While it was Thursday and you would think that most MPs would be present for QP, but that was not the case. Both Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were off in Saguenay to help push for the by-election on Monday. Gérard Deltell led off, worrying about home cultivation of cannabis, and Quebec and Manitoba rejecting that plan. Ginette Petitpas Taylor got up to read that home cultivation will help curb the black market, and this followed the advice of the working group and US jurisdictions. Deltell tried again, and got some boilerplate from Petitpas Taylor. Lisa Raitt was up next, and asked about the decision to close the lobster fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and fishermen protesting at his office. LeBlanc reminded her that this was about protecting the North Atlantic right whale, and while this was difficult, he will meet with them tomorrow. Raitt then moved onto the demands to know the cost of carbon taxes on Canadians, raising the Ontario election as is their new line. Catherine McKenna said they published a report on April 30th, and that provinces are the best place to decide what to do with revenues, and it was better to ask those provinces what they’re going to do. Raitt demanded the answer from McKenna’s department officials, and raised the notion that Ford won in Ontario because people feel that costs are out of control. McKenna reiterated that all revenues remain in the provinces. Guy Caron was up for the NDP, decrying comments that former Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge that people die protesting the Trans Mountain pipeline, and he was fine with that. McKenna stood up to simply say that they believe in the right to protest. Caron tried again in French, and got the same succinct response. Alexandre Boulerice for up to decry the lack of adequate monitoring of pipeline spills, to which Marc Garneau said it was the duty of any government to get oil to market, and praised the polluter pay system in the Pipeline Safety Act. Sheila Malcolmson repeated the question in English, and Garneau repeated his response in the language of Shakespeare.
Tag Archives: Foreign Policy
QP: Borders and pipeline taxes
While Justin Trudeau was present today after meeting with the prime minister of Estonia, Andrew Scheer was away. In his place, Lisa Raitt led off, worried about irregular border crossers, and the strain it was putting on housing. Trudeau stood to respond, script in hand, to say that they have robust processes, but the previous government left them backlogs that they were still cleaning up. When Raitt insisted that there were three separate problems as a result of his #WelcomeToCanada tweet, the lack of clarity from the immigration minister, and the international development minister welcoming those migrants because they helped with a labour shortage in her riding. Trudeau didn’t take up a script this time and reminded Raitt that they have a system that applies to everyone, and when Raitt tried a third time, Trudeau got more vociferous in his reiteration that there is a proper process, that they ensure that everyone goes through it, whether there are backlogs or not. Gérard Deltell took over in French, reiterating the previous question, to which Trudeau noted that while Canada welcomes people a from around the rule, the system is applied with integrity and that we are a country with a rule of law. On a second time around, Trudeau noted that they still had irregular migrants under their watch, and they cut their healthcare on top of resources to CBSA and the IRB. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, and accused Kinder Morgan of avoiding Canadian taxes, so why would the government give them a blank cheque. Trudeau started with the tired environment and the economy talking point before transitioning to the fact that without the pipeline, our economy is losing out of a $15 billion because of a lack of access to other markets. Caron tried again, and Trudeau doubled down on the need for a better price for our oil. Ruth Ellen Brosseau took over to ask the same again in English, and Trudeau reiterated his answer, and again on a second go around.
