After this morning’s surprising announcement that Andrew Scheer was resigning as Conservative leader, the PM was in his office but not present for QP (even though he had been in the House to respond to Scheer’s resignation just a couple of hours earlier). After a lengthy ovation, Scheer lamented last month’s job numbers, which I remind you was 100 percent bullshit, particularly his warnings about a “made-in-Canada recession.” Bill Morneau reminded him that while monthly job numbers are important, they would continue to invest in Canadians as that created over a million jobs. In French, Scheer demanded an economic update, and Morneau responded was that one would happen in the coming days. Scheer switched back to English to carry on his lament for the stage of the economy, giving misleading G7 job stats, to which Morneau repeated that their plan to invest was working, and that the economy was on track for the second-highest growth in the G7. Leona Alleslev was up next, and in French, concern trolled about the New NAFTA, and demanded impact assessments for it. Chrystia Freeland reminded her that the existential threat to our economy was now past, and endangering ratification was simply threatening the economy. Alleslev switched to English to worry about “repairing” our relationship with the US, and Freeland stated that the most important thing was ratifying the agreement. Yves-François Blanchet was up next, and he spun a sad tale of steel workers in Ontario being protected but aluminium workers in Quebec were not, to which Freeland reminded him that they got the tariffs repealed, and that the new agreement had 70 percent North American aluminium content requirements. Blanchet sang the praises of economic nationalism, and Freeland warned of the dangers of partisanship. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and demanded the government stop the judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal compensation order, to which Marc Miller started that they were engaging partners to see that there was the fairest and most comprehensive compensation offered. Singh tried again in English, and Miller listed new measures they are in compliance with, and said that they were sitting down to get compensation right.
Tag Archives: First Nations
QP: All about aluminium
On the first Wednesday of the new parliament, the prime minister was present and we were due to be treated to the first proto-“Prime Ministers Questions” of the 43rd Parliament. Andrew Scheer led off, and he demanded to know what new concessions the government agreed to with the New NAFTA, to which Justin Trudeau assured him that they got a good deal, particularly around aluminium and automotive rules of origin. Scheer rhymed off that “senior Democrats” said that the Canadians gave up everything asked of them, and Trudeau simply responded with some congratulations to the negotiators on getting a good deal. Scheer then demanded a new fiscal update this week which includes a path to balance, citing a fictional “high-tax, high-regulation” agenda, to which Trudeau recited his worn points about making the choice to invest in Canadians. Scheer then railed that Trudeau was creating a “made in Canada recession” — which was 100 percent pure and unadulterated bullshit — and Trudeau reiterated their choices to invest. Scheer then demanded the government pull out of the Asian Infrastructure Bank as a way to send a message to China, to which Trudeau warned that he hoped the new special committee on China wouldn’t be a vehicle for the opposition to play politics and endanger Canadians. Yves-François Blanchet decried the lack of aluminium protections in the New NAFTA, to which Trudeau started frankly that Blanchet was wrong, and they got guarantees around the use of aluminium in the automotive industry. Blanchet disputed this, and Trudeau repeated his assurances. Jagmeet Singh then took his turn to lament the New NAFTA, to which Trudeau picked up a list to read off improvements. Singh then demanded an immediate universal pharmacare programme, to which Trudeau insisted that they did more than any government in a generation to lower drug prices, and the next step was to sit down with the provinces.
Roundup: A promise weaselled out on
A very important bill has been introduced in the Senate, that has been attempted on more than a few occasions now, and it’s a sign of a promise that the Liberals weaselled out on in the past. The bill? To restore Parliament’s ability to control government borrowing by way of votes – you know, like Parliament is supposed to do as part of their job of holding government to account by means of controlling the public purse. You see, back in the Harper era, they hid the change in one of their massive omnibus budget bills that stripped Parliament of the ability to vote on new borrowing, and instead turned it over to Cabinet. Senators caught it too late, and the bill passed, and whoops, no more ability for Parliament to hold government to account for it any longer. Senator Wilfred Moore introduced a bill to revert this practice on a couple of occasions, and Senator Joseph Day carried on with it in the previous Parliament, and has just reintroduced it in this one.
