Tag Archives: Infrastructure

QP: Vote for my bill

Posted on by

Despite being in town (and just having a completed a call with the White House), Justin Trudeau was absent for QP today, for which I will scowl. Thomas Mulcair was still away as well, part of the GG’s state visit to Sweden, leaving only Rona Ambrose the only major leader present. She led off, trolling for support for her private member’s bill on mandatory sexual assault training for judges — something that is not asking about the administrative responsibilities of the government. Jody Wilson-Raybould said that it was an important topic and that she would review the bill as it came to the Commons. After another round of asking in French and repeating the answer in English, Ambrose raised the case of Justin Bourque to demand that consecutive sentencing laws remain in place. Wilson-Raybould reminded her that they are conducting a broad-based review, and that there are already the highest mandatory penalties on the books for murder. Ambrose asked about that Chinese company that bought that nursing home chain and wondered if they figured out the ownership yet, but Navdeep Bains repeated this assurances from yesterday about the review of the sale. Ambrose finished off her round asking about the government refusing to release information on their carbon price cost projections, and Catherine McKenna reminded her that there are also costs for not tackling climate change. Nathan Cullen led off for the NDP, spinning a small conspiracy theory about fundraising by the chairman of Apotex, for which Bardish Chagger reminded her that the Lobbying Commissioner found nothing amiss. Karine Trudel asked the same in French, got the same answer, and then spun another question about the government’s ethics, and Chagger reiterated her same points. Nathan Cullen then railed about the government caring only about billionaires and not average Canadians, and Chagger chastised him for ignoring the ways in which the government has been listening to Canadians.

Continue reading →

QP: Pink shirts against Trump

Posted on by

With it being caucus day, most of the desks were filled in the Commons, and MPs were ready to go. Rona Ambrose led off, asking about the sale of some BC retirement homes to a Chinese firm with murky ownership. Justin Trudeau reminded her that we are a trading nation, and that means allowing foreign investment in our interests. Ambrose pressed about the Chinese’s firm’s murky ownership, and Trudeau took the rare move of pulling out a note to read off some of the provisions of the deal including provincial oversight and job guarantees. Ambrose turned to the issue of consecutive sentences and demanded that they remain in place. Trudeau reiterated his previous day’s response about supporting judges while doing the broad-based Criminal Code review. Ambrose asked again, and got the same answer, before she turned again to the lack of full-time job growth, and Trudeau retreated to his well-worn talking points about tax cuts and the Canada Child Benefits. Jenny Kwan led off for the NDP, railing about a massive immigration crackdown in the United States and and asked if the PM still thought the US was a safe country for refugees. Trudeau noted that the expectation of this government is to work well with the Americans. Matthew Dubé pressed about refugees heading for our border, and Trudeau noted that he was surprised that the NDP, who are concerned about the rights of workers, would look to jeopardize our economic relationship with the States. Dubé then asked about Canadians turned back from the US border and worried that the pre-clearance bill would make it worse. Trudeau reminded him that pre-clearance means that they still get Charter protections that they wouldn’t have on US soil. Jenny Kwan demanded that Trudeau stand up to the bully Trump on Pink Shirt Day, but Trudeau repeated his answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A hopeless court case

Posted on by

It’s one of the most predictable performative dances in Canadian politics, which is that when you lose at politics, you try to drag it to the courts to fight your battles for you. In this, case, a UBC professor (and local Fair Vote Canada) president wants to launch a Charter challenge around electoral reform. And in order to do that, he’s talking about getting pledges of around $360,000 in order to get through the legal process.

The problem? This is an issue that has already been litigated and lost. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeal of the case that arose out of Quebec, which means it’s considered settled. The current electoral system is legal, it is constitutional, and while you get the odd prof here and there who tries to make an argument to the contrary, it’s settled law. And unlike some of the reversals we’ve seen the courts make over prostitution or assisted dying, there has been no great groundswell change in society that would justify the court in re-litigating the matter. In other words, he’s trying to raise money from people who are desperate to find a lifeline now that their political solution is gone that this is basically a scheme for lawyers to take their money.

