.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
10/ Whether govt should have power to revoke properly granted citizenship for treason (as it could before 1977) or terrorism (C-24) or …
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
11/ taking up arms against Cdn soldiers in the field is a legitimate but separate debate, which this article confuses with fraud revocations
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
12/ Third, as Caron notes, the acceleration is due to the fact that these cases require extensive investigation. When the previous govt …
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
13/ made revocation for fraud a priority (bc support for our immigration system requires faith it is being well-policed), it took time …
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
14/ we are only now seeing the fruits of those early efforts. So comparing numbers of revocations between govts is not all that helpful.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
15/ The residency fraud CIC uncovered was staggering. Eg, hundreds of applicants using one fake address. Abuse is a large and real problem.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
16/ It ultimately undermines public faith in our immigration system to ignore it. Good for the Liberals for continuing the fraud crackdown.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
17/ But media makes this harder when it lumps very different issues (meaningless numbers, C-24, C-6, residency fraud, refugees) together.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
19/ Monsef's case is interesting, but it's part of a tiny and anomalous subset of the much easier non-refugee residency fraud issue.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
20/ And it's important not to conflate the two or even discuss them in the same breath. Fin. (Erratum: skipped 18)
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
Roundup: What free market mechanism?
The Conservative reaction to the imposition of a federal minimum carbon price has been fascinating, in part because of just how counterfactual it would be to how an actual conservative party would behave. You would think that an actual small-c conservative party would believe in market principles and would think that imposing price incentives (the carbon price) would be great because it would force the market to innovate to reduce the costs associated, hence reducing the carbon emissions in the least onerous way possible with the costs being fully transparent.
But no. We don’t actually have a small-c conservative party in this country, we have right-flavoured populists who would rather rail about “taxes on everything” and give sad homilies about how hard done by the workers of this country are, and how carbon taxes are just letting millionaires claim tax credits on the backs of the ordinary people of this country. No, seriously – these are things that the Conservatives have said in QP. And Rona Ambrose then goes on TV and says that the government should be regulating major emitters in a way that won’t cost consumers (never mind that regulations are the most costly mechanism available and it simply hides the true costs). It’s mind-boggling.
Remember when the Conservatives were the party that believed in market economics? Now it’s regulating big companies. #PnPCBC
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 6, 2016
Apparently you can just regulate emissions away, and nobody has to change any behaviours.
Because magic. #PnPCBC— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 6, 2016
Ambrose: “We have to target where emissions come from.”
You mean like consumer behaviour, with price incentives? #PnPCBC— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 6, 2016
.@journo_dale pic.twitter.com/T54OZau4Ly
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 6, 2016
And so we now have all but one leadership candidate railing about carbon taxes, and the only one who agrees with carbon pricing, Michael Chong, insists that this is the wrong way to do it, that it should be revenue neutral for the taxpayer (never mind that provinces could institute that if they want, but they are given the flexibility to do with as they choose). Meanwhile, Paul Wells takes a torch to Lisa Raitt’s overwrought homilies about the poor people suffering under carbon taxes, and applies a little math to the analysis, which doesn’t fare well for Raitt. Likewise, Andrew Coyne laments the lack of a serious discussion on carbon pricing as the cheapest and least onerous way to reduce emissions. But this is currently the state of conservative politics in this country.
Roundup: Debating useless rule changes
Yesterday was “debate the House rules” day in the Commons, and lo, there was some talk about eliminating Friday sittings again, which the opposition parties tend to be against, but fear the government will try to ram through anyway. And yes, we all know that Fridays are not like any other day, particularly because MPs need to get back to their ridings, but there are still debate hours that happen, and eliminating them means either making up for them elsewhere, or losing them altogether, after we’ve lost plenty of debate hours in the past number of years, all to be more “family friendly” with spring breaks and so on. Kady O’Malley followed the debate (I would have more if I didn’t have other deadlines to file), and some of the best and worst are below.
Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen raises the intriguing prospect of scrapping whip-provided lists in favour of first-show-up-first-speak.
— kady o'malley (@kady) October 6, 2016
A definite groundswell (relatively speaking) of support for enforcing the no-notes provisions of the rules – in debate AND during QP.
— kady o'malley (@kady) October 6, 2016
Eliminating whip/House leader-provided speaking lists absolutely needs to happen. It removes agency from MPs and is part of what has debased QP into this scripted farce and turned debate on legislation into nothing of the sort. If you take away the lists – and then ban the scripts – it will help to make the debate free-flowing once again rather than just exercises in reading speeches into the void.
A Conservative MP bemoans the proliferation of canned talking points. He wants speeches to 'grow naturally from the speaker's own mind".
— kady o'malley (@kady) October 6, 2016
Oh, the irony. The bitter, bitter irony.
Anyway, Doherty also thinks ALL MPs should have the ability to table documents, not just ministers. (Everyone else needs consent.)
— kady o'malley (@kady) October 6, 2016
I am dubious, as we would have people tabling all manner of nonsense to “prove” whatever they were saying in QP, almost all of it irrelevant. (Also, look up the story about the tabled hamburger from the Alberta legislature that they ended up preserving).
Oooo NDP MP Christine Moore brings up the parallel chamber for private members' business.
— kady o'malley (@kady) October 6, 2016
No. We do not need to privilege private members’ business any more than we already do. Most of it is out of hand, with useless and costly Criminal Code piecemeal amendments, more national strategies than you can shake a proverbial stick at, and even more bills to declare national days for every issue under the sun. The proliferation of PMBs is already out of hand, we don’t need to make it that much worse.
"The demand for MPs in June" — as opposed to January — "is high," according to Lamoureux.
— kady o'malley (@kady) October 6, 2016
He actually has an interesting suggestion: Sit more days in January, fewer in June.
— kady o'malley (@kady) October 6, 2016
So…turning the summer break from three months to four? No. But do feel free to sit more days in January regardless.
I like the idea of giving the opposition parties the power to schedule take-note debates: 2 per session for official, 1 for the 3rd.
— kady o'malley (@kady) October 6, 2016
Not unless we start insisting that supply days start being about actually debating supply once again.
"A parallel chamber would allow for more take-note debates" – YAY! – "and more members' statements." *pointed silence*
— kady o'malley (@kady) October 6, 2016
Because Parliament is just a debating chamber for hobbyhorses? Because there isn’t actual work that needs to get done?
Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu has an intriguing suggestion for rejigging the daily schedule: gov't bills debated on Tues, PMB on Thurs…
— kady o'malley (@kady) October 6, 2016
… and the rest of the time would be devoted to committee work, I think? There would still be a daily QP, though.
— kady o'malley (@kady) October 6, 2016
Not unless parties start agreeing that second reading debates be severely curtailed, and that debate on government bills can collapse relatively quickly. But seriously, committee work already happens while debates are going on in the Chamber so I don’t see the point of this. At all.
The House of Commons is also not a business, and should not be run as if it were one.
— kady o'malley (@kady) October 6, 2016
Amen.
Strahl also wants to warn his colleagues that changing the standing orders is not going to fix a skewed work/life balance.
— kady o'malley (@kady) October 6, 2016
Seriously. I can’t believe that this actually needs to be pointed out.