The Liberal government is now six months old, so everyone is checking in on the list of their promises kept and broken. This one list, compiled from the “Trudeau Meter,” however, is a bit nitpicky on some of those “broken” promises, calling them broken because there was no mention in this year’s budget when there are three more years of budgets left in the current mandate, and it’s pretty hard to expect everything to have happened in the first six months of a government, when there are a lot of moving pieces to keep track of. In other words, give them a little more time before you declare all of these promises broken. The deficit figures for this year continue to look better than anticipated as the Fiscal Monitor shows continued surpluses into the spring months (which the Conservatives will be insufferable about in QP next week, I can promise you), but that may be because CRA is apparently having a banner year in terms of collecting lapsed taxes, up to an extra $1 billion so far. So there’s that. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have the challenge of trying to stay united during this period of transition for their party, particularly as the leadership contest starts to intensify. As for the NDP, they’re now struggling to remain relevant six months later. So there’s that.
Tag Archives: First Nations
Roundup: Responsible, not rogue
A Liberal MP has broken ranks on a government bill! Oh noes! Let us now treat this as some kind of crisis of leadership! Okay, so the CBC piece about the event is only slightly more measured than that, but their Twitter headline certainly wasn’t.
Just doing his job, Liberal MP goes rogue https://t.co/VQMoYN8C9i #cdnpoli #hw
— CBC Politics (@CBCPolitics) April 28, 2016
One of the most enduring problems with Canadian political reporting is the constant conundrum of demanding that MPs exercise more independence, but immediately treating any instances of MPs breaking party ranks as some kind of crisis of leadership, where obviously the grip has been lost and soon it will be all over for the leader. (In some cases, the party itself treats it as some kind of betrayal of solidarity *cough*NDP*cough* and punishes its MPs internally with things like removing QP spots for weeks or removing members from committees or travel junkets). Ditto with senators, or at least until Trudeau kicked his senators out of national caucus – “is the leader losing control of his senators?” was not an uncommon headline either (though not one that is generally screamed as loudly, and one might also add that not enough ink was spilled on the split in caucus over Bill C-377 – the “union transparency” bill – the first time around when they voted to gut it, and Marjory LeBreton stepped down as Government Leader a couple of weeks later after seriously mishandling the whole thing inside her caucus). And yes, Trudeau did promise more free votes, but this is one of those common promises that tends to wind up with MPs voting in lock-step anyway because they all really support their party or they all just happen to all think in lock-step. I am also reminded that when Michael Ignatieff tried to encourage his caucus to vote more freely on private members’ bills by not rarely voting for them personally – so that they wouldn’t look to him as to how to vote – he was punished for it by Jack Layton lying about those missed votes as poor attendance during the election (though Ignatieff should have responded with the policy and shut him down, but didn’t, and lost the election quite badly as a result). Suffice to say, when MPs don’t vote in lockstep, we shouldn’t use terms like “goes rogue,” because it gives entirely the wrong connotation about what has taken place. We want more responsible and independent-minded MPs, so let’s not make it harder for them to do so. And let’s leave the word “rogue” to this for the time being:
Roundup: Linda Frum’s misplaced concerns
Conservative Senator Linda Frum has decided to take on the topic of the current batch of Senate reforms, and I can’t even. And yet, I must. So here we go. Her two main points are about the institution’s lack of accountability and lack of legitimacy, and while she notes all of the changes with the former, she is way off base with the latter – but more on that in a moment. Much of the problem with Frum’s whole thesis is that it ignores historical context and perspective. With the lack of accountability, she correctly laments that the Duffy incident highlighted poor financial controls, but this is not unique to the Senate – most elected legislatures also lacked adequate controls until very recently, hence we had the moat cleaning imbroglio in the UK, or the Nova Scotia MLAs who bought flat screen TVs and generators as office expenses, or federal MPs improperly claiming their own housing allowances just a few years