QP: Elections, Hamas, and subsidies
On a pleasant Wednesday afternoon in the nation’s capital, the benches were full in the Commons as MPs gathered for what was not only Question Period, but the practice of proto-Prime Ministers Questions, something that has never quite worked out in practice. Andrew Scheer led off, concerned about the electoral reform bill, and the fact that it would allow for American-funded groups to campaign and that the government could make announcements on taxpayer’s funds. Trudeau reminded him that most of those changes were recommendations from Elections Canada, and the previous government tried to ruin our electoral system. Scheer then asked why the government didn’t choose their first candidate for Chief Electoral Officer, to which Trudeau took up a script to read about how great the chosen candidate is. Scheer then changed topics to demand that Trudeau walk back on his statement about the shootings in Gaza and blame Hamas, to which Trudeau said that he spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu about the incident and the fact that a Canadian civilian doctor was shot by an Israeli sniper, and that demanded an investigation. Scheer took exception to this, insisting that Israel goes out of its way to protect civilians, and Trudeau chastised Scheer for politicising the Israeli question. Scheer railed that Trudeau was not condemning Hamas and that they were the ones who politicised the situation, and Trudeau responded by regaling him with Conservative protesters picketing the home of a Toronto Jewish leader who openly supported the Liberal party in the last election. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, demanding an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and Trudeau took up a script to say that they were working on their plan to phase out emissions and that Trans Mountain was part of that plan. Caron demanded to know the ceiling for the “subsidy” to Kinder Morgan, and Trudeau responded off the cuff that they have strengthened measures to ensure that Kinder Morgan got their approval and that it sends a signal that projects could get built. Jenny Kwan took over in English to reiterate the same questions, and Trudeau took up his script to reminder that the G7 plan was by 2025. Kwan railed that the government had no intention to phase out the subsidies, and Trudeau reiterate their commitment to growing the economy while lowering emissions.
Don’t those “fat cat shareholders” of Kinder Morgan include Canadian pension funds? #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 23, 2018
Roundup: The problem with coalition speculation
We’re only a few days into the Ontario election campaign, and we’re already hearing far too much of the c-word for my liking. And by c-word, I mean “coalition” (though I have no doubt that the other c-word is being uttered by trolls over social media). And it’s so utterly frustrating because most of the time, the talk isn’t accompanied by any particular understanding of how Westminster governments work so you get a ham-fisted attempt to force coalition talks into the early days of a campaign, during which the polls could easily swing (and have in the past). And yet here we are.
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 14, 2018
Paul Wells did a great service by calling out this kind of talk in Maclean’syesterday, reminding everyone – and especially We The Media – that this kind of talk, especially on the back of torqued headlines, doesn’t really help anyone. Why? Because, aside from the fact that it’s just pure speculation, and that it distracts from actual issues at play, it also forces leaders to start ruling out hypotheticals that aren’t in play but one day might be. He also makes the salient point that post-election, things are not on a level playing field – the incumbent government is still the government, regardless of how many seats they won, and it sets up interesting scenarios if the seat counts are close, as what happened in BC last year. And time and again, media commentators seem to utterly forget that fact, which becomes extremely frustrating as they give authoritative commentary about things that are in contradiction to the realities of how the Westminster system operates.
That said, ruling it out is disingenuous 100% of the time and makes any future agreement less credible, if not less legitimate.
— Chris Selley (@cselley) May 14, 2018
Update: I thought of a good answer. "I'm not ruling out any governing arrangement, because that would be silly. Any other leader who tells you otherwise is lying either to you or to themselves. And every single journalist here knows it." https://t.co/qcvXidSo8x
— Chris Selley (@cselley) May 15, 2018
https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/996229744285794304
Now, I sort of appreciate what Wherry is saying there, but the problem is that unless and until our media commentators bother to learn how the system operates, we will continue to trade in misinformation, that gets torqued for the sake of headlines, and it will exacerbate the situation and make it worse. Remember the prorogation crisis of 2008 that was precipitated by a potential coalition government willing to step in if they defeated the Harper government on a vote of non-confidence? And how the government’s talking heads were giving all kinds of nonsense answers about it being “anti-democratic,” or that they were going to “go over the head of the Governor General” and incite civil unrest if she let Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton form government? Don Newman was the only journalist who challenged these statements to their faces at the time, and, well, Don’s retired from the news business, and the rest of the pundit class hasn’t learned much since then, unfortunately, so I really am not confident that there would be pushback to wrong notions that will get promulgated if a coalition does become a reality in Ontario post-election. But as Wells pointed out, this kind of pointless speculation is the kind of empty calories and time-wasting that is irresistible to the media landscape. Meanwhile, I’ll be right here, head exploding.
