Tag Archives: Gun Control

Roundup: Harder tries to play hero again

Posted on by

After hosting most of the Alberta senators to a lunch in Edmonton, Alberta premier Jason Kenney has written a letter to Senator Peter Harder, Leader of the Government in the Senate – err, “government representative,” to say that he and the leaders of the other two main parties in Alberta are willing to accept Bill C-69 if they keep it as amended by the committee. Those amendments, mind you, were largely all written by industry lobbyists, and gut much of what the bill was trying to accomplish, which was an overhaul of the environmental assessment process, because what’s on the books now (which is the process that Harper gutted in 2012) isn’t working and is only resulting in court challenges.

And Harder? Well, after his whip – err, “government liaison,” Senator Grant Mitchell, has been pushing for the bills to pass largely unamended, Harder says that he now wants to send this bill as amended back to the Commons, as well as the recommendation that Bill C-48 (the tanker ban) – though I’m not sure how that would happen given the de facto committee recommendation is that it not proceed – and let them decide whether or not to keep the amendments. Let the government deal with it – or rather, wear the decision for not accepting the amendments so that Kenney will turn his ire to Trudeau, and not the Senate. Because Harder is such a hero like that (while making up parts of his job description that don’t actually exist).

Meanwhile, former Senator Hugh Segal is taking to the pages of the Globe and Mail to warn the Senate against defeating C-48 because he says it would contradict the Salisbury Convention. *sigh* No. The Salisbury Convention doesn’t exist in Canada, no matter how many times Harder of luminaries like Segal bring it up. It’s contrary to the Constitution, we don’t have the same historical reasons for why Salisbury was adopted in the House of Lords, and it also goes against the whole notion of a more “independent” Senate. Nor is C-48 an election promise so far as anyone can gather, which is a trigger for Salisbury – if it existed (which it doesn’t in Canada). There are plenty of reasons why the Senate shouldn’t defeat C-48, but making up that it’s contrary to Salisbury isn’t one of them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fighting on the economy

Posted on by

There are a couple of interesting threads out on the wires right now about the direction that the government is headed in as we head toward an election, and one of them is that Liberals in Ontario would rather their party fight the election based on the economy rather than the environment – this as the Liberals and NDP are trying to compete as to who can talk a better game on climate in order to head off the surge in Green Party support in the polls, and the recent Green by-election win. I’m sure this is going to be a very lively discussion behind the caucus room doors, and in the party’s election planning meetings, but that sentiment is clearly there.

At the same time, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Canada are expressing some displeasure with the government, but as Paul Wells notes here, some of it is a bit…dubious, such as demanding balanced budgets and lower taxes while the Americans are fuelling their tax cuts with trillion-dollar deficits. Wells also noted that both of these lobby groups aren’t really acknowledging that much of the drag on our economy is caused by outside forces – namely the brewing trade war between the US and China, and before that, Donald Trump’s threats to tear up NAFTA – and that these groups have studiously avoided talking about climate and the need to deal with our emissions. Nevertheless, there is a malaise between Corporate Canada and the Liberals possibly because the party seems to be setting their Blue Liberal base loose as they try to move further to the left in order to claim the space the NDP usually occupies, and that may wind up costing them in the longer term, if history is any guide.

Kevin Milligan, meanwhile, finds himself a bit puzzled at how little these same Corporate Canada voices have acknowledged the very significant changes that the government made in the fall economic update to deal with the US tax changes.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1127275895859716096

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1127278184821444608

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about that Senate poll

Posted on by

There is some drama going down at the Senate’s internal economy committee over Senator Donna Dasko’s poll on the Senate appointment process. Conservative senators say the poll is really partisan and should be a personal expense, whereas Dasko says they just don’t like the results and are trying to shoot the messenger. But I will have to say that I’m leaning more toward the Conservative side on this one because Senator Yuen Pau Woo – the “facilitator” of the Independent Senators Group – and others have been using this poll to push the Senate appointment process as an election issue, knowing full well that Andrew Scheer plans a return to partisan appointments and Jagmeet Singh follows the NDP dogma of preferring to abolish the Senate (but good luck getting the unanimous consent of the provinces). That is de facto partisan, whether Woo and the Independents believe it to be or not (and it’s somewhat galling that they don’t see this as being partisan, and yet they refuse to engage in the horse trading on managing bills in the Senate, because they see that as a partisan activity when it most certainly is not).

