The Commons will be meeting today in an actual, real sitting and not an abbreviated strange hybrid committee, in order to pass Bill C-20 on disability payments, which they say is in an improved format from their previous attempt in C-17 (which one presumes is now withdrawn from the Order Paper). The bill also includes the changes to the wage subsidy that were announced on Friday, and it sounds like will also have the changes to court system timelines that were previously announced and part of C-17, but the text of the bill won’t be out until the Commons actually sits. We also know that the bill will pass, because the Bloc have agreed to everything, and this means a motion that will see the bill essentially passed at all stages with a couple hours’ worth of speeches in lieu of actual debate or legislative processes, which is less than ideal. We’ll also have a proper Question Period today, so we can look forward to that, and all of the questions on the WE Imbroglio that will come with it. The Senate has not yet announced when they will be meeting to pass it on their end, which may not be until later in the week.
Tag Archives: François-Philippe Champagne
Roundup: Manufacturing an “attendance” record
The big headline that everyone was talking about yesterday was a load of manufactured bullshit, which shouldn’t really surprise anyone, but it was what everyone was throwing around nevertheless. The Globe and Mail crunched the numbers from the Zoom log-ins from the special COVID-19 committee that has been sitting in lieu of regular House of Commons sittings, and found that lo, the Conservatives had the worst “attendance record.” Which is kind of hilarious because it completely misunderstands how this whole farcical process works. Oh, but the Conservatives must be hypocrites, because they’re demanding full sittings! Well, no – you’ve just found some numbers that you’re applying disingenuously in order to make them look like hypocrites. It’s exactly the kind of stunt that causes people – and small-conservatives especially – to distrust the mainstream media, because it looks an awful lot like they’re not being given a fair shake. Of course, Andrew Scheer didn’t do himself any favours when he called it “Liberal spin” rather than pointing out that this was a false construction, but his inability to do anything other than meathead partisan talking points was and still is his downfall.
Why this is such bad-faith “reporting” is because it ignores the fact that there is a set speaking list every day. If you’re an MP – particularly a Conservative MP in a rural riding where you have spotty Internet to begin with – what incentive is there for you to log into Zoom and watch it that way when you have no chance to participate when you can simply follow the proceedings on CPAC and get a better experience because the translation tends to work better? It also operates on the assumption that all 338 MPs are in the House of Commons at all times when Parliament is sitting regularly, which isn’t the case – the only time all MPs are in the Chamber are during Question Period and for votes, and no, despite the sales job that the government has been trying to foist onto the public, this committee is not Question Period. Trying to hand out attendance awards for participating in a Zoom call on steroids is a waste of everyone’s time and resources, and is a distraction from the actual issues related to the calls to have proper in-person sittings – or it would be if the majority of media outlets could actually report critically on it rather than swallowing the government’s lines.
Speaking of outrage clicks, the CBC has again been misrepresenting some Senate matters, like how the Selection Committee works, as part of their story wherein Senator Dalphond is calling for committee chairs and deputy chairs to rescind their “bonuses” in the current session because of many haven’t sat because of the pandemic. But it occurs to me that it’s unlikely that chairs have even been getting their stipends because most committees haven’t even been constituted yet, which makes this look even more like this is part of Dalphond’s particular vendetta against Senator Yuen Pau Woo, and Woo’s insistence on chairing the Selection Committee, and he’s trying to use a larger point about chairs’ salaries (using false comparisons with the House of Lords as ammunition) in order to provide cover from making this look personal. I am becoming extremely concerned about Dalphond’s behaviour here – though my disappointment with how the CBC covers the Senate is pretty much standard. Cheap outrage clicks on the backs of misrepresenting the Senate is par for the course for how journalism runs in this town. (I wrote more on the backstory here).