Roundup: Ethics committee theatre incoming
We can look forward to a heap of bad political theatre next week as the Commons’ ethics committee plans to sit on Tuesday and Wednesday in order to demand that the PM appear before them to answer questions in regards to the Ethics Commissioner’s report into his Xmas vacation with the Aga Khan, and to hear from the now-former Commissioner on the report the following day. And you can expect that it’s going to be nothing short of howls of sanctimonious indignation. Oh, and there may be legitimate procedural roadblocks to their plans given that the report hasn’t been presented to the Commons yet, according to a former Commons procedural clerk.
ETHI scheduled to meet next day w Dawson as witness regarding her last report. PROBLEM: The report hasn't been presented to the HoC and referred to the cmtee yet, so there's a procedural roadblock to mtg.
— B. Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) January 5, 2018
Regarding the demands that Trudeau appear, it would be highly unlikely that the Liberals on the committee will let that go ahead (and they have the votes to block it if necessary). And if the Conservatives cry foul, they can turn around and point to the fact that they blocked an attempt by the committee in the last Parliament to have Stephen Harper appear before them to answer questions related to the ClusterDuff Affair, and fair is fair, besides which, Trudeau has answered in Question Period and the media on this issue. And really, why would a PM expose himself to an hour of MPs trying to play Matlock, asking questions that are all traps designed to get him to incriminate himself, and then baying at the moon when he refuses to answer. It would be worse than the performances we see in Question Period these days (which are generally terrible), and we’d get the same quality of answers from Trudeau, which will be some fairly pat and trite lines unless they trip him up (which is the whole point).
Oh, one might say (and Althia Raj did on Power & Politics last night), if they want to show that this is really a new era of accountability and transparency, they it might be in their best interests to go ahead and have him go before the committee, to which I remind people what happened when Thomas Mulcair appeared before a committee to answer questions related to the satellite offices issue. Mulcair blustered, obfuscated, and then proffered a fiction that Conservatives did it too (they didn’t – the “evidence” was a riding office and a party office in the same mini-mall but several doors down from one another, but hey, they were on the same sign by the parking lot), and as he did so, all of his partisans flooded social media praising that “this is what accountability looks like.” I’m not really sure that this is the kind of thing we want to revisit.
As for Dawson’s appearance, it’s “as an individual” since she will be officially retired by then, and we can imagine that it will be much the same – each side fishing for a media clip that fits their established narrative, which they will then flood social media with – assuming that she can answer, given the procedural issue identified. And we can imagine how many questions about Bill Morneau will be asked, followed by the Liberals asking how many investigations she conducted on Conservative ministers, and on and on it will go. It won’t be a constructive use of anyone’s time, but why does that matter when you’ve got cheap political theatre to perform?
Speaking of Dawson, here’s her exit interview with the Globe and Mail in which she defends how much time she took to write that report, confirms that she didn’t discuss Bill C-27 with Morneau (never mind that doing so would violate cabinet confidence and cabinet secrecy – funny how the Globe continually ignores that fact), and defends the advice she gave to Morneau about a blind trust (“You know what the hell’s in there. That’s a defect on a blind trust”).
Roundup: Embattled ministers sticking it out
With three cabinet ministers currently “embattled” (to various degrees), Aaron Wherry wondered about the drop-off in actual ministerial resignations, and found the comparison to the days of Brian Mulroney, who was far quicker to accept resignations than is customary these days. Mulroney came to regret this, mind you, but it can’t be denied that the demands for resignations have never left us, and in fact are pretty rote performance by this point. That the Conservatives made their demand for Bill Morneau’s resignation without any real damning evidence as to why it’s necessary has made it seem as unserious as it actually is, making it harder for them in the future to make a legitimate demand.