We all know that I didn’t find the poll particularly illuminating, because it could have asked Canadians if they wanted a pony and would have achieved similar results. I do especially find it objectionable that these senators are using it to justify their world view of the Senate, which is and of itself a problem – their particular disdain for everything that came before, dismissing it as being partisan and hence evil and wrong, is part of what has caused the myriad of problems the Senate is now facing with its Order Paper crisis and committees that aren’t functioning, because they don’t understand how Parliament or politics works and they don’t care to. But now they have a poll to point to that says that Canadians like the independent appointments process, as though that justifies everything. It doesn’t and it creates more problems in the long term.

Continue reading →

QP: Impugning the RCMP and public prosecutor

Posted on by

On a gloomy Thursday, neither Justin Trudeau nor Andrew Scheer were present for the proceedings. Mark Strahl led off, raising the end of the Mark Norman trial, alleging interference by the government, to which Bill Blair assured him that the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service are independent of government. Strahl railed about the documents that were allegedly withheld in the process, and Blair took umbrage with his characterisation of the RCMP. Strahl amped his rhetoric and his volume, to which Blair asserted that none of that was true, and he reiterated the independence of the process. Alain Rayes picked up on that in French, with some added allegations that the government was apparently trying to “destroy” Davie shipyard (no, seriously), and Blair asserted that people deserved better than slander and innuendo. Rayes trie again, and got Blair reading that all obligations were followed for document disclosure. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he demanded the government adopt his plan to build half a million new homes, to which Jean-Yves Duclos thanked him for the opportunity to talk about the government’s national housing strategy. Singh asked again in French, and Duclos repeated his response. Singh then pivoted to the Norman trial, and demanded an independent investigation into what happened, and Blair repeated that he found it offensive that someone would rise and impugn the conduct of the RCMP of the Public Prosecution Service. Singh repeated the question in English, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Green wins, and the AG’s report

Posted on by

After the Green Party won their second seat in Monday night’s by-election in Nanaimo–Ladysmith, it was inevitable that we would be subjected to a litany of hot takes about what this means for the upcoming federal election, most of which I’m not going to bother reading because frankly, I’m not sure it means anything at all. The Greens have been doing well provincially on Vancouver Island, where this riding is, and more than that, this particular candidate was once an NDP candidate who was booted from the party (apparently for views about Israel), and when the Greens picked him up, he won for them, while the NDP vote collapsed. Add to that, Green wins in BC, New Brunswick and PEI were also predicated by incumbent governments who had been in place for a long time (well, in New Brunswick, it was a constant PC/Liberal swap), and that’s not necessarily the case federally. While Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh tried to spin this as “proof” that Canadians care about the environment (for which both will try to tout their party policies on the same) we can’t forget that Canadians want to do something about the environment in the same way that they want a pony – it’s a nice idea that nobody has any intention of following up on because it’s a lot of effort and mess. This has been proven time and again. I would also caution against the notion that this means that “progressive” votes are up for grabs, because the Greens, well, aren’t all that progressive. If you read their platform, it’s really quite socially conservative, and they had whole sections essentially written by “Men’s Rights Activists” because they have little to no adult supervision in their policy development process. So any hot takes you’re going to read about the by-election are probably going to be full of hot air (quite possibly this one as well).