Roundup: Damage control and lunatic accusations
For his Friday presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau was back at Rideau Cottage, and he started off with the news that the Canadian Forces deployments to long-term care facilities in Ontario and Quebec would be extended until June 26th, but that the plan was to start transitioning to more assistance from the Canadian Red Cross. He mentioned the call with the premiers on Thursday night, which by all accounts got pretty testy, but Trudeau stuck to generalities. He raised the arrest video of Chief Allan Adam, saying he was shocked and that there needed to be an independent investigation, and that policing reforms across the country needed to happen soon. Finally, he mentioned that temperature checks would be implemented on flights, which raised all kinds of questions of faux-confusion that we were told that this was ineffective in detecting COVID-19 – which is true, but it was explained about eleventy times that this was simply an added measure of protection to keep people with fevers off of flights. (And lo, the pundits who seem incapable of thinking critically about public health advice have been decrying this as “added confusion,” which it’s not really). During the Q&A, Trudeau was also asked about the blood donation ban for men who have sex with men, given that NDP MP Randall Garrison has been agitating about this recently, and Trudeau reiterated the government’s position that they were funding the science that would ensure it was safe to end the ban, that they reduced it from a permanent ban to a three-month ban, and that he hoped for a positive announcement soon.
Later in the day, we saw a flurry of damage control out of the RCMP, as Commissioner Brenda Lucki clarified that yes, there is systemic racism in the Force and she should have been clearer about that, and that she has to ensure policing free of bias. As well, the Alberta Deputy Commissioner, who previously denied that systemic racism exists in the Force, said that he’s learned a lot in the past few days and he too will now admit that it exists, and promised to help eliminate it – as calls for his resignation have been mounting. Meanwhile, Winnipeg police tried to get ahead of a story with a video that showed four police grappling with, kicking, and Tasering someone during an arrest, which they insisted was someone who was violent and high on meth – but seemed incapable of admitting that it looks like more police brutality.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives have been trying to make an Issue of the fact that foreign affairs minister François-Philippe Champagne *gasp* has a $1.2 million mortgage for two London properties from a Chinese bank, that predated his time in politics. The mortgages were fully disclosed, and neither the Ethics Commissioner, CSIS or the RCMP seemed to think this was a big deal when he was either elevated to Cabinet or shuffled to his current portfolio, but now the Conservatives are accusing him of being compromised, and going easy on China – to the point that they have insinuated that he is letting the two Michaels languish in a Chinese prison – because of these mortgages. It’s a position that is ludicrously insulting because the worst thing that this Chinese Bank could do is demand immediate repayment (unlikely given the rules for financial institutions in the UK), and Champagne could have to sell those properties, which, given that property in the UK has appreciated rapidly, he could make a tidy profit. More to the point, that same Chinese bank has been operating in Canada since 1993 and had $3 billion on the books here, and there was nary a peep about it from the Conservatives in the nine years they were in power. But logic and common sense are not in play, and instead they are demanding that the Canada-China special committee be reconstituted and Champagne be hauled before it to answer about this, which is starting to reek of a McCarthy-era witch hunt, because they can’t help but engage in meathead partisanship.
So the "big threat" the Chinese could have is… "do what we say or we'll force you to make a lot of money!"
And that's assuming the UK financial authorities are accomodating to banks making political threats since the mortgage likely has strict rules about demands to repay. /2
— Robert Glasgow (@TheTradeLawGuy) June 12, 2020
The “appearance of impropriety” isn’t whatever the hell we decide it is on any day of the week. It’s not a catch-all when you have no other arguments.
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 12, 2020
Bank of China has had retail banking operations in Canada since 1993. They currently have around 3 billion in debt assets on their books here. This entire line of attack is foolishness
— Adam Piercey (@adam_piercey) June 13, 2020
Roundup: Not the provinces’ cash cow
Everything got off to an earlier start yesterday, beginning with the ministerial presser, during which Marc Miller announced another $650 million being allocated to Indigenous communities for healthcare, which would also include added income supports for those living on-reserve, as well as some $85 million to build new shelters for women on reserves. Marc Garneau also announced that the ban on cruise ship docking in Canadian waters was going to be extended to October 31st, which will impact the economies of these communities, but also limits potential vectors for the pandemic. When pressed about the issue of airline ticket refunds, Garneau reiterated the warning that the sector could fail if they were forced to refund all of the tickets, though later on, prime minister Justin Trudeau indicated that there were talks ongoing.