This tendency to try and use the courts to overturn political decisions is a growing one, but it’s the same mentality as people who write to the Queen when they lose at politics. Have we had cases where governments have passed bad legislation and the courts have overturned it? Certainly. But political decisions are not bad legislation, and it’s not up to the courts to force governments to adopt what some people consider to be more favourable outcomes. It’s called democracy, and we have elections to hold governments to account for their political decisions. It’s also why I’m extremely leery of people calling for a cabinet manual, because it means that more groups will start trying to litigate prerogative decisions, and that’s not a good thing. It’s time these PR proponents let it go and try to fight it again at the next election. Oh, but then it might become clear that this really isn’t an issue that people care all that much about. Shame, that.

Continue reading →

QP: Manufacturing concerns

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau and several ministers off to Nunavut for meetings, none of the other leaders (save Elizabeth May) decided to show up either. Denis Lebel led off for the Conservatives, demanding to know the strategy to create jobs while maintaining links with the Americans. Chrystia Freeland noted her trip and said they were building relationships. Lebel decried the deficit going “out of control” and wanted to know if the government would end pension income splitting. François-Philippe Champagne fielded this one, praising tax cuts that the Conservatives voted against. Lebel worried about other boutique tax credits, and Champagne stuck to generalities about working for the middle class. Candice Bergen decried the possibility that dental and health benefits would be taxed because the government voted against their cutely worded opposition motion, and Champagne reminded her that the first thing they did was cut taxes, and then there was another round of the same. Jenny Kwan railed about the safe third country agreement for asylum seekers, to which Ahmed Hussen reminded her that the agreement has no bearing on the current situation. Laverdière asked the same in French, raising those 22 claimants who crossed the border at Manitoba, and got much the same answer. Laverdière then asked about that Muslim family stopped at the border and denied entry into the States, and Ralph Goodale said that the local MP was on the case, and they were waiting for more information. Kwan asked the same again in English, and Goodale was more clear that he would follow up personally when presented with the facts.

Continue reading →

QP: Seniors and softwood

Posted on by

Tuesday afternoon, and the benches were full for the grand inquest of the nation. Rona Ambrose led off, worried about that Vincent Lee, who beheaded someone on a bus several years ago (declared criminally not responsible) who is now freed and changed his name. Trudeau responded that they were working to ensure that all Canadians were kept safe. Ambrose pressed, and Trudeau said that he sympathized with the family of the victim, but wouldn’t commit to tougher measures, nor did he make any point that this was a case where it was someone suffering from a mental health issue and not a criminal case. Ambrose switched to tax measures for seniors and wanted assurances that Trudeau wouldn’t repeal them. Trudeau responded by listing measures that the have taken to benefit seniors, and when Ambrose called him on it, his answer didn’t change much. Ambrose closed off by worrying that softwood lumber talks were not in any new ministerial mandate letters, and Trudeau assured her that they were working with the Americans  on this and a number of trade files, ensuring that they know how many jobs rely on trade with Canada. Thomas Mulcair was up next, declaring that Trudeau had broken the law on his holiday with the Aga Khan and wondered if he had met with the Ethics Commissioner yet and what he told her. Trudeau reiterated that the Aga Khan was an old family friend and he would answer any questions she had. Mulcair pressed, but Trudeau stuck to his points. Mulcair moved onto the recommendation from Morneau’s advisory panel that they raise the OAS age back to 67, and Trudeau said they would not. Mulcair railed about how this was the recommendation and that Morneau didn’t rule it out, but Trudeau reminded him that it was a promise they kept.

Continue reading →

QP: No responsible path forward

Posted on by

After the prime minister spent his morning hearing from youth about their issues (and, interesting enough, electoral reform was not brought up), he was in QP, ready for the grand inquest of the nation. Rona Ambrose led off, bringing up the Globe and Mail investigation on “unfounded” sexual assault complaints in the country, and about ensuring that the RCMP have sufficient training to deal with it. Trudeau said that they were working to address gender-based violence and sexual assault and making changes at the institutional level. Ambrose changed topics to fears that jobs would end sent south for lower taxes and slashed regulations, to which Trudeau pointed out their record of tax cuts and enhanced child benefits. Ambrose pressed the topic on trade issues, and Trudeau pointed out how many American jobs depended on trade with Canada. Denis Lebel went for another round in French, got the same answer, and for his last question, Lebel worried about softwood lumber. Trudeau noted that he has talked about it with the Americans constantly, and that they remain engaged on the topic. Nathan Cullen led off for the NDP, wailing about proportional representation. Trudeau reminded him that there was no consensus and no responsible path forward. Cullen railed about broken promises, and Trudeau pointed about other progress on the democracy file before reiterating that there was no consensus. Alexander Boulerice picked up to give the angry denunciations in French, and Trudeau hit back by talking about working in the best interests of the country. He then tried to insinuate that the PM was lying and got cautioned by the Speaker for it, not that Trudeau’s response changed.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The measure of a political promise

