Tag Archives: Fisheries

Roundup: A blow to the tanker ban bill

Posted on by

The Senate’s transport committee voted last night to not proceed with Bill C-48, which bans tankers on BC’s northwest coast, but before anyone gets too excited, I would caution that it’s not the bill’s end. We just saw the Senate’s national security committee recommend changes to the gun control bill that would gut it, and those got overturned by the Senate as a whole, and I suspect we’ll see a repeat performance of that with this bill – but the Conservatives will put up a fight, and because this was one of the bills that they did not offer a final vote timeline in their agreement with the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, they will dare him to invoke time allocation on this. (I plan to write more about this in column form later).

In the meantime, Independent Senator Paula Simons was one of the deciding votes on this, and she explains it all over Twitter.

Continue reading →

QP: Petty diminution

Posted on by

The benches were largely, but not completely, full for caucus day, but not all of the leaders were present. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and in French, he complained that Canadian tax dollars were being used by China to extend their foreign influence by way of the Asian Infrastructure Bank, and Trudeau took up a script to read that Scheer was misleading Canadians, given that the investment bank had other Western partners, and that they had projects like preventing land slides in Sri Lanka, or flood management in the Philippines. Scheer repeated the question in English, and Trudeau read the English version of the same script. Scheer accused the government of not beating their chests enough, and demanded they pull the funding from said bank, and in response, Trudeau said that they were standing up for Canadians in the world and gave a plug for their new aid package for canola farmers. Scheer claimed it was a Conservative idea, and accused Trudeau of weakness on the international stage, and Trudeau hit back by the Conservative wanted to capitulate on NAFTA, that his government saved CETA and the TPP, that they were working on the canola problem for weeks when the Conservatives had bothered a about for days. Scheer claimed Trudeau was simply being dramatic and then he cued his caucus to join him in shouting that Trudeau had done “nothing!” Trudeau gave an equally forceful retort about a decade of Conservative failures. Brigitte Sansoucy led off for the NDP to rail about the Loblaws contract instead of helping people, and Trudeau reminded her about the middle class tax cut and the Canada Child Benefit that lifted children out of poverty while the NDP voted against those measures. Charlie Angus accused the government of trying to rig judicial appointments, and Trudeau reminded him that they put on a new, transparent and open process. Angus then railed that ten government wasn’t helping the people of Kasheshewan, and Trudeau reminded him that they have been engaged in the file, that they have selected a site and are making plans for the move, but in partnership with the community. Sansoucy repeated the question in French, and Trudeau read the same response in French from a script.

Continue reading →

QP: Why can’t you spend in Canada?

Posted on by

On a lovely Tuesday afternoon, and all of the leaders were present for a change. Andrew Scheer led off, and he accused the prime minister of showing weakness in the face of China, to which Justin Trudeau assured him that diplomatic efforts were ongoing, and that they would have new measures for canola farmers in days. Scheer then demanded that the government pull out of the Asian infrastructure bank, to which Trudeau read a script about who all is involved in said bank, and about green and inclusive growth. Scheer repeated his demand, comparing it to pipeline development in Canada, and Trudeau extemporaneously reminded him that the previous government couldn’t get pipelines to new markets because they didn’t understand that they needed to get the buy-in of Indigenous communities. Scheer switched to French to demand the same pull out, and Trudeau read the French version of his script. Scheer then read a question about the CBC story on decade-old illegal donations from SNC-Lavalin, and Trudeau used a script to note that they made changes to increase transparency. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he invoked the name of Jack Layton to complain about corporate tax cuts before demanding the Loblaws contract be cancelled. Trudeau reminded him that the private sector has a role to play in fighting climate change. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same answer. Singh then raised the issue of annual flooding in Kasheshewan and demanded the promised relocation take place, and Trudeau took a script to remind him that the minister has met with the community and they have been working with them on the relocation, starting with building the necessary road. Singh repeated the question in English, and Trudeau reiterated his response that work was underway in partnership with the community. 

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding tough talk on China

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau at an auto announcement in Cambridge, Ontario, and Andrew Scheer, well, elsewhere, Candice Bergen led off after a moment of silence for the victims of the bombings in Sri Lanka, and she asked for an update on the flooding situations across the country. Ralph Goodale first noted that front line responses are the jurisdiction of the provinces, and that when the federal government is asked, they have stepped up. Bergen then moved on to read some criticism about the prime minister’s response on the canola file. Marie-Claude Bibeau stated that they are standing with farmers, and they are working with Chinese officials to resolve it. Bergen claimed that Scheer’s proposals would solve the issue, and Bibeau claimed that she has been working on the file since day one, while the Conservatives were asking questions on other things. Luc Berthold took over in French to demand they act on Scheer’s proposals, to which Bibeau repeated that the Conservatives were the ones asleep on the file. Berthold disputed her characterisation, and repeated his demand, to which Bibeau listed actions she has been taking to resolve the issue. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and he railed about evil corporations, demanding the Liberals implement the NDP’s pharmacare proposal (which, reminder, handwaves through all the actual implementation details). Jim Carr reminded him that they are working on implementation through the 2019 budget. Singh then demanded the government implement the NDP’s home retrofit plans to reduce GHG emissions, and Jonathan Wilkinson reminded him that he was a CEO in the green tech space for ten years and he knows the government’s plan is working. Singh then demanded an end to fossil fuel subsidies in a French, to which Wilkinson reiterated that the government’s plan was working. Singh then railed about corporations in French, and wanted the $12 million Loblaws got (after a competitive process) to go to “families,” and Wilkinson largely reiterated that the government’s plan is working.