ago. It’s a process and the Senate was actually ahead of the curve of the Commons for much of the last number of years. And good for her for denouncing the “everybody does it” excuse. But her analysis of the Senate’s legitimacy issue is, frankly, jejune. The Senate does not need to derive its legitimacy from popular elections because it comes from the constitution and from Responsible Government – as with all Governor-in-Council appointments, the Prime Minister is empowered to make them so long as he or she maintains the confidence of the Commons, and he or she is accountable for making them. That is where the Senate’s legitimacy is drawn from, and people who insist otherwise tend to be more enamoured with Americana rather than the actual function of our own Senate – a body geared toward more deliberation than as a competing legislative body. Popular election would make the Senate just that – a competing chamber more inclined to gridlock if it is controlled by an opposing party to the government in the Commons, and otherwise full of 105 backbenchers for the Commons parties to boss around, seeing the great expense and organisation that would go along with Senate elections (even more than MP elections given that senators represent a whole province and not a small riding). Leaving aside Frum’s conspiracy theory that all of the new independent appointments are just closet Liberals (and I will give her the point that Peter Harder’s insistence on styling himself an independent is deeply problematic), Frum is boggled by the notion that a body that is not a confidence chamber can operate without defined government and opposition sides, and that Senators could weigh legislation on its merits rather than on the basis of the whip. In fact, Frum goes so far as to posit this baffling gem:
So long as we senators are not elected, our democratic legitimacy depends on government-appointed Senators following the leadership of a government that is elected – and that government, in turn, must honestly acknowledge its responsibility for the actions of the senators it appoints.
I barely even know where to start with this, other than to say “Nope. Nope, nope, nope. So much nope.” You see, the Senate has institutional independence under the constitution. The whole point of the Senate is that it’s supposed to push back against a prime minister when that prime minister tries to ram through dubious legislation through a majority Commons that they control. If said PM also has senators under their thumb, then it kind of defeats the purpose of it, no? And no, as I explained in my column this week, the PM doesn’t have the responsibility to police the Senate because of that institutional independence. And I get that Frum is doing yeoman’s work in trying to defend her partisan affiliations, which are totally legitimate. I too don’t think that a Senate full of independents is the best thing for our system, but that doesn’t mean that a greater presence of independent senators – enough to ensure the balance of power is no longer weighed in the favour of any one party – is illegitimate or unconstitutional. Frum is wrong on that point, and it needs to be said.
Roundup: New paths to power
If there was any particular proof needed that things are indeed changing in the government, the way in which decisions are made is a pretty good place to start, as Susan Delacourt explores over in Policy Options. Gone are the days when all paths lead to the PMO, but rather individual ministers are empowered to make decisions, but at the same time, they are expected to consult with provincial and territorial counterparts. The civil service, having grown used to not being asked to draw up an array of options for shaping policy, is now a “fixer upper,” while the new dynamic makes it possible for anyone to contribute to policy discussions, meaning that the government can draw from a bigger pool of ideas. And the new buzzword of “deliverology” means that goals are being drawn up as tangible things that have knowable results, rather than just abstract dollar figures. (The “guru” of deliverology just met with cabinet at the Kananaskis retreat, where he said that the government has made good progress over the last six months). Commons committees are coming up with policy discussions of their own (not that they’re always going to be taken fully, as the assisted dying legislation shows). We have evidence that the Senate and their legislative agenda is being listened to, with examples like Senator Moore’s bill on restoring parliamentary authority over borrowing being adopted in the government’s budget, and Ralph Goodale talking about how they are considering his bill on CBSA oversight. So yes, it looks like the centre of power is less and less the PMO in this brave new world, which is probably not such a bad thing after all.