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1125798043905818624

Auditor General’s Report

The big news out of the Auditor General’s report was of course the backlog that the Immigration and Refugee Board faces regarding asylum claimants in Canada. The Conservatives, naturally, have jumped on this to “prove” that the current government has somehow broken the system, but every single expert that was cited over the day yesterday said that the Liberals inherited a system that was already broken (some went so far as to say that the Conservatives deliberately broke it in order to force a crisis that would allow them to adopt more draconian measures – though those backfired in a spectacular way, worsening the backlog), and that they have taken steps to increase the IRB’s resources. I wrote about some of these issues a while ago, and the IRB was starting to streamline some of their processes and start making use of technology like email (no, seriously) that cut down on some of the bureaucracy they were mired in – but as with anything, these kinds of changes take time to implement and have an effect. But expect the narrative of the “broken” system to continue in the run up to the election. Meanwhile, here are the other reports:

  • Half of Canadians who call a government call centre can’t get through, which is blamed on technology that was allowed to go obsolete
  • The RCMP are still not adequately prepared to deal with active shooter situations.
  • Our tax system hasn’t kept up with e-commerce and needs modernization
  • The mechanism to prevent governments from doing partisan advertising has little documentation and rigour.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Some of Goodale’s Regina Monologues

Posted on by

While his planned appearance had been postponed a few weeks earlier due to “unforeseen circumstances,” Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale was in the Senate for Question Period, which curiously interrupted a vote bell, as the rules of the Senate allow. Senator Plett led off, asking about the gun control bill and the amendments that the committee is debating, asking if he would “instruct” the Independent senators to kill the amendments of not, to which Goodale quipped that he would never presume to tell senators what to do. When Plett tried to press as to whether the government would entertain amendments, Goodale gave a paean about the need for debate and votes.

Linda Frum raised the House of Commons voting to list the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, and eleven months later, they had not been. Goodale reminded her that there is a detailed process under law that was being followed, and noted that some of their subsidies had already been listed.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unenforceable garbage legislation

Posted on by

As expected, the Speaker ruled yesterday that he didn’t have the jurisdiction to police whether or not the different party caucuses adhered to the Reform Act additions to the Parliament of Canada Act, and thus Jane Philpott’s complaints will fall on deaf ears (just as Erin Weir was hoping to belatedly make the same complaints about his own expulsion from NDP caucus). And then we immediately got another wave of self-righteousness over the Twitter Machine about how terrible it was that MPs couldn’t even follow their own laws just after they passed them.

To recap the whole Reform Act saga: It was a dubious prospect from the very start because it was utterly misguided in what it was trying to accomplish, which was to nominally weaken the power of the party leader and strengthen the power of MPs. Everyone was treating this as a rebuke of the “dictatorial” Stephen Harper, so it became this big optics battle, never mind that it would have done nothing about the Conservative caucus and their mood, since the vast majority of them were still convinced that Harper walked on water. And while Michael Chong may have been noble in sentiment, he chose the wrong vehicle to make his proposed changes. The right vehicle would have been reforming leadership selection processes, which are the bane of our system, but he didn’t dare do that, so we got the Reform Act instead. And because no party actually wanted to do more than mouth the platitudes of the bill, they ensured it was so completely neutered in committee and made optional, with no enforcement, that we got the eventual garbage bill passed into law because it felt good to do so.

Here’s the thing: MPs didn’t need this bill to give them any more power. They already had all the power they needed, but they either choose not to exercise it, or don’t know about their own powers because, well, most of them don’t even know their own job descriptions. (This is why I wrote my book). And Chong’s garbage bill actually limited their powers under the guise of strengthening them. But would anyone articulate that at the time (other than me, howling into the void from the pages of the National Post)? Of course not. All of the hollow platitudes were siren song. And so once again, MPs passed a meaningless (but not actually harmless — the bill is actually democratic poison) bill into law with no intention of following through on it, because it felt good. And this kind of thing keeps happening because not enough MPs are serious enough about their actual constitutional roles. We need better informed MPs, or this kind of thing will keep happening.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to make a garbage bill relevant