Continue reading →

QP: Lavish lifestyles or austerity

Posted on by

Thursday in the new Chamber, and neither the PM nor Andrew Scheer were present. Plus ça change… That left Candice Bergen to lead off with slams against the prime minister’s alleged lavish lifestyle before demanding to know whey they planned to raise taxes. Bill Morneau got up and noted that the first things they did was lower taxes on the Middle Class™. Bergen retorted that the Conservatives delivered a balanced budget (not really), and that today’s deficits were tomorrow’s higher taxes (not with a declining debt-to-GDP ratio), but Morneau noted that the facts didn’t match her rhetoric and that Canadians didn’t want to return to the “bad old days” of Conservative austerity. Bergen read more vitriol about Trudeau, to which Morneau listed off their tax cuts and Canada Child Benefit plans, and decried the Conservative legacy of debt. Gérard Deltell took over in French, and gave his usual demand to know when the budget would  be balanced. Morneau state that their plan was clear to invest, and that the approach was working as witnessed by lowest unemployment in 40 years and people with more money in their pockets. Deltell asked a second time, and Morneau repeated his pabulum. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and said that the PBO reported that the government paid too much for the Trans Mountain pipeline. Morneau replied that he had it wrong — that they bought the pipeline because it was good for the economy. Caron wondered why they didn’t invest instead in transitioning to a clean economy, to which Morneau reminded him of the need to get access to international markets, which was why it was necessary to buy the pipeline. Nathan Cullen took over in English to repeat the question with added sanctimony, to which Morneau said that their purchase price of the pipeline was in the middle of the commercial range, which meant it was a good one. Cullen tried again, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Wilkinson’s first appearance

Posted on by

It was to be Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson’s first appearance in the Senate, still new in the portfolio. Senator Don Plett led off, asking on the Fisheries bill and how it had provisions around captions of cetaceans which were different from those in the Senate public bill that deals with similar matter. Wilkinson first led off by remarking that he used to be a constitutional negotiator and worked on senate reform, before he launched into some prepared remarks on the capture of cetaceans for public display, and said that they support the Senate bill in principle and looked forward to the Chamber’s debates on the Fisheries bill. Plett pressed and raised Wilkinson’s predecessor’s concerns around provincial jurisdiction which would render the Senate bill unconstitutional, and Wilkinson noted that the Senate bill is not government legislation, but the provisions related to whales in the Fishies bill were done with the understanding that it was federal jurisdiction. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Changing the accounting rules

Posted on by

There were some fairly big changes announced yesterday, but the way in which it was reported was interesting if you compared coverage. For example, The Canadian Press led with the headline of a $19-billion federal deficit last year, but didn’t explain until the fifth paragraph that the accounting rules had changed, and described it as “confusing matters,” and then engaged in both-sidesism to have the Conservatives rail about the size of the deficit rather than really explain what the changes meant. The Financial Post mentioned the changes in the second paragraph, but focused on the size of the deficit. It was the CBC’s coverage that spent the full story focused on the accounting rules changes and what they mean, and how that affects the reporting of the figures, which has a lot to do with unfunded pension liabilities that are now being put on the books in a transparent manner that the Auditor General has been calling for, for years now. Context like this is important, and it’s disappointing to see it obscured because writing about the deficit figures is sexier without explaining what they mean, so well done there. You’re really serving your readers.

As with any of these stories, however, the best commentary came from some of the best economists on Twitter, who put it all into context. The full Kevin Milligan thread explaining it all is here, but I’ll post some select highlights.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053342629574828032

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053346059693346816

He also busted the myths about the deficit spending by pointing to the $70 billion hole in GDP that the Liberals were left with when they took office, in part because of the oil downturn and technical recession that the Conservative narrative keeps ignoring.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053393949417586688

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053395164318752768

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053403984411582464

Also, Mike Moffatt points out the significance of those accounting rules around pension liabilities on the reporting of the books.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1053342822017982465

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053354656384962560

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mischief petitions

Posted on by

There’s a nonsense e-petition circulating on the Parliamentary website about the PM’s groping allegation, and essentially calls for him to be removed from caucus because that’s what happened to other Liberals who faced allegations (not true), and then goes on about how he’s lost the confidence of citizens. It’s pure mischief, and the fact that Michelle Rempel is sponsoring it is pretty much proof of that, but that aside, I’m mystified how this passed the vetting that these kinds of petitions are supposed to get because it has nothing to do with a government issue but rather it’s phrased entirely about caucus management. It should be disqualified as such.