Posted on by

There’s been a lot of hay made, ink spilled and electrons converted into pixels over the last 36 hours or so about the value of political promises, and how terrible it is when politicians break them. It makes people so cynical, and it’s no wonder that people hate politicians, and so on. We had Liberal MPs Nate Erskine-Smith and Adam Vaughan prostrating themselves about how sorry they are that the promise was broken, voter reform groups wailing about how terribly they’ve been betrayed, and columnists pontificated on broken promises (though do read Selley’s piece because he offers some great advice, not the least of which is telling PR advocates to tone down the crazy. Because seriously).

But in the midst of this, we had Conservative leadership candidates laying out a bunch of promises of what they would do if they a) won the leadership, and b) won the next general election, and some of those promises were hilariously terrible. For example, Maxime Bernier thinks it’s cool to freeze equalization payments so that the federal government can tell provinces how they should be managing their own fiscal houses, or Andrew Scheer saying that he would enshrine property rights by using a novel approach to amending the constitution through the back door, as though the Supreme Court of Canada would actually let that pass.

And while everyone was tearing their hair out over Trudeau’s “betrayal” and “lies,” what were these two other, equally implausible promises as Trudeau’s on electoral reform, met with? A few pundits tweeted “good luck with that” to Scheer. And that was about it. So forgive me while I try to calibrate my outrage meter on political promises here, as to which ones we should take seriously and which ones we know are bad or wholly improbable but can safely laugh off.

To be clear – I’m not looking to give Trudeau a free pass on this one, and I’ve written elsewhere that I think he needs to own up to the fact that it was a bad promise made when he was a third-place party who were blue-skying a number of things. And I think that it should give parties and candidates pause so as to caution them against being overly ambitious in what they promise (preferably, though, without draining all ambition out of politics). But come on. Let’s have a sense of proportion to what just happened here.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Smothering Rosemary’s Baby

Posted on by

In case you missed the news, and all of the howling earlier in the day, Justin Trudeau confirmed in a new mandate letter to Karina Gould that electoral reform is now a dead letter. And thank all of the gods on Olympus that they’ve smothered this Rosemary’s Baby because it was a stupid promise that he never should have made in the first place. I argue that much in a column for Loonie Politics, and it had the very real danger of undermining Trudeau’s ability to get anything else done for the next three years.

While people have wondered why Trudeau didn’t just promise to put this off until the next election, I think that would have been a worse outcome, and the issue would have grown like a cancer that would undermine the perception of that election’s legitimacy, as the demands of each party on that file continued to consume more and more time and oxygen. A swift death was better. Others have wondered how Trudeau could have declared there to be no consensus when he didn’t actually ask which system people preferred, but that misses a few key points. For one, there were some clear messages from the committee and from the MyDemocracy survey, some of which were that people didn’t want MPs elected off of lists (which severely limited the kinds of systems available) and that some of the systems out there would not have been constitutionally valid. Meanwhile, when the government did ask about outcomes (through the MyDemocracy survey), that was more informative than asking which system people preferred because people tend to think of electoral systems like they do wanting a pony, when they also need to be asked if they want to spend their time mucking out the stables. I’m sure you’d find that the answers would change right there. There have been accusations that Trudeau didn’t show leadership by not trying to forge some kind of consensus, but I’m pretty sure that would have been impossible. He had a preferred system that the opposition parties didn’t like and maligned for completely false reasons, and no matter what he did, it would have been viewed from the lens of self-interest and dismissed. In other words, it was a no-win scenario.