https://twitter.com/SenDayNB/status/1204502292076154880
Thanks to @SenDayNB for holding our fed govts to account when borrowing on behalf of Canadians. Parliament's powers need to be restored and respected as promised. #BillS201 @SenateCA @OurCommons
— Hon. Wilfred Moore (@SenWillyMoore) December 10, 2019
The Liberals were all in favour of this back when they were in opposition, and made a big show about promising to restore this to Parliament – and then they weaselled out on it. What they did instead was introduced a debt ceiling of $1.168 trillion, after which Parliament would need to vote to extend it, and said that Cabinet only needed to report to Parliament every three years about the money it has borrowed, starting in 2020. Let me reiterate – they weaselled out of this promise, and at least there are senators who are alive to why this is important for Parliament.
These are principles that go back to Runnymede, and the Magna Carta in 1215, and made more explicit in 1688 when the king wasn’t able to borrow money without Parliament’s consent. The Conservatives broke this important principle of Parliament for their convenience. That the Liberals have refused to act on their promise to restore it is a black mark against them.
QP: Demanding a special committee on China
With Chrystia Freeland in Mexico City for the New NAFTA signing ceremony, and Justin Trudeau in town but elsewhere, Andrew Scheer was present today and led off by mentioning the first anniversary of the two Canadians being detained in China, and asked for an update as to the efforts being made to secure their release. Karina Gould assured him that they are the government’s absolute priority, and expressed thanks to the allies who have spoken up as well. Scheer then lamented that the government waited six months to file a complaint with the WTO over China over the canola issue, and Marie-Claude Bibeau listed efforts they have made. Scheer was not mollified, and railed that the government was still investing in the Asian Infrastructure Bank, to which Bill Morneau assured him that the Bank benefitted Canadians as much as the countries they invest in. Alain Rayes took over in French, who worried that China was too interested in the Arctic, to which Gould Assured him that they always defend Canadian sovereignty. Rayes returned to the question of the two detained Canadians, and Gould repeated her question in French. Yves-François Blanchet, after being chastised for pointing out the prime minister’s absence, worried about the New NAFTA and that aluminium was not protected under it, to which Gould assured him they were proud of the agreement, and the new NAFTA had strict regulations around the industry. Blanchet railed about workers in Quebec, somewhat rhetorically, to which Gould reiterated that they were defending market access for Canadians. Jagmeet Singh was up next, to repeat his latest demand to target the tax cut different to fund a dental care programme, to which Patty Hajdu said that the dental care idea was worth exploring, and she wanted to work with all members on it. Singh accused her of just saying nice words, and Hajdu reminded him that such a programme would be delivered by the provinces which was why you couldn’t just say you would do it.
QP: New measures not mentioned in the Speech
The first Monday of the new Parliament, and the prime minister was present but Andrew Scheer was not. That left Leona Alleslev to lead off in French, and she lamented the reported job losses from last month, and demanded a new economic statement with new measures and a balanced budget. Justin Trudeau responded that the first thing they did in 2015 was cut taxes and they were doing so again, and they were supporting Canadians and the economy. Alleslev read the same question in English, and got the same response. Alleslev read more doom, saying that the country was on the verge of recession (reminder: Not according to the Bank of Canada), and Trudeau reminded her of the plan to invest in Canadians, which is what they would continue to do. Erin O’Toole was up next, demanding retaliation against China for the two detained Canadians, being the one-year anniversary of their captivity. Trudeau assured the House that they were continuing to engage the Chinese, and that he had spoken to President Xi directly. O’Toole then raised the protests in Hong Kong, and Trudeau spoke about their support for the one-country two-systems principles and reiterated their calls for de-escalation. Yves-François Blanchet asked about healthcare, and Trudeau responded in general platitudes about the system, and they went for a second round of the same. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and in his new style of alternate French and English sentences, demanded that the upcoming tax cut be more targeted in order to use the savings to pay for national dental care, and Trudeau reminded him of how many people the tax cut would help. Singh demanded increased health transfers, to which Trudeau reminded him that they had worked with the provinces to target specific needs in the last parliament and they would continue to do so in this one.