But with that having been said, I’m going to say that there’s something that Wherry has left out in his analysis, which is the way in which Cabinets are constructed is a different calculation now than it was in Mulroney’s day, and that matters. Back then, the dominant concern was federal construction, so while you had to ensure that you had enough ministers from certain regions, and some token diversity in terms of religious or cultural background, with a woman or two in the mix, it was easier to swap out white men for one another when it came to accepting resignations and replacing them. That’s not really the case right now. Trudeau’s pledge for a gender-balanced cabinet that is also regionally representative as well as diverse in terms of race and ethnicity means that there are far fewer options for replacing ministers when it comes time to either accepting resignations, or swapping them out for fresh blood. What that ends up doing is creating an incentive for a prime minister to stick by an “embattled” minister (though I’m not sure just how serious any of the allegations against any of the current ministers really is – the attacks against Morneau are largely baseless, while Lebouthillier has done her due diligence with regard to the AG’s report and has technically been correct in what she’s said regarding the disability tax credit; Hehr, meanwhile, has been chagrinned but I’m not sure there is a cardinal sin here in the grand scheme of things). Sure, there will be a few tough days in the media, but eventually, when there turns out to be nothing to what is being said, the storm passes. It passed with Harjit Sajjan and Maryam Monsef (who was given a promotion for sticking with the flaming bag of dog excrement that was the electoral reform file), and I’m pretty sure it’ll pass for the current three. Until Parliament itself is more diverse than it is now, the demands for a representative Cabinet means that there are fewer options available for a Prime Minister to accept a resignation. What it does mean, however, is that they need to get a bit better around communications and managing the issues that do come up, but also seems to be a recurring theme with this government.
QP: Lebouthillier has had enough of your accusations
With Justin Trudeau on his way back from China, and Andrew Scheer again absent, it was left up to Lisa Raitt to once again carry the day. Raitt led off, concerned about tax changes affecting small businesses, and demanded specifics. Dominic LeBlanc reminded her that they were cutting small business taxes, and details on income sprinkling would come before January 1st. Raitt then mocked the government for spending on advertising, to which Scott Brison got up to remind her that when she was in government, they spent a lot more on advertising, while the current government changed the rules to ensure that it wouldn’t be partisan. Raitt raised the concerns of small business owners in New Brunswick communities she visited, and LeBlanc, himself from the province, noted that the member of that riding had already made those concerns known and the government was listening. Alain Rayes was up next to offer the concern trolling on small business taxes in French, and LeBlanc assured him that they listened to concerns before they are implemented. Rayes tried again, and LeBlanc assured him the details would be known shortly. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and railed about the American decision to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and wanted louder condemnation from the Canadian government. Mélanie Joly assured him that they were allies of Israel and that the status of Jerusalem could only be determined in larger negotiations. Hélène Laverdière tried again in English, and got the same answer from Joly in English. Caron was back up, and referred to the Auditor General’s report on the CRA and wondered when they would be accountable to Canadians. Diane Lebouthillier listed off the measures that were being undertaken to correct the situation, and Caron tried again in English, and Lebouthillier repeated her response.
Raitt tells LeBlanc that they know how much of a fighter he is, and wishes him well. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 7, 2017
Roundup: A revealing confession
When I saw the initial tweet, I can’t tell you how hard my eyes rolled, precisely because this sort of shtick is David Akin’s specialty – asking non-sequitur questions at inappropriate moments to try and generate a different headline, oftentimes to manufacture outrage (and oftentimes to the detriment of other reporters who had serious questions to ask when questions were limited). And some of the reactions to said tweet were pretty great too.
https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/937918915987906560
Denmark has PR. Not a safe answer.
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 5, 2017
But reading Trudeau’s response, it was a bit of a warning klaxon for me, because of how this has been quietly playing out over the course of the past couple of years in the ways that Trudeau and his government has been trying to “reform” the way that business happens in the House of Commons – you know, to “modernize” the way that it functions.
…As we look at electoral structures, which is one of the questions that was specifically asked, we’ve had a certain level of discussions around electoral and democratic reform in Canada that leave me looking to the mother of all parliaments. Obviously, the U.K. does a significantly better job than us in programming legislation and getting that through the House. I think there is issue to admire on that. On the other hand, we were glad to adopt the prime minister’s question period model from the U.K. I think there’s lots to draw on when you look at our democratic structures from the mother of all parliaments.