QP: Tax credit meanies
While Justin Trudeau was at Gleason gym in Brooklyn, and the Duffy verdict being read out a few blocks away, QP was ramping up for another scintillating session. In the lead up to QP, MPs sang a round of “Happy Birthday” and “God Save the Queen” in honour of Her Majesty’s 90th birthday, followed by a moment of silence for the National Day of Mourning. Rona Ambrose led off, complaining about the demise of the child sport tax credit. Bill Morneau reminded her that the new Child Tax Benefit offers more money for all families to use as they see fit. Ambrose asked again in French, got the same answer, and then moved onto complaining that the Liberals voted down her motion to declare ISIS a genocide. Stéphane Dion reminded her that the official recognition of genocide was serious and should only happen after an international investigation, which is what he was pushing for. Denis Lebel was up next, asking about the aluminium industry in Quebec. David Lemetti reminded him that they are working on the issue. Lebel asked about the issue of diafiltered milk, and Jean-Claude Poissant, responded that they were working on it. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and denounced Bill C-10, refusing to call Marc Garneau by his title. Garneau responded that they were going to rush the bill, which the NDP trie to kill. Mulcair then suggested that it was Carolyn Bennett who let the Catholic Church off the hook for Residential Schools. Bennett listed the dates to prove that it was the previous government, and the government couldn’t force the Church to do anything. Mulcair then changed topics to the Saudi arms deal, at which point Dion repeated Mulcair’s statements on honouring the agreement during the election. Mulcair thundered that the Liberals weren’t defending human rights, and Dion kept reminding Mulcair of his own words on the contract.
QP: We thank the PBO
Caucus day, and all of the leaders were present for the only time this week, Trudeau heading to New York for the rest of the week after things wrapped up. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, and quoted the PBO’s report yesterday, accusing the PM of misleading Canadians on basic facts. Trudeau thanked the PBO for his report, and noted their commitments to things like a larger tax-free child benefit for nine out of ten Canadians. Ambrose wondered how Canadians could have confidence that the government could protect their jobs, and Trudeau reeled off his list of promises of investments. Ambrose then wondered why the BC LNG projects weren’t moving forward. Trudeau reminded her that they couldn’t get the job done because they didn’t care about the environment at the same time as the economy. Denis Lebel got up to repeat the PBO questions in French, got much the same answer in French as before. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and raised the problem of veterans who have to fill out forms every year to prove that their limbs have not grown back. Trudeau reminded him of the promise to make record investments in veterans. Mulcair snidely called out the talking points and demanded an answer for this particular case. Trudeau reminded him of the mandate letter to his minister on the sacred obligation to veterans and that they were cleaning up the mess left by the previous government. Mulcair demanded marijuana decriminalisation immediately in the lead-up to legalisation, and Trudeau first remarked that it was always a surprise which position Mulcair held on marijuana on every given day, and noted that decriminalisation was a pipeline to profits for criminal gangs. Mulcair thundered about it one last time, and Trudeau repeated that legalisation was all about protecting children and starving criminal gangs.
QP: California meetings
Tuesday, and only two of the three main leaders were all in attendance, possibly for the only time this week. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, and raised the subject of that Torys fundraiser that Jody Wilson-Raybould attended. Justin Trudeau noted that the rules were followed, the Conservatives were convicted of election fraud, and Conservatives had been convicted of election fraud. Ambrose said that when their government had a similar issue “from a mistake” that they paid it back — not actually true, as Shelly Glover attended a fundraiser with people who were looking to her for grants, and thus was not a similar situation. Trudeau noted that they only paid the money back when they got their hands caught in the cookie jar. Ambrose gave it one last shot but got the same response. Denis Lebel took over, and railed about the figures in the budget, and raised quotes from the parliamentary budget officer. Trudeau insisted that no, his government was being open and transparent. Lebel then raised the old bill C-377 and now it was all about union transparency. Trudeau reminded him that it was actually about using transparency against their rivals, which was not what his government was about. Leading for the NDP, Hélène Laverdière asked about the signing of the Saudi LAV export permits, and Trudeau said that he would not renege on a deal and he had confidence in Dion. Laverdière demanded the contract be made public, but got the same answer. Nathan Cullen then decried the lack of new GHG targets, for which Trudeau reminded him that they are working with the provinces. Cullen asked again in English, and got the same response.
