With Justin Trudeau off to New York, none of the other leaders decided to show up for QP today, so way to go for their insistence that all MPs should show up five days a week. Pierre Poilievre led off, demanding that the loan conditions to Bombardier to be reopened to ban the money from bonuses, to which Jean-Yves Duclos assured him that they were trying to grow the economy with key investments to the aerospace industry. Poilievre railed about the company’s family share structure, but Duclos’ answer didn’t change. Poilievre then moved onto the cancellation of tax credits, to which François-Philippe Champagne opted to answer, reminding him about their tax cuts. Gérard Deltell got up next to demand a balanced budget in the other official language, and Champagne reiterated his previous response. Deltell then worried that there was nothing in the budget for agriculture, and after a moment of confusion when Duclos stood up first, Lawrence MacAulay stood up to praise all kinds of measures in the budget. Sheila Malcolmson led off for the NDP, demanding childcare and pay equity legislation immediately. Maryam Monsef proclaimed that the budget was the most feminist budget in history, and listed off a number of commitments. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet repeated the question in French, and Monsef listed off yet more budget commitments. Boutin-Sweet pivoted over to the changes to the Standing Orders, and Bardish Chagger deployed her “modernization” talking points, with some added self-congratulation about yesterday’s proto-PMQs. Murray Rankin demanded a special committee on modernization, and Chagger insisted she wanted to hear their views, but would not agree to a committee.
Tag Archives: Infrastructure
Roundup: Once again, the problem is not PMQs
Apparently the topic hasn’t been exhausted, so here we go with round thirty-seven (or thereabouts). We start with Aaron Wherry comparing what happened in Westminster last Wednesday, where Prime Minister Theresa May was on her feet in the Commons for some three-and-a-half hours as she went directly from PMQs to announcing the Brexit plans, to taking questions on it, in a way that the rules in our own House of Commons doesn’t allow. And bully for Wherry that he acknowledged that such a thing couldn’t happen here under our present Standing Orders, but doesn’t quite get to the crux of the issue that our parliamentary culture is so diminished and bastardised when it comes to speaking and debate that even if we changed the rules to allow for such things, that it likely wouldn’t help. He does, however, acknowledge that Trudeau could start making changes around taking all questions one day a week, or announcing more policy in the Commons, if he really wanted to, without having to change the rules.
Chantal Hébert, meanwhile, notes that Trudeau has not really made himself at home in the Commons, starting with doing the bare minimum as an opposition leader, to not really engaging meaningfully when he does show up now, he and his ministers answering in bland pabulum delivered with a smile. From there, she wonders if this disinterest has manifested itself into a kind of tone-deafness as they try to push the proposed changes to the Standing Orders in as poor a manner as they tried to handle the electoral reform debate.
The Globe and Mail’s unsigned editorial on the proposed changes, however, is thin gruel when it comes to engaging on the issue, buying into these notions that the proposed changes are all about crushing the rights of the opposition, not quite articulating the actual role of parliament, while also not grasping what “programming motions” actually are, while propagating this notion that QP only counts if the PM is there, as though the rest of the Cabinet is unworthy of media attention (which really says more about their own perceptions than it does the PM if you ask me). But I’ve said my piece on this again and again, so I’ll let Wherry field this one, because he hits the nail on the head exactly with why this pervasive opinion is part of the problem.
https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/847970967917907968
https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/847972498209730560
https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/847973356586532864
https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/847973747520921602
https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/847975166277824513
https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/847981913419722752
In other words, Globe and Mail, you’re part of the problem, so stop pointing fingers. As for the UK’s practice of ministerial questions, there’s this:
https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/847984674039320576
Roundup: Top-down incentives
To the excitement of certain federal MPs, the New Brunswick government has decided that in order to encourage more women to run for the provincial legislature (currently there are a pathetic eight out of 49 MLAs), they are going to offer richer per-vote subsidies for parties for women candidates over male ones. While there is a school of thought that insists that this is a great way to get parties to put more women on the ballot, I remain unconvinced.
Part of the problem is that this is trying to impose a top-down solution, which defeats part of the purpose of how our system is supposed to work. Candidates are supposed to come from the ground-up, and candidates should be chosen by the local grassroots, which means giving them tools to help recruit more women (and other minorities). That means removing barriers on the ground, whether it’s being persistent in asking them to run (there is research that shows that you need to ask women an average of five times before they’ll say yes – a strategy the federal Liberals successfully adopted before the last election), or arranging childcare, or ensuring that your local fundraising networks aren’t excluding them because many women candidates don’t have access to the same kinds of networks. It means organizing on the ground, not simply naming or nominating women candidates from on high and expecting people to vote for them.