This having been established, I have to say that I’m getting mighty tired of e-petition stories, because they’re not actually news. The fact that they’re hosted on the Parliament of Canada website makes them easy to search, so it’s cheap and easy filler content, but the fact that the story here didn’t contextualize the petition as not having anything to do with government business, and instead ginned it up with a headline that it was trying to force a “government response” to the allegation when it has nothing to do with government business, is actually on the irresponsible side. Yes, it’s salacious because it keeps the “groping” allegation story going, but there’s nothing actually there. It’s the equivalent of empty calories in news form. We should be doing better.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bozo eruptions coming from the top

Posted on by

Given some of the “bozo eruptions” over Twitter over the past couple of days by Conservative MPs and senators, I have to wonder about both the mindset behind this strategy of posting, and the adult supervision that underpins it. Obviously, the latter is lacking given what we’ve seen this week especially, but we also can’t deny that there is an attempt at strategy behind it, even if it’s a strategy that’s been kluged together in service of a narrative. That narrative is to put “Justin Trudeau” and “failed” in as many sentences together as possible, but it’s also about a deliberate campaign of lies and misdirection in service of creating that narrative. But even with this in mind, some of it is just really, really dumb.

Take this tweet from Shannon Stubbs – who is a pretty decent MP, it should be stated, but seems to have lost her ability to be credible over Twitter. Part of what is so gross about this tweet is that it basically undermines our entire criminal justice system, which requires that the accused have advocates in order to have a fair trial. And she knows this – the party knows this (while they go about fetishizing victims of crime and altering the entire vocabulary around them in order to tilt the playing field against the accused so as to deny them fairness). But the temptation to be shamelessly partisan is just too much for some of them to withstand. And in the end, I have to think that it’s this mindless partisanship is often to blame – and it is mindless. It robs them of their intellect and critical thinking capacity, and makes them focus solely on scoring cheap points.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1028043707788996610

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1028049573279948800

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1028052339914104832

I’ve seen a lot of the chatter about the tweet from Senator Denise Batters about Omar Alghabra, to the point that the woke crowd is referring to as a “white nationalist,” which I’m quite sure she’s not – she’s just partisan to the point of being mindless, and that includes making ill-suited attacks to the point of dogwhistling, because it becomes reductive and about scoring points. She should know better. (As for Blaine Calkins and his tweet, well, I’m not sure I’d give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows better, so I’ll leave it at that). But there needs to be a recognition that this kind of point-scoring is actually doing damage to their own brand, and as we’ve seen this week, has blown up in their faces more than once. You would hope that this would be cause for some reflection and that they’ll think twice before continuing to engage in this kind of behaviour – but I’m not holding my breath. So long as the official line from the leader is to lie over Twitter as often as he thinks he can get away with it, he’s set a low bar of an example for the rest of his caucus to follow, and it’s no surprise that we’re seeing these kinds of bozo eruptions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Duffy’s poor arguments

Posted on by

Day two of Duffy’s bid to sue the Senate, and his lawyer came up with some…novel arguments. And it sounds like the judge wasn’t buying many of them. For example, they tried to argue that because PMO was exerting influence on the Senate’s leadership that it should nullify privilege. That’s…creative, and utterly ridiculous. When he tried to argue that the suspension should be invalid because it was done for political purposes, the judge wondered aloud if that meant she would have to call every member of the Internal Economy Committee to testify as to their motives – and no, that wasn’t going to happen she quickly decided. They also tried to argue that because the suspension wasn’t related to legislation that privilege doesn’t apply. But that’s also ridiculous because the ability to discipline its members is among the privileges outlined in Section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867. So good luck with that.  Oh, and the “indefinite suspension” argument is also void because it wasn’t indefinite – it was until the end of the parliamentary session, and there was a fixed election date, so it would expire at that point regardless. (Also, the Senate’s privileges allow it to expel a member, so arguing that indefinite suspension is tantamount to expulsion is also not a solid argument).

The final argument was a plea to put the Charter ahead of privilege, which would go against previous Supreme Court of Canada rulings that stated just the opposite – that the Charter doesn’t trump privilege, because that would open up a floodgate to litigation against the parliamentary process. There’s a thing called stare decisis, the doctrine of precedent that binds our common law system, and while there are rare cases where it can be challenges, this isn’t one of them. It’s actually quite audacious that his lawyer would make the case, and I’m not seeing any particular argument about how the judge should invalidate a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. So yeah. Good luck to this case, because I really don’t see it going anywhere fast.

Continue reading →