QP: Imagining conflicts over cocktails
Despite it being Monday, none of the leaders were in the House (save, as always, Elizabeth May), which is starting to feel like a bad old habit making a comeback. Denis Lebel led off for the Conservatives, first offering condolences for the Quebec family that died in the Ecuador earthquake, and asked for an update on Canada’s efforts. Marie-Claude Bibeau noted the support they were offering to that country. Lebel then pivoted to a demand to know which taxes the Liberals plan on raising to pay for their spending. Bill Morneau responded that they were investing as it was the right time to do so. Lebel switched to English to decry the lack of transparency, to which Morneau insisted that they were being open and transparent, and said that they only showed two years in the budget so as to show that they have work to do. Andrew Scheer bemoaned the “mean-spirited” ways in which the budget rolled back Conservative programmes like income splitting. Morneau insisted that the new measures would help more families than the old programmes. Scheer then launched into a question laden with lame sports puns, but Morneau repeated his assertions. Peter Julian decried a cocktail party that CRA officials attended along with firms like KPMG. Diane Lebouthillier noted that it was an event held by the Chartered Professional Accountants, which many employees are members of. Peter Julian tried again, ramping up the conflict of interest accusations, and got the same answer. Hélène Laverdière worried that human rights were not on the ambassador’s priority list in Saudi Arabia. Pamela Goldsmith-Jones said that Canada does not miss any opportunity to raise human rights with anyone including Saudi Arabia, nor did they miss an opportunity for positive engagement. Laverdière asked again in French, and Goldsmith-Jones reminded the NDP that they supported the LAV sales as well.
Roundup: Harder’s budget request
Peter Harder is asking the Senate for a budget of $800,000 to hire nine people to assist in his “government representative duties.” While I’m not opposed to the dollar figure, I’m a bit curious about why nine staff, but let’s back up first to the precedent that is guiding this whole exercise, being Stephen Harper’s fit of pique when Marjory LeBreton resigned as Government Leader in the Senate. By that point, Harper was being badgered and hectored daily about the ClusterDuff incident, as well as Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau, and he decided that his next Government Leader, Claude Carignan, was not going to be put into cabinet so as to give the appearance of distance. Of course, it was only the appearance, as Carignan was a minister in every respect but name, including being sworn into the Privy Council (necessary to get the briefing books to answer on behalf of the government in Senate QP). But because he wasn’t a minister, he couldn’t get funding from PCO for staff and needed activities, so Carignan went to the Senate and asked for a bigger budget, and he got it, hiring a staff of 14. With Trudeau now being fairly cute with the way he is handling the “government representative” file – Harder being sworn into Privy Council and able to attend cabinet meetings – the government decided that with the Carignan precedent, Harder can simply ask the Senate for the budget he needs. Now, he is getting some pushback about getting a budget without attendant responsibilities, such as answering in QP. They referred the decision to a subcommittee (that still hasn’t been filled), but I do wonder why nine. I can understand an admin staff, a policy person or two, a comms person, but without a caucus to manage, what exactly is so labour intensive about “shepherding the government’s agenda”? That’s a bit of time management, introducing the odd debate on government legislation, but what else would he be required to do? So perhaps we’ll get some answers, but it does seem a bit odd to me.
QP: Recycling the scripts and laugh lines
With so many things going on this morning — that Supreme Court decision on Métis and non-status Indians and the assisted dying bill being tabled — it was almost surprising that there weren’t any leaders (save Elizabeth May) present for QP today, but there we have it. Denis Lebel led off for the Conservatives, worrying about government transparency around the budget. Scott Brison responded by insisting that they have been transparent, including turning that information over to the PBO when asked. Lebel insisted that it wasn’t true, then went on to challenge Trudeau’s personal holdings. LeBlanc insisted that Trudeau was transparent as soon as he ran for the leadership. Andrew Scheer was up next, and recycled Rona Ambrose’s scripts from yesterday around transparency, for which Scott Brison repeated praise for the investments in the budget. Scheer tried to asking a too-cute-by-half question regarding the pipeline regulatory process, for which Jim Carr pointed out that the Bloc just yesterday insisted that Energy East was being imposed on them, hence they were going to take the time to get it right. Scheer repeated another script from the day before about oil tankers with Saudi oil, and Carr repeated that they were getting the process right. Charlie Angus led off for the NDP, demanding immediate action on mental healthcare funding for First Nations, for which Jane Philpott assured him they were working on it. Angus insisted it be done today, and Philpott noted the actions they have taken already. Brigette Sancoucy repeated the questions in French, and got the same answer, not surprisingly. Sansoucy then demanded more funds for palliative care, for which Philpott noted the bill tabled this morning, and assured her that they were doing so with the participation of the provinces.