Posted on by

Over the past couple of weeks, Conservative MP Michael Chong has been trying to make “Fetch” happen – or rather, trying to make his Reform Act relevant again, first by taking to the Twitter Machine to outline the process outlined in the Act for ousting a party leader (as though the Liberals were seriously considering dumping Justin Trudeau), and later to insist that it laid out a process for expelling MPs from caucus. The problem? Well, there are several, but the most immediate one is that the Act requires each party to vote at the beginning of each parliament whether they will adhere to the provisions or not – and lo, none of the parties voted to. Not even Chong’s. It was always a garbage bill – I wrote a stack of columns on that very point at the time it was being debated – and it made things worse for parties, not better, and ironically would have made it even harder to remove a party leader by setting a public high bar that the pressure created by a handful of vocal dissidents or resignations would have done on its own. It also has no enforcement mechanisms, which the Speaker confirmed when Erin Weir tried to complain that it wasn’t being adhered to. But why did this garbage bill pass? Because it gave MPs a warm feeling that they were doing something to “fix” Parliament (and in the context of doing something about the “dictatorial” style of Stephen Harper under the mistaken belief that his caucus was searching for some way to get rid of him, which was never the case).  It had so neutered it in order to be palatable enough to vote on that it was a sham bill at best, but really it did actual harm to the system, but Chong was stubborn in determining that it should pass in its bastardized form rather than abandoning it for the steaming hot garbage bill that it was.

And now, with Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott’s ouster from caucus, Chong has been trying to make the rounds to claim that the move was illegal without a vote – err, except no party voted to adopt the provisions, which is pretty embarrassing. And yet he keeps trying to sell it to the public as though this were a done deal.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Media rounds and brand damage

Posted on by

Freed from the expectation that they needed to stay quiet(er) in order to not jeopardise their chances of remaining in caucus, both Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott hit interview circuit, the former in Maclean’s and the Globe and Mail, the latter also in Maclean’s and on CBC Radio and Power Play. And there is no doubt that both of them thought they were doing the right thing, but I’m not sure they quite grasp some of the political realities that the prime minister is grappling with. They kept saying that if Trudeau had just apologised from the start, this all could have been avoided, but that would have meant admitting that he was in the wrong, and that’s both a problem on every level for him to do, and I get the impression that nobody thinks they were trying to interfere or apply inappropriate pressure. And because they both think they’re right, we’re in the situation we’re in. Philpott did tell Don Martin that she’s aware of other conversations that are still relevant to what happened, but she’s not going to dangle them out there (err, she just did) because everything that people need to know is already public, but she didn’t say that she thought the prime minister was lying. In her interview with the Globe, Wilson-Raybould admitted to clashing with Carolyn Bennett over the Indigenous Rights framework, but it was her comments to Maclean’s that really made me pause, where she said she didn’t really understand the Liberal Party anymore, and it makes me wonder if she actually understood them to begin with, given how the party morphed itself as the cult of Trudeau after his messianic leadership campaign, and that many of the new MPs are as a result of that rather than stalwarts who stood with the party through the lean opposition years. Oh, and Wilson-Raybould also sorta disputed that there were negotiations regarding ending the tiff with Trudeau, and some confusion as to whether that was before she quit Cabinet or in the weeks that followed, and we got a bit of clarification.

Speaking of Trudeau, there has been a lot of focus on the damage to his brand, in particular his Feminist™ brand in the past few weeks, and with the ouster of Wilson-Raybould and Philpott (not to mention Celina Caesar-Chavannes’ decision to leave caucus of her own accord). In particular, the symbolism of the whole Affair crashing down around the Daughters of the Vote event was a darkly ironic for the prime minister, with one of his former youth delegates calling his rhetoric hollow. Add to that, there has been an expectation built up around him that his “doing politics differently” led people to believe that when push came to shove that he wouldn’t act like a politician, in spite of all of the symbolism he invested in. (There is probably a lesson in there too about filling in the blanks when someone says they’ll be different, but won’t specify how). Over on Twitter, Moebius Stripper reminds us not to confuse the actual good feminist work of this government with its Feminist™ branding.