The two key takeaways there are programming legislation, and prime minister’s questions. This isn’t the first time that programming motions have come up – back in the spring, the opposition filibustered the government over a proposal to include programming motions as part of Bardish Chagger’s “discussion paper” on suggested changes to procedure, and it seems that Trudeau hasn’t given up on the notion. I know that some people like programming motions because it helps create more orderly debates, and helps to move legislation though the chamber a lot more swiftly. But that’s partially why I’m not a huge fan of it, because creates the default assumption that the Commons is there to process legislation instead of holding government to account. Granted, we’ve gotten a bit dysfunctional in our parliament because opposition parties (and the NDP in particular) have an inability to let debate collapse in a reasonable timeframe which brings up the need for time allocation, and programming motions are just that – time allocation for all stages of a debate as it gets tabled. We should be trying to get parliament back to a better state of debate rather than resorting to programming, because that will help snuff out what little life remains in our parliament – it will make the speeches that much more rote and pro forma rather than having a miniscule chance for actual debate. As for PMQs, Trudeau’s grand experiment with it here has not proven to be that illuminating, and has instead created a perverse incentive for the Conservatives to instead bombard him with the same question eleventy times than to use it productively, and even when backbenchers do ask varied questions, they get mere platitude responses rather than substantive ones. It’s not like the UK’s, and so I find Trudeau’s response to Akin far more dubious as a result.
QP: Return of the tax changes
While the prime minister remained in China, Andrew Scheer was finally back in the Commons for QP for the first time this week. After a moment of silence for the anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre, Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he read a statement about violence against women. In response, Maryam Monsef rose to give her own statement about the importance of the day and the remembrance of the victims. Scheer then turned to the “attack on small business” by new rules not being fully outlined until the budget. Dominic LeBlanc, who this morning revealed that he was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, reminded him that small business taxes was being reduced and the new rules around private corporations were not about small businesses. Scheer trotted out the torqued 73 percent tax rate line (only applicable to those private corporations making over 100,000 under certain conditions in Ontario), and LeBlanc called him out for using a phoney example. Alain Rayes took over in French, offering the same concerns, and LeBlanc assured him that they listened to small business owners and they were acting on their concerns. Rayes tried again, but LeBlanc launched into a praise for small business tax cuts. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, worrying that not taxing internet giants was hurting Canadian content creators — specifically community newspapers. Mélanie Joly said that they would work with stakeholders to strengthen local journalism. Caron tried again in English, and Joly listed investments made today and promised to help with transition to digital. Tracey Ramsey was up next, demanding transparency on the list of priorities with trade with China. Marie-Claude Bibeau, curiously, rose to read a statement on the importance of trade, but done under Canadian values. Ruth Ellen Brosseau asked the very same question again in French, and got much the same answer.
QP: Decrying a fictitious pardon
While Justin Trudeau remained away at the APEC summit, and with Andrew Scheer elsewhere — despite having been present for caucus just hours before — it was up to Lisa Raitt to lead off QP, and demanded to know if Liberal fundraiser Stephen Bronfman was under CRA investigation for his inclusion in the Paradise Papers. Diane Lebouthillier simply stated that they were treating tax evasion seriously and had invested in fighting them. Raitt stated that since the PM assured reporters that he was satisfied with Bronfman’s explanation, she accused him of interfering with the investigation. No change in Lebouthillier’s answer. Raitt then, incredulously, declared that the PM had “pardoned” Bronfman and railed about separate rules for Liberals than anyone else. Lebouthillier reminded her that she can’t comment on individual cases, but hey, the Conservatives didn’t treat this like a priority. Alain Rayes tried the same lines again in French on two separate occasions, but Lebouthillier remained unmoved, adding in some points about good economic news. Guy Caron was up next, noted his party’s call to bring Bronfman and former Senator Leo Kolber before committee and demanded to know if the Liberals would support them. Lebouthillier assured him that CRA now has the capability to check every tax return. Alexandre Boulerice repeated the question in French, got much the same reply, adding that committees are the masters of their own destiny. Boulerice selectively quoted a couple of Liberal MPs who had noted that there was no demonstrated illegality in the papers, and Lebouthillier repeated the points about investment in the CRA. Caron got back to demand the government change the law to close loopholes, but Lebouthillier reiterated the billion-dollar investment in CRA.