Tag Archives: First Nations

Roundup: Amendments and dysfunction

Posted on by

There is some movement on legislation in the Senate, with the amended fisheries bill heading back to the Commons, as is Bill C-69 on environmental assessments. This bill was passed on division (meaning no standing vote) and will let the government reject all of those amendments made at committee that were essentially written by oil and gas lobbyists, which nobody had the intestinal fortitude to want to actually debate, preferring the tactic championed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, to let someone else do the heavy lifting. That way the government can defeat the bulk of those amendments in the Commons on a whipped vote, and then Harder can say “the elected Chamber has spoken” while patting himself on the back for the amendments that did pass – likely only the ones the government itself proposed.

The bigger drama is being reserved for C-48, the tanker ban bill, as the whole Senate voted to overturn the committee report that recommended it not go forward, which was pretty much how I expected it to go. Given the torqued, partisan report that emerged, the talk about the committee being dysfunctional are ringing pretty true, but I’m not going to blame the Conservatives for that because the Independents aren’t stepping up. The likely next steps for this bill are for amendments to be debated at third reading, the bulk of which are likely to be defeated, and then the Conservatives will play procedural games with the debate so that Harder is forced to invoke time allocation on a final vote for it, because the Conservatives have set up that situation for him.

Meanwhile, there has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the UNDRIP bill, particularly that the Senate didn’t vote to give the Aboriginal People’s committee permission to meet while the Chamber was sitting in order to discuss it – which isn’t actually a sinister plot. The Senate is set up so that the Chamber meets for only a few hours in the day and that committees don’t meet then, which also has major logistical considerations – they don’t have enough staff or interpreters to cover both, unlike the House of Commons. And to illustrate that, this thread by Chris Reed explains some of the procedural considerations of what happened. But also remember that in the midst of the Senate’s Order Paper crisis, nobody wants to take any responsibility and are content to blame the Conservatives for being “partisan.” They’re not the problem here.

Continue reading →

QP: Calmly upset versus storming out

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh still at D-Day commemorations, and Andrew Scheer at a family event in Regina, there were no major leaders present. Lisa Raitt led off, and she made a statement about D-Day, and offered the government a chance to say how they are commemorating the event. Bill Blair read a statement about service and sacrifice in response. Raitt then moved onto affordability and a plea for a government to “stop the taxes” without specifying which ones, to which Ralph Goodale stood up and reminded her of the Middle Class™ tax cuts and the Canada Child Benefit. Raitt moaned about the loss of boutique tax credits, and Goodale noted that the net of the government’s changes mean that most families are $2000 better off than before. Alain Rayes then cited the false Fraser Institute figure that taxes were raised by $800 per year, to which Jean-Yves Duclos recited in French the same measures that Goodale listed. Rayes tried again, with added theatrics, and Duclos cited that he was upset that the opposition was painting a false picture (in his calm demeanour). Ruth Ellen Brosseau was up next for the NDP, and she read a lament about the settlement that CRA reached with KPMG clients, to which Diane Lebouthillier stated that she had asked the CRA for more transparency around settlements going forward. Daniel Blaikie repeated the question in English with added outrage, and Lebouthillier repeated her response. Blaikie then moved onto a demand for additional aid for homeless veterans, and Blair read that their whole of government approach was getting results with homeless veterans. Brosseau then read the French version of the same question, and Duclos repeated the same response in French.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1136701597906558977

Continue reading →

Roundup: Less helpful suggestions to fix QP

Posted on by

At this time of year, we’re starting to see a number of reflective pieces about the state of our democracy, and over on The Agenda, they gave a thinkpiece about the state of Question Period in advance of an episode on the subject. While the piece is geared toward the state of things at Queen’s Park, there is applicability to Parliament, and the suggestions that the polisci prof that they cite in the piece makes don’t really offer anything constructive, in my opinion.