I will grant you that the New Brunswick Liberals think they’re being clever by tying the increased per-vote subsidy to women as a tactic that would incentive parties to run them in ridings where they’ll get more votes rather than in no-hope ridings (because it’s true that simply offering financial incentives or penalties based on the percentage of women running often results in women carrying those no-hope ridings), but it still smacks of a top-down solution that will result in accusations of tokenism – that they’re only running women so that the party gets more money rather than because she’s the best person for the job. Top-down impositions based on perverse incentives can’t and shouldn’t be the answer. The answer should be proper grassroots engagement and understanding the barriers women face so that they can be removed at the ground level. If we can do that, combined with getting a greater number of straight white male incumbents to step aside to give more space to women and minority candidates to take their places, we’ll find a better and more sustainable engagement with the system.
Roundup: The vacuous pleas to change the Standing Orders
As the procedural warfare over the government’s proposed changes to the Standing Orders drags on, my patience for the government’s digging in their heels and insisting on “modernizing” things are increasingly absurd. To wit, Liberal MP Scott Simms – who is behind the motion to fast track this study, which touched off this warfare in the first place – tried to defend his positon last night, and I just want to bang my head into a wall for a while over the vacuousness of his justifications.
Simms is using his time to dispel myths. The PM question period is not an excuse for him to avoid QP. #PROC
— Kelsey Johnson (@johnsonthree) March 24, 2017
He liked the idea of being accountable for 45 minutes once a week, Simms says. If you don't want that put it in the report #PROC
— Kelsey Johnson (@johnsonthree) March 24, 2017
You say that now, but Trudeau has long promised that he wants to be out glad-handing among Canadians instead of being in the Ottawa bubble, so you’ll excuse me if I treat this with suspicion. Meanwhile, there’s nothing stopping him from answering all of the questions one day a week if he wants without needing to change the Standing Orders to do it.
Then there's the closure issue, Simms says. He was in the UK last week where he says he was told that they should look at programming #PROC
— Kelsey Johnson (@johnsonthree) March 24, 2017
Simms: I want a study so we can talk to Westminster & learn from them. Not cookie-cutter from Westminster. A "made in Cdn" solution #PROC
— Kelsey Johnson (@johnsonthree) March 24, 2017
If there is one bit of discourse that I would ban from Canadian politics, it’s the insistence that we can always come up with some new Made in Canada Solution™ to any problem that vexes us. It’s a bullshit sentiment, especially because in this case, the system is already made in Canada and fits the unique circumstances of our parliament as it differs from Westminster. Trying to import other Westminster-isms and mapping them onto our parliament and calling it “Made in Canada” is a fool’s game at best, because our political cultures are quite different. Sure, PMQs sounds like a good idea, but they don’t have desks, don’t use scripts, have a more generous timer, and they have a debating culture that can use wit and self-deprecating humour rather than constant unctuous sanctimony and robotic reliance on scripted talking points like we get here. You can’t just map PMQs here without recognizing the cultural changes. That likely applies to their scheduling motions, while the problem in Canada is more that we have House Leaders of dubious competence as opposed to unworkable rules.
Simms: "She never got to the important part of her debate." Government needs to get their bills through #PROC
— Kelsey Johnson (@johnsonthree) March 24, 2017
Simms reads a Huffington Post story about how the Liberals didn't get as much done in the first 9 months b/c closure wasn't invoked #PROC
— Kelsey Johnson (@johnsonthree) March 24, 2017
This is specious. If government wants to get their bills passed, they need to convince the Commons. That’s how it works. Meanwhile, the fact that they didn’t get much passed without time allocation (which is not closure, and I want to smack people who confuse the two) is again due to inept House Leadership, not the rules.
Meanwhile, as the Conservatives froth at the mouth at the idea of a once-a-week PMQs, they not only forget that it was all Harper could bother to show up for toward the end of his mandate, and the fact that they voted for Michael Chong’s proposals around exploring this very idea. Oops.
https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/845063148197593089
https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/845071914079043586
But you know, they have some more outrage to perform.