And then there’s Nathan Cullen, with his angry words and his big show of pretending that he wasn’t trying to be cynical about the process when Cullen’s whole modus operandi the entire time has been fuelled by cynicism. His manipulation of the formation of the special committee was a cynical con job wrapped up in moral outrage. His selective reading of the committee’s report, as well as the MyDemocracy survey, was self-serving to the extreme. But he presents an earnest face to the media, and people buy it. I get it. That doesn’t mean that he hasn’t been cynically playing this whole affair, because rest assured, he has been.

And now the myriad of hot takes. Chantal Hébert calls the promise a cheap electoral prop, which she’s not wrong about. Andrew Coyne goes for the full sarcasm in blaming voters for believing Trudeau’s promise. Tasha Kheiriddin says that Trudeau will wear this failure (though I suspect that only a small percentage of Liberal voters will actually care by 2019). Jonathan Kay takes the correct (in my opinion) take in that reform was never going to happen because our system doesn’t need to be fixed. John Geddes doesn’t think that Trudeau lied – just that the impetus waned as people were no longer discontent with a system that didn’t give them a Harper government (and I suspect he is also right). John Ivison agrees that Trudeau hasn’t demonstrated the level of mendacity for this to have been a lie from the start, but those who sincerely believed him will feel betrayed. Chris Selley goes a bit darker, and pre-emptively counted this as the kind of broken promise that makes people cynical about politics and gives rise to the likes of Rob Ford or Donald Trump. And he’s got a point, but honestly? Politics is what makes people cynical about politics.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/826863475003629568

Continue reading →

QP: Drones and saccharine points

Posted on by

For a second day in a row, the PM was in town but otherwise occupied, and his seat would have been conspicuously vacant had a backbencher decided not to keep it warm for him (and the camera shot). After a number of statements in remembrance of the École Polytechnique massacre, Rona Ambrose led off, wondering why the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Inquiry is so slow to get started. Scott Brison responded with some fairly bland talking points about the accomplishments they have made toward reconciliation. Ambrose worried that the PM was making life more expensive for people, and Bill Morneau reminded her of the tax cuts they implemented along with the enhanced child care benefits. Ambrose decried plans to tax health and dental benefits, for which Morneau reiterated the lowered taxes, before noting that they were reviewing the tax code with an eye toward tax fairness and simplification. Ambrose switched to French to decry Liberal fundraising, and Bardish Chagger recited some French talking points about fundraising rules and the broader consultation program. Ambrose switched to English to demand to know if the PM has ever used a fundraiser to talk to anyone who was looking for something from the government. Chagger’s answer did not change. Thomas Mulcair accused the government of arranging a meeting with the Chinese premier in exchange for that person holding a fundraiser. Chagger’s answer was the same. Mulcair asked again in French, and Chagger repeated her response in robotic French. Mulcair then moved to the PBO report on funding for First Nations education, and Brison noted that the PBO pointed out that the previous government underfunded K-12 education, and that they were now closing the gap. Mulcair heaped on a number of accusations related to how the government was treating First Nations, and Jim Carr got up to clarify his remarks about protesters from last week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The importance of measuring outcomes

Posted on by

The MyDemocracy.ca site went live yesterday, and immediately it became the subject of mockery because it asked questions related to outcomes rather than simplistic questions about which system of counting votes one preferred. Of course, focusing on the proportionality of votes to seats fixates on a facile notion of “representation” while ignoring the substance of what those votes actually mean, the effect on accountability, and the effect on our overall system of government. No, it won’t mean that whoever gets 50 percent of the votes will get 50 percent of the power. That’s a wrong-headed notion that ignores the ways in which our system operates currently, and the various roles that MPs have versus ministers.

Anyway, here’s Phil Lagassé explaining why the questions are the way they are (which are not some kind of People magazine pop-psychology quiz like Nathan Cullen constantly derides them as), and no, it’s not about ensuring that the fix is in for whatever the Liberals want – it’s designed to see what kinds of outcomes people are looking for and then working backwards to find an electoral system that favours those outcomes, and anyone who thinks that you can focus on electoral reform without looking at outcomes is deluding themselves.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/805766392888885249

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/805779092796796929

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/805779313891086336

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/805779663578611712

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/805780375599509504

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/805781357733548036

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/805782982552420353

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/805816160168112128

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/805816570379239424

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/805816880837619712

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/805817286665846784

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/805817858529853440

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/805818551835721728

Continue reading →