QP: Begun, this 43rd Parliament has
The first Question Period of the 43rd Parliament just happened to be on a Friday, and for the first time in my memory, all of the leaders were present. The PM at Friday QP? Unheard of! And yet, here we are. Andrew Scheer led off in French, mini-lectern reliably on his desk, and he raised this morning’s job numbers and the 71,000 reported job losses, calling it a “crisis.” Justin Trudeau, without script, told him that their plan was about creating jobs and investing. Scheer tried again in English, and Trudeau made points particularly related to the jobs created by the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Scheer insisted that other countries were increasing investments in natural resources, and Trudeau reminded him that blaming foreign activists didn’t get pipelines built. Scheer said that of all the divisions in the country that Trudeau allegedly created, he stated that provincial premiers were united in opposition to Bill C-69, and Trudeau reminded him that the previous Harper environmental regime didn’t work and singled out two projects that continue to face delays. Scheer then worried about a vote around Israel at the UN that he called “anti-Israel,” to which Trudeau took up a script to reiterate the country’s support for Israel. Yves-François Blanchet was up for his federal debut to worry that the government ignored the call by premiers to increase health transfers to the provinces. Trudeau responded that they had committed to some increases related to getting people family doctors and implementing pharmacare. Blanchet then demanded that provincial environmental assessments get priority over federal ones, to which Trudeau spoke about partnerships on the environment. Jagmeet Singh led off for the NDP, and concern trolled that the prime minister was not brave enough to stand up to pharmaceutical companies and implement pharmacare. Trudeau, without notes, said that they were committed to pharmacare but it was an area of provincial jurisdiction and needed negotiation. Switching between English and French in the same question, Singh demanded the government stop taking Indigenous children to court, and Trudeau assured him they were committed to compensation.
Roundup: That Video and worst instincts
For well over the past two days, the news cycle has been consumed with That Video, and the interpretations of what was said on it. And because so many members of our media act feel the need to be tattletales, narcs, and scolds, what was an interesting tableau turned into an international attempt to get someone – particularly Justin Trudeau – in trouble.
.@JustinTrudeau, @EmmanuelMacron, @BorisJohnson and other VIPs shared a few words at a Buckingham Palace reception Tuesday. No one mentions @realDonaldTrump by name, but they seem to be discussing his lengthy impromptu press conferences from earlier in the day. (Video: Host Pool) pic.twitter.com/dVgj48rpOP
— Power & Politics (@PnPCBC) December 3, 2019
First, despite the fact that the scene was spotted by a CBC producer from the NATO pool feed, people started circulating that this was some kind of illegally obtained footage from Russian spies and circulated as disinformation on their Sputnik network. (Nope). Then came everyone interpreting it as some kind of mockery or high school gossip, when it turned out to simply be an animated recounting of the unscheduled press conference, and the surprise announcement that the G7 meeting was to be held at Camp David. And because everyone is a tattletale and a narc, they brought it up at Trump’s press conference with Angela Merkel, he responded by calling Trudeau “two-faced” and that he was just sore because he got called out for not spending enough on defence (that’s not how NATO works), and then he cancelled his closing press conference and went home – but not before remarking before reporters that the whole “two-faced” thing was a big joke to him. Meanwhile, all of the Canadian commentariat is having a meltdown, and all of them went on the air with fantasy versions of just what the conversation was in That Video, and everyone describing it as “disparaging” or “gossip,” when they simply didn’t have the context that Trudeau provided to them the next day when he was pressed about it in his own media availability. So, any serious conversation about the future of NATO was basically overshadowed because a bunch of excitable journalists watched a video, jumped to conclusions, and let their narc instincts get the better of them – and then wouldn’t shut up about it.
As reporters were leaving the room during Trump's lunch with leaders from countries that meet the 2% NATO threshold, the radio pooler caught Trump saying, "That was funny when I said that guy was two-faced."
— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) December 4, 2019
And then come the scolding pundits, as night follows day. Like Matt Gurney, who characterized Trudeau as “mocking” and “gossip” and who said that Trump was right about our not spending enough. (Reminder: DND can’t actually get all of the current spending out the door because they don’t have the capacity or manpower, and it will take years to get enough people trained up). Or Heather Scoffield, who is concerned that this could mean Trump will tear up the New NAFTA or start imposing new tariffs – as though he needed excuses anytime in the past. Much more sensible was Susan Delacourt who said that it was about time that world leaders didn’t walk on eggshells around Trump, and that world leaders should stop simply looking on silently as his constant rule-breaking goes on around them.
On top of this incident was the complete mischaracterization of a video of Princess Anne, the Queen, and the Trumps. While there was a longer video where Anne escorts the Trumps to the Queen’s receiving line, and at one point the Queen looks over to her and she shrugs – no one left in the line but me – and everyone carries on. But a shortened clip started circulating and certain journalists falsely characterised it as the Queen chastising Anne for not greeting the Trumps and Anne didn’t care. And yet the false version went viral.
Anne raised her hands in the air, laughed and said: "It's just me," adding a moment later "and this lot" as she pointed to the members of the household behind her.
3/5— Valentine Low (@valentinelow) December 4, 2019
So, the truth is now out there. Not that anyone will pay any attention. Anne the Trump Snubber is a much better story.
5/5— Valentine Low (@valentinelow) December 4, 2019
We don’t need Russian disinformation bots. We’re perfectly capable of distributing all manner of breathless disinformation without them. Cripes.
Roundup: Contemplating compromised committees
As the summoning of the new Parliament draws ever closer, we’re seeing more stories about the procedural intricacies of the first few sitting days, and the coming confidence vote on or before the 10th because of the Supply cycle and the need to pass the Supplementary Estimates before that date. Fair enough – those can be expected to pass pretty handily because nobody is going to want to head right back to the polls (and I wouldn’t expect the Governor General to grant an immediate election either – the developing convention is waiting at least six months, providing there is another viable governing party, though that would be the real trick given the current seat maths).
This all having been said, there was something in this interview with Pablo Rodriguez, the new Government House Leader, which sticks in my craw, and that’s the talk about possibly undoing the rule changes that prevent parliamentary secretaries from being voting members on Commons committees, and I. Just. Cannot. Even.
While the chances of this happening are fairly slim, given that it would require opposition support and they are unlikely to get it, it’s still crazy-making. This reflex to go super political in a hung parliament is understandable but deeply frustrating because it undermines the whole raison d’être of Parliament, which is to hold the government to account, and committees are one very big piece of the accountability puzzle. Parliamentary secretaries should have no business even being near committees because it undermines their independence. It’s bad enough that under the previous parliament, they were still on the committee in a non-voting capacity, but it still allowed ministers’ offices to attempt to stage manage what went on (to varying degrees, depending on which committee it was). Having the parliamentary secretaries as voting members simply turns committees into the branch plants of ministers’ offices, and we saw this play out for the better part of a decade under Stephen Harper. Committees are not there to simply take orders from the minister and waste everyone’s time, and it would be hugely disappointing if the Liberals returned to that way of thinking simply because it’s a hung parliament. If we think that the only time to let Parliament function properly is if there’s a majority for the government, then it’s a sad state of affairs for our democracy.
Roundup: The call is coming from inside the caucus room
The hits just keep coming for Andrew Scheer, as one of his MPs came out vocally against his leadership yesterday. In the wake of the fairly low-key announcement of his Shadow Cabinet, it was quickly noticed that Ed Fast was not on said list, and Fast himself said that he was asked to be part of it and he declined, saying that Scheer should be surrounded by people loyal to his leadership, while Fast has concerns about it. Up until this moment, Scheer’s loyalists were dismissing those vocally and publicly calling for Scheer to step down as being Toronto elites and sore losers that go back to leadership rivals. Fast’s public denouncement puts a lie to this narrative.