For his presser, Trudeau started off by talking about his teleconference with the premiers and spoke about sick leave being one of the items on the agenda, and it was later in the Q&A that he said that he was offering for the federal government to assume most of the responsibility for the costs, rather than putting it on business owners, but it sounds like some premiers remain rather cool to the idea. After reiterating the earlier Miller/Garneau announcement, Trudeau took questions, which included mention that he was trying to get premiers to agree to some modified orders at the Canada-US border that would allow family reunification, such as cases like the Canadian woman who was trying to get the American father of her unborn child into the country before she gave birth – but again, there are premiers who are not keen. After the questions, Trudeau then gave an unprompted statement on anti-Black racism as a result of what’s going on in the US – that there is a need to stand up as a society, that there needs to be more respect, and that we have work to do as well in Canada. He called on all Canadians to stand together in solidarity, as they know how deeply people are being affected by what we are seeing on the news.
Something else raised in Trudeau’s Q&A was a letter sent to him by five of his Toronto-area backbenchers, calling on him to lead the country in national standards on long-term care, and to press Ontario for a full public inquiry into what happened with the breakdown in care (which I maintain won’t tell us anything we don’t already know). Trudeau praised them for their efforts, and talked about the ongoing talks with provinces, but two of those MPs were on Power & Politics later in the day, and something that I was also glad to hear was Judy Sgro saying that while they wanted federal leadership, they both were respecting that this is provincial jurisdiction and they also didn’t want the provinces treating the federal government like a “cash cow” when you have premiers like Ford demanding more federal funds to fix their own long-term care mess. My own patience for provinces crying out for federal funds to fix the problems in their own jurisdiction is wearing mighty thin, particularly as most of those provinces have broad taxation powers at their disposal (though some of those provinces have less tax room available to them – Ontario, however, is not one of them). Premiers don’t want to have anything on their books and would rather it come from Ottawa’s, so that they don’t have to look like the bad guy when it comes to paying for their own programmes – never mind that there’s really only one taxpayer in the end.
Roundup: Reassurances and critiques
It was a much calmer day yesterday with little in the way of new announcements – the most noteworthy part of Justin Trudeau’s daily presser was that he was actually on time for possibly the first time ever! Oh, and the border restrictions for non-essential travel will probably only kick in sometime on Friday night, but details were still being worked out. As well, there is still no contemplation of use of the Emergencies Act, but it remains a tool in the box if need be.
With the slower news day in mind, here is economist Kevin Milligan who goes through the criticisms of the government’s massive aid package, and addresses which are fair and which ones may not have all of the considerations therein.
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1240735038959837184
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1240736664948858880
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1240737766012416001
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1240740325120864256
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1240744135616638976
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1240745938051715072
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1240746856260366337
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1240749170094309376
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1240751454094123008
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1240752642856570882
https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1240758765655392261
https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1240759454792024071
https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1240760179060342787
Roundup: Lethal overwatch?
There’s been some chatter about a story in the Guardian that purports to show BC RCMP communications that would have allowed for “snipers” and “sterilizing” of Indigenous protests in the province over LNG pipelines – which the minister of Indigenous services wants some answers to, and which the RCMP denies is actually legitimate, citing that the terminology used isn’t consistent with their own, or that some of it is being misinterpreted (in particular “lethal overwatch). To that end, here’s Justin Ling with a bit of context and nuance to consider before you get agitated at what’s being reported, as it may not necessarily be correct.
I, in the past, reported how military intelligence was mobilized to respond to an Idle No More protest on very flimsy ground: https://t.co/tGWId1THKe
And how the RCMP/CSIS were activated to watch these protests as though there was a nexus to terrorism: https://t.co/ia4VJBe0bY— Justin Ling (Has Left) (@Justin_Ling) December 21, 2019
The CBC reported that the journalists from The Guardian didn't supply the documents to the RCMP for verification. Which isn't necessarily a problem, but it does mean that we've got zero independent verification of them (yet?)
— Justin Ling (Has Left) (@Justin_Ling) December 21, 2019
One RCMP official told me "lethal overwatch" isn't quite so literal — it generally means you have unarmed officers on-site, with armed officers waiting on a second site, ready to respond. So, not snipers. (Or, at least, not *necessarily* snipers.)
— Justin Ling (Has Left) (@Justin_Ling) December 21, 2019
This is mostly just to say that I hope The Guardian clarifies the origin of some of these documents (or, better yet, posts them!) Until then, I think this poses challenges to report on. Which isn't to say that the underlying story is untrue. Just that there are some issues.