For example, he wants more questions from more members and no supplementals. I disagree, because if we were running things properly, supplementals offer decent back-and-forth exchanges where you can get better accountability by drilling into answers (or non-answers) provided. And as demonstrated in Parliament, especially on Fridays, just having more MPs asking questions doesn’t necessarily improve things because they’re all reading the same scripts, so you just get more MPs asking the same questions – which in turn becomes fodder for them gathering clips to be distributed over social media. He suggests that the parties determine who asks questions for the first two thirds and then the Speaker determine for the final third – well, that doesn’t actually help with the ability of the Speaker to “not see” frequent misbehaving MPs, as they will be the ones the party puts on their list. It needs to be all or nothing. Having the Speaker rule on the relevance of answers and to police friendly backbench suck-up questions? Nice in theory, and if we could get MPs to give the Speaker the power to the determination, all the better, but if we’re not careful, it just creates an opportunity for parties to whinge about the Speaker. (I’m kind of in favour of empowering the Speaker in this way, but it needs to be done very carefully). Banning applause? Yes, absolutely.

What’s missing in this is the reliance on scripts, which we need to do away with entirely. Parties argue that they need to come up with plans and narratives and tactics, but to be frank, that’s bullshit. Plans and tactics don’t enhance the accountability function of QP – it just ensures that it will be theatre, and not good theatre at that. Banning scripts plus empowering the Speaker to choose who asks questions for the whole of QP (and sure, he can continue to divvy them up according to a set formula in the interests of fairness) is going to be far more effective than most of these suggestions – but the trick is to convince MPs to move to that system, which would involve their leaders giving up their powers to direct the show, and that is part of where the bigger problem lies.

Continue reading →

QP: Praise for our own leader’s plan

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh at the D-Day anniversary ceremonies, and Andrew Scheer elsewhere, it was up to Candice Bergen to lament the increased inspections of pork going into China, to which Marie-Claude Bibeau stated that they were encouraging all industry members to be extremely vigilant in their exports. Bergen demanded to know why a new ambassador had been appointed, to which Mélanie Joly noted that Canada is working with allies to call for the release of the detained Canadians. Bergen decried the deteriorating relationship, and Joly assured her this was a priority file. Luc Berthold took over in French to rail about the pork industry being impacted, and Bibeau repeated her earlier answer. Berthold demanded an ambassador and a WTO complaint, and Bibeau said that she agreed there was no issue with quality of Canadian exports, and that our representative at the WTO did raise the issue. Peter Julian was up next for the NDP, and he read some outrage about the KPMG client tax settlement, and Marc Garneau read that settlements are entered into in an independent process but the government was asking for more transparency going forward. Ruth Ellen Brosseau read her own repeat of the question in French, got Garneau to read the French version of his answer. Brosseau then read TVA was announcing layoffs and blaming competition from web giants, to which Pablo Rodriguez stood up to say that the Conservatives didn’t address the issue for ten years but they were working on legislation. Julian got up to read in English that web giants be made to pay their fair share, and Rodriguez again blamed the Conservatives for inaction.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unusually partisan report

Posted on by

The saga of Bill C-48 continues its strange trek through the Senate with the release of the report from the transport committee that recommended that the bill not proceed. Or at least that’s what it should have stated – that based on the tie vote, that the committee could not recommend the bill proceed. What they got instead was a lengthy screed about how allegedly terrible and the bill was for national unity, and it cherry picked comments from witnesses to “prove” that case, and strangely omitted any witnesses that stated – with facts – that the bill would have almost no impact on the energy industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In fact, the report was so partisan that it raised eyebrows among my sources in the Senate, who could not recall the last time that they had seen such a blatantly political document.

Naturally, not everyone on the committee was in favour of this report, and there are accusations back-and-forth about conversations regarding whether those who disagreed could write a dissenting report, and the eventual reluctance to bother because it would likely have tied things up in committee for even longer, as the clock ticks down. (Things are so bad on the Senate’s Order Paper that the need to sit well into July is now pretty much guaranteed). Of course, delaying this bill to death is part of the Conservative game plan, and everyone knows it – in fact, they pretty much have set up a situation where the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, will have to invoke time allocation to get it passed.

The shenanigans with this bill aren’t done yet. There will be a great deal of debate when this report gets debated in the whole Senate, where it is doubtlessly going to be rejected, but not without a great deal of noise and accusations that the Independents are just Liberal stooges, and so on. And it’s going to be so annoying when it’s all over.