Let’s face it – public dissent in caucus is rare because we have virtually eliminated all of the incentives for it. Our bastardized leadership selection process has leaders claiming a “democratic legitimacy” that they use to intimidate MPs into not challenging them, because it goes against the “will of the grassroots” (and to hell with that MP’s voters, apparently). We gave party leaders the power to sign off on nomination forms with the purest of intentions and it quickly got perverted into a tool of blackmail and iron-fisted discipline. Pretty much the only time MPs will speak out is if they have nothing to lose, and Fast is in that position – he could retire tomorrow and be all the better for it. And it’s when the dissent goes public that leaders really need to worry because that means that it’s happening by those inside the caucus room who aren’t saying anything out loud. Provincially, we’ve seen instances of it taking only one or two MLAs coming out publicly for leaders to see the writing on the wall and resign. The caucus may be bigger in Ottawa, but the sentiment is increasingly out in the open – that can’t be sustainable.
Scheer later went to the annual UCP convention in Calgary, where he was predictably given a fairly warm welcome– but he shouldn’t rest on this applause because he doesn’t need to win Alberta – he already has their votes, and they’re not enough to carry the country, no matter how much they increase their vote share. He needs seats in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, and he is having a hard time cracking those areas, in particular because of his social conservatism and the UCP convention isn’t going to be the place to go to get honest feedback about that problem. It’s a bubble, and a trap that becomes too easy to feel that there is nothing wrong if he stays in it too long.
Roundup: Frivolous lawsuits that help no one
Because climate lawsuits on behalf of youths are apparently all the rage, another one has been launched, this time against the Ford government in Ontario, because of their cancellation of the cap-and-trade system and their challenging of the federal carbon price. I can barely even.
So, to recap: Lawsuits are about getting individual remedies, and these actions are not designed to do so. They are using “novel” Charter arguments, which are an abuse of process. It’s also trying to use the courts to impose public policy solutions, which is not the job of the courts. That’s not their function, and trying to use the courts because you lost at politics is not how things work. And further to that point, the courts are already overburdened, and these kind of frivolous suits – and that’s exactly what they are – waste everyone’s time and court resources, and I would fully expect the courts to impose costs on those who brought forward these complaints that waste everyone’s time.
I don’t think @journo_dale would object to climate action. What he’s saying is that the court isn’t the right venue. They can’t get the results they need there.
Political action, not legal action, will have an impact. It’s like using a saw to hammer in a nail.
— Robert Glasgow (@TheTradeLawGuy) November 26, 2019
I spent an afternoon on the Twitter machine of being accused of not taking climate action seriously because I made these points about this lawsuit, which is not the case at all. My point – as exemplified by the (very good) lawyer who joined in the fight over Twitter, is that this is a political problem, not a legal one. You don’t use a saw to hammer a nail, which is what this lawsuit is attempting to do. The courts are not the place for this because they can’t force a government to come up with a climate change plan that meets the expectations of scientists – that’s not how life works, and it’s not how democracy works. And sure, young people are frustrated with the slow action so far, but democracy depends on people organising, and that means doing the hard work of getting involved in riding associations, changing party policy though conventions, and agitating internally to do something. And it means organising. I can’t stress this enough – organise, organise, organise. Protest votes won’t get you anywhere – and let’s face it, that’s what Green votes are. That’s how you make change in politics, and the sooner that young people realise this – and you can join parties as young as sixteen and start volunteering and voting on nominations and resolutions – the more you will be effecting meaningful change. (Want to learn more about how that works? Read my book).
The examples here don't really work. The first, the Dutch, have a completely different legal tradition, different sets of laws, and potentially different causes of action. You can't analogize across legal systems like that. At least, not without providing evidence. /1
— Robert Glasgow (@TheTradeLawGuy) November 26, 2019
To establish a brand new free-standing positive liberty duty to act. That would be a monumental step for a court to take.
This kind of policy making shouldn't be in the hands of the court. Especially not through a… creative… interpretation of s. 7.
— Robert Glasgow (@TheTradeLawGuy) November 26, 2019