— Justin Ling (Has Left) (@Justin_Ling) December 21, 2019
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: It’s Cabinet Shuffle Day!
We are now well into Cabinet leak territory, and right now the news is that Chrystia Freeland will indeed be moving – but we don’t know where. We do know that François-Philippe Champagne will replace her at Foreign Affairs, that Pablo Rodriguez will be the new Government House Leader (after we already heard that Steven Guilbeault will take over Canadian Heritage), plus Seamus O’Regan moving to Natural Resources, that Jonathan Wilkinson is taking over Environment and Catherine McKenna will take over Infrastructure. We’re also hearing from Quebec media that Jean-Yves Duclos will take over Treasury Board, and that Mélanie Joly is due for a promotion – but no hint as to what it means otherwise. Still no word on Public Safety, which is a huge portfolio that will need a very skilled hand to deal with in the absence of Ralph Goodale.
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1196922355181924352
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1196922357073489920
https://twitter.com/JenniferRobson8/status/1196959319994056705
Meanwhile, some of the other roles that Trudeau needs to decide who are not in Cabinet will include the whip, parliamentary secretaries, and considerations for committee chairs (though he won’t have the final say on those as they are ostensibly elected by the committees themselves, and it’s the whips who largely determine who will sit on which committee). Committees are especially important in a hung parliament, so this could mean big roles for those who didn’t make it into Cabinet.
Roundup: Caucus leaks from sore Liberals
There was a very curious piece in yesterday’s Hill Times that offered leaks from the Liberal caucus room – leaks which have been rare over the past couple of years, but then again, Jane Taber has retired from journalism, so perhaps not everyone has gotten around to finding someone to call when they want to gripe. In this particular instance, the chair of the Liberals’ rural caucus allegedly raised the notion that he didn’t feel his constituents were properly consulted on upcoming gun control legislation, and Trudeau allegedly chastised him in return, given that this was a campaign commitment and they have consulted for two years and there’s not much more consultation that they can do. (And really, the notion that this government has been paralyzed by consultation is not too far from the truth).
Now, I get that rural Liberals are nervous – the institution of the long-gun registry in the 1990s did serious damage to their electoral chances that they only just recovered from in this last election cycle, and these MPs would like to keep their seats in the next election, thank you very much. But at the same token, I’m not going to be too sympathetic to this notion that Trudeau’s response to them is going to create some kind of chill in the caucus room. You’re grown-ups, and sometimes things get a bit heated, particularly when it looks like there’s some pretty serious foot-dragging going on that could affect promises being kept, while the party is already on the defensive for other promises not kept (however justified it may have been not to keep them – looking at you in particular, electoral reform).
I was also curious by the tangent that this piece took regarding the fact that Gerald Butts and Katie Telford also routinely attend caucus meetings, which tend to be reserved only for MPs (and once upon a time, senators) to hash things out behind closed doors and to have full and frank discussions with one another. And there was talk about how under Chrétien or Martin, senior staff were not there, but under the Harper era, they often were, if only to take notes and ensure that there was follow-up on items that were brought forward. And if that’s all that Butts and Telford are doing, then great – that may be a good way to ensure that everyone is on the same page. But it does feed into the notion that Butts is the real brains of the operation and that he’s the one running the show. Take that for what you will.
Senate QP: Meandering trade talk
While the tributes to Rona Ambrose carried on in the House of Commons, international trade minister François-Philippe Champagne was down the hall in the Senate Chamber, taking questions on his portfolio. Senator Smith led off, wondering about the state of the NAFTA discussion, and whether we were facing a “tweak” or a massive change. Champagne noted that he was supporting the minister of Foreign Affairs as part of a whole-of-government approach, and he would be meeting the new US Trade Representative this Friday at an APEC meeting. Smith asked about tax competitiveness with the Americans, with proposed US tax cuts, but Champagne said that they were looking to diversify, becoming a bridge between Pacific and Atlantic economies, discussions with India regarding a FIPA, and exploratory trade talks with China. Champagne also noted that NAFTA has been tweaked eleven times to date.
2 Senate committees are traveling and Legal committee is sitting now too.
— Linda Frum (@LindaFrum) May 16, 2017