Continue reading →

QP: Fiction about carbon taxes

Posted on by

While the prime minster was on his way back to Ottawa (for a stopover before heading to London and then Normandy), Andrew Scheer was elsewhere, and Jagmeet Singh was the only major leader present. That left it up to Pierre Poilievre to lead off, and he spun a bunch of fiction about carbon prices impoverishing Canadians. Bill Morneau said that just because Poilievre says things, it doesn’t make it true, and he listed their Middle Class™ tax cuts and Canada Child Benefit as leaving Canadians better off. Poilievre whinged about the cancellation of boutique tax credits, and he raised the spectre of higher taxes because of the deficit — which is fiscally illiterate — and Morneau noted that they cancelled boutique tax credits because they only benefitted the wealthy. Poilievre again insisted there would be “massive tax increases,” and Morneau reiterated that the typical family of four was $2000 better off now than under the Conservatives. Gérard Deltell took over in French, and he worried about deficits,  and Morneau offered some pabulum on investing in Canadians. Deltell raised the canard that Morneau didn’t run deficits on Bay Street, and Morneau quoted the declining debt-to-GDP ratio. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in French, he worried about corporate tax rates, to which Morneau reminded him of the new tax brackets they put in for the wealthy. Singh tried again in English, and Morneau reminded him that the corporate rate is competitive with the US, and that they put in rules for transparency for offshore holdings as well as taxing the wealthy. Singh railed about the rich not paying their fair share, and Navdeep Bains listed off accomplishments under this government including a million new jobs. Singh tried again in French, and this time Jean-Yves Duclos listed the benefits of the government investing in the Middle Class™.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The report and its “legal imperatives”

Posted on by

As expected, the MMIW Inquiry report was delivered in a ceremony yesterday morning, and the prime minister accepted the report at the ceremony and promised that a national action plan would be developed in concert with Indigenous people – but the fact that he didn’t echo the use of the word “Canadian genocide” from the report had everyone trying to make an Issue out of it (though he made a qualified use of the term at a speech later in the day in Vancouver). The overall theme of the report is that there needs to be a “decolonization” in order for things to get better – which is easier said than done. The report’s 231 recommendations are phrased as “legal imperatives,” but some of them are tremendously problematic or impractical. Some of it is useful – suggestions around policing (which the RCMP promises to review carefully), some specific recommendations about the “man camps” that accompany resource development projects in Indigenous territory, more Indigenous prosecutors and judges (but less helpful is the suggestion that they may require a separate judicial system). But far less practical “imperatives” included things like demanding that the government create jobs in Indigenous communities (because we have a command-and-control economy?), or the creation of a basic income for all Canadians (erm, you know how much that would actually cost, right? Right?). How those kinds of recommendations can be phrased as “legal imperatives” is in and of itself a problem.

And then we’re back to the “genocide” issue, which has sucked up a lot of the oxygen. The Commissioners asserted that it’s a different kind of genocide than the Holocaust or what happened in Rwanda (which had Roméo Dallaire objecting), but wanted to remove the qualification of “cultural” genocide that was previously used in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, and which was accepted by pretty much all facets of Canadian society. Expect this particular polarizing language to continue to dominate the discussion in the weeks ahead.

In hot takes, Chantal Hébert worries that the report’s fairly hardline, all-or-nothing approach will be an excuse for people to tune out rather than engage with its findings (much like the apocalyptic language around climate change has not had the desired effect of spurring action). Chris Selley, meanwhile, points out some of the glaring omissions in the report, the lack of some context when it comes to rates of murders of Indigenous men, for example, and some of the contradictory recommendations such as being against mandatory minimum sentences because they disproportionately affect Indigenous people – while calling for mandatory minimums that are punitive if victims are Indigenous women, never mind that most of the perpetrators will be Indigenous men.