QP: Happy clappy budget points
With most of the benches filled, MPs were settling in after a constituency week, but Rona Ambrose was absent for some unknown reason. Denis Lebel led off, immediately railing about deficit and family tax credits being imperilled in the budget. Justin Trudeau responded with his well-worn talking points about lowering taxes for the middle class while raising them on the one percent. Lebel switched to English, noted the American promises to lower smaller business taxes, and demanded that Trudeau follow suit. Trudeau noted that they were working to grow the middle class, and gave the same points about tax cuts. Lebel worried about airports being privatized, for which Trudeau told him to wait for Wednesday’s budget. Candice Bergen was up next, worried that the government was ramming bills through and worried that they wanted to bully through changes to QP so that he only has to show up one day per week. Trudeau avoided answering, and praised their programme to date. Bergen moved onto plans to change the Commons calendar to four days per week, but Trudeau noted that they were happy to open a discussion on making Fridays a full day instead of half days “like the Conservatives seem to want,” which was a clever bit of evasion. Thomas Mulcair was up next, railing that the government didn’t have a mandate to privatize airports. Trudeau explained that the Infrastructure Bank was a way of leveraging global investment, but more details would have to wait for Wednesday’s budget. Mulcair asked again in French, and Trudeau retreated to talking points about growing the middle class. Mulcair moved onto funding First Nations child welfare funding, and Trudeau gave his usual lines about the historic investments to start the long work of reconciliation. Mulcair then demanded that stock options tax loopholes be closed, but Trudeau again returned to his middle class talking points.
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/843891627525660672
QP: The perpetual call for lower taxes
While the PM off in Houston, the benches were a little emptier today. Rona Ambrose led off, worrying that the government wasn’t doing enough to cut taxes in the face of the Trumpocalypse — assuming that anyone can actually decipher what signals are actually being given there. Scott Brison responded, citing the tax cuts and Canadian Child Benefit that have lifted children out of poverty. Ambrose demanded lower taxes and less red tape, to which Navdeep Bains listed the stats on job creation and the number of companies expanding investing or expanding in Canada. Ambrose asked for the same as it comes to small business, and Bardish Chagger relayed her government’s concern for those small businesses are looking to help them succeed. Alain Rayes worried about tax burden being passed onto his daughter with higher deficits, to which Scott Brison reiterated his previous comments in French. Rayes asked again about small businesses in French, and Chagger gave a more truncated version of her previous response in French. Matthew Dubé led off for the NDP, worrying about Quebeckers being turned away from the US border, to which Ahmed Hussen said that he couldn’t speak to individual cases, but they need to raise concerns with American authorities. Dubé changed to English to demand an end to the safe third country agreement, but Hussen reminded him that the UNHCR still considers the States a safe country. Tracey Ramsey worried about auto parts rules under NAFTA, which Chrystia Freeland assured her that it was her priority to fight those American rules. Ramsey demanded to know what the government planned to bring up in trade negotiations, but Freeland chastised Ramsey for trying to get her to negotiate in the media.
Rayes says his 15-year-old daughter is listening to them now over the web.
Well, I suppose she could have a free period now… #QP— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) March 9, 2017
QP: Women ask the questions
It being International Women’s Day, one expected that all questions posed would be by women MPs. Rona Ambrose led off, trolling for support for her bill on training judges in sexual assault law (which, incidentally, I wrote about for this week’s Law Times, and the legal community was pretty clear that they felt this wasn’t the right way to go and this bill could impact on judicial independence). Justin Trudeau spoke about the importance of supporting survivors of sexual assault, but would not commit to supporting it. After another round of the same, Ambrose wanted support for Wynn’s Law on bail applications, to which Trudeau said that the justice minister spoke to Constable Wynn’s window but would not commit to supporting it. Ambrose asked about a bill on human trafficking and why it eliminated back-to-back sentencing provisions, but Trudeau responded in his condemnation of those crimes but not in backing down on the provisions in the bill given their commitment to the Charter. Ambrose asked about helping women come forward to report sexual assault, and Trudeau noted that this was a concern and they have a ways to go. Shiela Malcolmson led off, heralding Iceland’s work on pay equity legislation, to which Trudeau said they were working on legislation. Brigitte Sansoucy asked another pay equity question in French, and got much the same answer. Sansoucy moved onto tax evasion and demands to end amnesty deals, and Trudeau noted that they were working on ending tax evasion by investing in the CRA’s capacity to do so. Tracey Ramsey asked the same again in English, and got the same answer.
I wrote about this bill for @LawTimes. Legal community was not keen on it — want more resources for Crowns instead. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) March 8, 2017
QP: KPMG and conspiracy theories
With the benches mostly full, the Chamber was ready to begin the grand inquest of the nation. After a moment of silence for an RCMP officer who lost his life in a car accident in Quebec, Rona Ambrose led off, asking whether the PM had answered questions from the Ethics Commissioner on his Christmas holiday. Trudeau simply stated that he was happy to answer the Commissioner’s questions. Ambrose pressed on the accountability angle, and Trudeau expounded upon the responsibility to Canadians and openness and transparency, but that was all. Ambrose pivoted to the lack of judicial appointments affecting the criminal justice system, for which Trudeau noted the appointments have been made, and noted the new process that was ensuring that more women, visible minorities and Indigenous get appointed. Ed Fast was up next, back from recovering from a stroke, and he demanded the government’s figures on the costs of carbon pricing. Trudeau welcomed him back but chided him for not understanding the new economy. Fast brought up hydro rates in Ontario, but Trudeau was unmoved, taking shots at the previous government’s record. Thomas Mulcair was up next, demanding action on tax havens, and wondered when the budget was. Trudeau noted the commitment to tax fairness, by didn’t give the date. Mulcair railed about KPMG and different rules for the rich, and Trudeau reminded him that they were engaged on the file. Mulcair demanded criminal charges, and Trudeau again reminded him that the file was still being investigated. Mulcair worried about CRA-funded advertorials, for which Trudeau reminded him that they employ a broad range of ways to communicate to Canadians.