Amidst the awfulness and brand-torching, Chris Selley recalls weeks ago when the Liberals floated a trial balloon to say that Trudeau would apologise for…something, didn’t, and now the claims that Wilson-Raybould tried to force an apology. Paul Wells, meanwhile, is in a Mood, and he (quite properly) lambastes this while Affair as another in a line of incidents that reveals the true heart of this government, and the ramshackle way in which they run this government (and if you looked at what they’ve done to the Senate alone, I would absolutely agree).

Continue reading →

Roundup: The caucus question

Posted on by

The question of the future of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott in the Liberal caucus is a very live question as sentiment seems to be turning against them – though one imagines that Wilson-Raybould’s ouster is probably of bigger concern to most Liberals given the revelation of the tape she made of her conversation with Michael Wernick. Apparently, the various caucus chairs have been meeting, and pushing for an emergency caucus meeting before the regularly scheduled Wednesday meeting to try and resolve the issue before then. Some of them want a declaration from the pair that they support the leader before they will consider letting them stay – and Wilson-Raybould would not give that when scrummed after QP yesterday, saying she believes in the party and what it stands for, but would not give any assurances about the leader. (She also scoffed at the idea of resigning, insisting that she was doing the best job she could). Of course, the fact that she made the secret recording means that she has broken the trust of colleagues, even though she has made the excuse that Wernick was neither a member of caucus, nor her client. (I would add that it doesn’t explain her conduct during that call, which contained a number of irregularities, leading questions and directed conversation in search of quotes). There are questions still about Philpott, and where she will position herself since the release of the tape, and some Liberals have suggested that perhaps she was “used” by Wilson-Raybould. (And one has to wonder if the tape would change her own notions about her support for Wilson-Raybould).

I have to say that I’m struggling on the question of whether or not Wilson-Raybould should remain in caucus, because while I believe there is room for dissent, and even for MPs who don’t support the leader – because it’s a gods damned political party and not a personality cult – I also find that the tape causes me a great deal of concern for the reasons articulated above, as do the opacity of her motivations for behaving in the way she has, particularly around the tactical use of silence on something that you would think she’s be pulling the fire alarm over if it was what she is hinting. Too many things don’t add up, which is both distressing and exhausting for someone trying to understand what is going on. I get that there are Liberals with battle scars who don’t want a replay of the Chrétien-Martin years (or the Dion-Ignatieff wars, or even Turner-Trudeau Senior if you want to go that far back), and there is the worry that Wilson-Raybould’s presence in caucus will be a potential source of internecine warfare that Liberals apparently excel at, or that Trudeau should be putting some metaphorical heads on spikes to reassert his dominance, or any of that, but again, this is a political party, not a personality cult. This is not and should not be Trudeau’s party, but there is a live question about the damage she has done to the party and its chances in the election given the way that this has rolled out, and members of caucus will need to consider that. It’s not an easy task, and they should think carefully, because expelling those two could create bigger narrative problems for them in the longer term. But it’s also not up to me to decide (and I’m not one of those journalists who enforces caucus loyalty), so I await to see what everyone in the caucus room decides.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives decided that their next pressure tactic would be for Pierre Poilievre to “filibuster” the budget debate – err, except it’s not really a filibuster because it can only take place during the time allotted for government orders, and the Standing Orders limit the budget debate to a maximum of four days, those days being at the government’s choosing. So essentially, Poilievre is holding himself hostage, and by him taking up all of the speaking time over those four allotted days, he’s essentially ensuring that nobody else has to prepare a speech of their own, so all of the MPs on House duty can simply spend their time doing paperwork at their desks while he carries on. So…I’m not sure what exactly the Conservatives are hoping to accomplish. It’s another ill-conceived move by a caucus who mistakes tactics for strategy.

Continue reading →