Continue reading →

QP: Claiming a piece of the report

Posted on by

Shortly after the final report on the MMIW Inquiry was delivered, the prime minister got on a plane for Vancouver, leaving QP behind. Andrew Scheer led off, and raising the MMIW Inquiry report, wanted more action on human trafficking. Seamus O’Regan stood up and recited their thanks for the report and stated that they would work on a national action plan in response. Scheer the switched to French to lament attacks on the free press, per their Supply Day motion, and wanted the government to stop stacking the deck. Pablo Rodriguez stated that the Conservatives devoted a full day toward attacking journalists, and that the government would support them. Scheer turned to English to whinge about Unifor being on the advisory panel, and Rodriguez stated that they needed to hear from employers and employees in the sector. Alain Rayes took over to ask again in French, and Rodriguez repeated response, and then they went a second round of other same. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he returned to the MMIW Inquiry report, and tried to make it about him by asking the prime minister to join him in responding to it in a list of areas. O’Regan reiterated his previous response with an added list of steps they have already started taking, and when Singh asked again in French, O’Regan read the French version of his script. Singh then turned to a demand that the government adopt his climate change plan, and Jonathan Wilkinson read that the NDP’s plan simply adopted most of what the government said doing already. Singh tried again in English, deploying the “New Deal” terminology, and got the same response from Wilkinson.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mild consequences for an outburst

Posted on by

It took several days, and the announcement happened fairly late on a Saturday night, but Andrew Scheer decided to strip Michael Cooper of his committee duty – but not deputy critic portfolio – after his committee outburst last week, when he lashed out at a Muslim witness who suggested that conservative commentary was in part responsible for radicalizing some white supremacists, including the shooter of the Quebec City mosque. Cooper’s outburst, you will recall, was to attack the witness and quote from the Christchurch shooter’s manifesto, not only naming him (as the New Zealand government has been reluctant to do) and reading part of that manifesto into the record, so that it will forever be part of the archives of the Parliament of Canada. Scheer said that he was satisfied with Cooper’s apology (which was tepid at best), and that he considered the matter closed now that he removed Cooper from the committee. Funnily enough, Cooper described it as “agreeing” with Scheer that he shouldn’t sit on that committee, which doesn’t sound like it was that punitive (and I’m not sure that removing someone from duties is really that punitive. Putting him on permanent Friday House duty would be more punitive than giving Cooper less work to do).

The witness at the receiving end of Cooper’s outburst, Faisal Khan Suri, says Scheer’s response is not good enough, and says that Cooper should be booted from the caucus. And to that end, Scheer made his big point about showing people the door if they don’t believe in equality (and Cooper reading from a white supremacist manifesto would seem to be a line that was crossed), but well, the matter is “closed.” Not that the Liberals will let them forget it, but this is politics these days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Problematic leaked recommendations

Posted on by

On Monday, the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women will give its final report, and judging from the leaked copy, there will be some consternation with the conclusions, particularly that it considers the deaths as the victims of a “Canadian genocide.” While previous inquiries and even statements by the former Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin, have used the term cultural genocide, this report allegedly drops the qualifier. That will likely be a hurdle because there would seem to be an implication that a genocide implies an organised effort – which there was on the cultural side (because it was inconceivable to think that they shouldn’t be converted to Christianity and “civilised” because that was the dominant cultural framework), but I think it will be hard to stretch that to deaths that are more attributable to poverty and intergenerational violence – we can’t forget that the vast majority of perpetrators of these deaths were Indigenous men (and that there are even larger numbers of Indigenous men who have are missing and murdered).

As for recommendations, the headline one also appears to be problematic – that instances of domestic violence against Indigenous women that result in death be regarded as first-degree murder – and that the use of “Gladue principles” be reviewed with cases of deaths of Indigenous women. That again will be problematic because the Supreme Court ruled on those principles as a way of addressing intergenerational violence that leads to higher rates of incarceration for Indigenous people, and again, if the majority of perpetrators of violence against Indigenous women are Indigenous men, does this recommendation then not demand that more Indigenous men be incarcerated? While the recommendation is rooted in the principles of denunciation and deterrence, I’m not sure that’s sufficient given the broader implications. As well, some of the recommendations like making Indigenous languages official and on par with English and French don’t seem to grasp the practical considerations of ensuring that there be federal services provided in 60 different Indigenous languages.

It also sounds like the government isn’t going to readily accept all of these recommendations Carolyn Bennett has been pre-consulting on what she’s been hearing out of the Inquiry, and she’s not in favour of harsher sentences because it goes against evidenced-based policy as to what is effective. She also noted that their bill on changing child welfare systems for Indigenous communities will do more to prevent the intergenerational violence that the current broken system does. We’ll see what the formal report and its apparent 230 recommendations entail, and what the government’s response will be, but this leak and Bennett’s response sounds like they won’t be endorsing the whole thing.

Continue reading →