QP: Take it up with UNHCR
It being Monday with many desks across the Chamber vacant, Rona Ambrose was absent, despite the Prime Minister being in attendance. Denis Lebel led off, worrying about pension income splitting in the budget, and Justin Trudeau accused him of trying to sow fear, before listing off the many measures they put into place to help vulnerable seniors. Lebel worried about the fates of other tax credits, and Trudeau listed other investments the government has made to lead to good jobs and economic growth. Lebel then asked if small business taxes would be cut to create jobs, and Trudeau countered with the broad-based tax cuts and Canada Child Benefit cheques that put more money in people’s pockets. Candice Bergen was up next, and dredged up the helicopter ride to the Aga Khan’s island, and Trudeau succinctly told her that it was a personal family vacation and he was answering the Ethics Commissioner’s question. Bergen asked again, and got the very same answer. Thomas Mulcair was up next, worrying about the new executive order signed by Donald Trump regarding Muslim immigrants and refugees, and demanded to know if the government still considered the United Stated was a safe country for refugees. Trudeau deflected by talking about what Canadians expect of the government’s relations with the States. Mulcair raised the case of a Canadian woman turned back at the border, but Trudeau insisted that they were working with Americans to ensure that the border remained open for Canadians. Mulcair moved onto the issue of tax havens and the recent journalism investigations into KPMG, and Trudeau said that they expected people to pay their taxes and they invested money in the CRA to investigate. Mulcair pressed in English, and got much the same reply from Trudeau.
Denis Lebel leads off with the misquote about budgets balancing themselves. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) March 6, 2017
How many times can Mulcair say "racist" in a single question? #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) March 6, 2017
Roundup: Nomination shenanigans?
It looks like there are some shenanigans in Liberal nomination races for a couple of those upcoming by-elections, and as many a pundit has been saying today, Liberals gonna Liberal. And you can pretty much chalk this up to one more great big disappointment between the lofty Liberal rhetoric about valuing open nominations and then doing shady things like they have with the nominations in both Saint-Laurent and with Markham-Thornhill.
Part of what doesn’t make sense from an optics perspective is the sudden rush to call the last two by-elections for the two most recently vacated seats. In both Ottawa-Vanier and the two Calgary seats, there has been plenty of lead-time and nominations happened with nary a peep, but in the last two, the sudden rush has meant problems. With Markham-Thornhill, they retroactively cut off membership sales, which is presumed to help the “chosen” candidate, former PMO staffer Mary Ng. Ng’s campaign says they lost hundreds of registered members too, but again, this is about optics. Meanwhile in Saint-Laurent, a current Montreal borough mayor was declared not to have passed the green-light committee but they refuse to say why, which is seen as clearing the path for “star candidate” Yolande James (though there is still one other candidate, so it’s not an acclamation). But while they may have reasons for not greenlighting said borough mayor, the fact that they refuse to say why is again a nightmare for optics when this is supposed to be the party of openness, transparency and open and fair nominations.
Is the @liberal_party showing favouritism & backing a star candidate to replace @honstephanedion in St.-Laurent @MartinPatriquin? #pnpcbc pic.twitter.com/XTUIKGXoV9
— Power & Politics (@PnPCBC) February 28, 2017
Part of why this is such a disappointment is because we really need to push back from party leaders’ interference in nomination races if we want to restore the balance in our politics. That’s not to say that there shouldn’t be safety mechanisms in the event of hijacked nominations (because there absolutely should be), but those mechanisms shouldn’t be the leader’s office. A strong grassroots is essential in our system, and with every time that the leaders and their offices interfere (because they feel emboldened to thanks to the bastardized system of leadership selection that we’ve come to adopt and go full-bore on at every single opportunity), we choke off the most fecund part of our democracy. Shenanigans and the apparently hypocrisy of proclaiming open nominations while appearing to play favourites undermines the bottom-up practice of politics, and it’s something we as Canadians need to push back against in every party.