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.
Tag Archives: First Nations
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
Roundup: More knives for Scheer
Even more knives have come out for Andrew Scheer – on a couple of different flanks. From the social conservatives, Scheer didn’t defend their interests strongly enough in the election and now they want him gone. This in the face of more moderate conservatives looking for him to join the twenty-first century on issues like support for LGBT rights. And then, on Power & Politics, Kory Teneycke – one-time director of communications to Stephen Harper and maestro behind Sun TV – said that Scheer should resign and if he wants his job back, to run for it again in a full-blown leadership contest. What was even more interesting in those comments was his contention that a leadership review is not enough because those are easily enough manipulated by those loyal to the current leader – and he’s right.
“He should resign and run again for his job,” said Kory Teneycke about Andrew Scheer. “How one gets the authority to lead the party into the next election is by having their leadership tested in a true way not in sort of a rigged convention process but in a true leadership race.” pic.twitter.com/PR7XtumzBN
— Power & Politics (@PnPCBC) November 25, 2019
The problem, of course, is that so long as we continue to insist on running our leadership contests in this bastardized model, leaders will continue to claim democratic legitimacy to marginalize their caucus, ignore the grassroots, and not face any meaningful accountability, so it’s hard to see how the outcome of such a contest could be any different in the broader scheme of things. There are deep problems that need to be addressed in our parties, but nobody wants to actually say so.
Meanwhile, not only has Scheer fired his chief of staff and his director of communications, but Hamish Marshall, his campaign manager, has come to the end of his contract and it doesn’t sound like he’s interested in renewing it anytime soon. It remains to be seen if this kind of house-cleaning is enough bloodletting for the caucus that remains frustrated by their election loss, but it may not be given the knives that have been out for Scheer in a number of different directions.
Roundup: Tribunal orders and judicial review
This week, the Federal Court will hear the case of the federal government’s judicial review of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s compensation order for First Nations children who were apprehended and removed from their homes by child and family services. The reporting on this is going to be emotional, and as you can see from both the CBC and Canadian Press reports previewing the hearings (which will be webcast for the first time), the focus of who they’re speaking to are Indigenous people – fair enough – but almost zero time in either report is spent on the actual legal arguments, which are significant. Only the CBC report included the line that “Ottawa has argued in court filings that the tribunal order was an overreach and that the original case was about systemic discrimination, which required a systemic fix, not individual compensation, which is the purview of class action law.”
This is a pretty significant thing, because one of the arguments is that the Tribunal, in making the kind of order that it did, was exceeding its statutory authority to do so. That’s a pretty big deal, and why the government would be looking for a judicial review – to ensure that the Tribunal isn’t allowed to overreach, and doesn’t create a precedent for future instances of overreach. It may seem like petty details, but it’s a pretty significant issue when you look at how the administrative tribunal system in this country is set up, and the role that it plays in the broader justice system. The fact that this is being ignored by the mainstream press isn’t surprising, because administrative law isn’t sexy (even though it’s one of the most contentious issues that our Supreme Court is grappling with at this very moment), but we shouldn’t dismiss it.
The government – and prime minister Justin Trudeau in particular – has stated that there will be compensation, and they are already working on a settlement for the class action lawsuit in question, which may include boarder compensation so as not to have to separate compensation streams for the same apprehensions. And they should absolutely be held to account to that promise that they made – but the Tribunal order cannot and should not be the end all and be all, and we need to recognize that, and ensure that some of the broader context is being discussed.
Roundup: Middle Class™ is a state of mind
I don’t really want to engage in a pile-on, but the fact that the new Minister of Middle Class™ Prosperity® was doing the media rounds and imploding on trying to offer a definition of just what is Middle Class™ was not a good start to her ministerial career – not to mention an indictment of the comms geniuses in the PMO who sent her out there unprepared. You would think that actually having a working definition of what is “middle class” would be an important thing to equip a minister with when you give her the portfolio – particularly when you wrap up an otherwise sober role of Associate Minister of Finance with this ridiculous title. And there are a couple of very serious points to make here – if you can’t actually define what “middle class” means, then you have no actual way of measuring your success in dealing with the perceived issues of income disparity – which this government has been using Middle Class™ as a code for without trying to sound like they’re engaging in class warfare. But as a branding exercise, when you rely on the fact that everyone thinks they’re “middle class” or about to be – particularly people who are well over what is actually middle class in this country – it’s one of those things that tends to flatter people, but becomes meaningless – essentially that Middle Class™ is a state of mind. Mona Fortier did, over the course of the day, transition from “it involves your kids being in hockey” to “there’s no one definition” because of regional variations and disparities, but it was a bit of a trial by fire, and hopefully a lesson that she – and the comms geniuses in PMO – will take to heart.
"We can't have a one-size fits all approach," says newly named Middle Class Prosperity Minister Mona Fortier on the goals of the new role, which will use a regional lens to create policies that will aid middle-income earners. #ctvpp #cdnpoli
More at https://t.co/uCQmGSHoEL pic.twitter.com/dU8owQbhvn
— CTV Power Play (@CTV_PowerPlay) November 22, 2019
Hockey is expensive: https://t.co/QZxbhCIptT
People with median incomes have to squeeze themselves dry to pay for a kid in hockey; it's a sport for the upper-middle-class. 2/
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) November 23, 2019
This is getting past a joke. 4/4
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) November 23, 2019
While the Minister is correct that there is no consensus definition, she could put down some markers. We can be pretty sure that the lower bound for the middle class is somewhere above the LICO, and most would agree it should exclude the 10% of incomes by economic family group?
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) November 23, 2019
All of this talk of being Middle Class™ does bring me back to this scene from the early noughties UK sitcom Gimme Gimme Gimme, where being Middle Class was a Thing.
“I can’t. I’m Middle Class. I used to have ponies.”
My mind flashes back to this scene every time this government deploys their Middle Class™ talking points. https://t.co/P2nvnNlnwP— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) November 23, 2019
Meanwhile, Chris Selley makes the very salient point that this government has moved the needle on poverty in this country, but the problems we’re facing aren’t with the Middle Class™, and perhaps they should put a focus on those areas instead.
Roundup: A quasi-exit for May
The other, non-Senate big news on Parliament Hill yesterday was Elizabeth May’s decision to step down as Green Party leader – sort of. She said that she would stay on as the “parliamentary leader,” but give up the mantle of big-P Party leader, and that one of her appointed deputy leaders, Jo-Ann Roberts, would be interim leader until the party could have a leadership convention – next October. May fully intends to stay on as an MP and run again as an MP (and said that she would not run for Speaker this time, but would pursue it in the next Parliament).
This particular kind of leadership dynamic is part of what ails Canadian democracy right now – this notion that there should be year-long leadership races, and that someone who doesn’t have a seat in Parliament should be leading the party in any capacity. The fact that the leader is not selected by caucus alone is one of the biggest problems with our system – it has allowed leaders to centralize power and when they get into power, that centralization rests in the PMO. And with May stepping back, and new MPs Jenica Atwin and Paul Manly also eschewing running for the role, they will again be a party where their leader is outside of Parliament, and who may or may not run for a seat anytime a byelection comes around, and they will face some of the challenges that Jagmeet Singh became all too familiar with.
There needs to be a rebalancing of leadership roles in our system, and we need to keep the party leader’s focus back on parliament, with the rest of the leadership better handled by the Party president. But what the Greens are doing now is just perpetuating what is horribly wrong with our system.
Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt remarks on how May left on her own terms, while Paul Wells sees the end of May’s leadership as a chance for her party to overhaul its message and its organizational abilities.