Tag Archives: Labour

Roundup: Notwithstanding Ford

Posted on by

It was a crazy day in the state of constitutional law yesterday, as an Ontario judge struck down Doug Ford’s bill to reduce the size of Toronto city council on some rather dubious grounds, and Doug Ford responded by insisting that he would invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to ensure it passed anyway, no matter that the issue by which he’s going to use the seldom-used provision on is of dubious merit, and has all of the appearances of enacting a political grudge (while all of the “reasonable” members of his Cabinet who were supposed to keep his worst impulses in check cheer him on). It’s a full-blown tire fire.

For starters, here’s a bit of context about just what the Notwithstanding Clause actually is, and some history of its use. But what is perhaps more alarming are the number of voices who are calling on the federal government to invoke the defunct constitutional provisions around disallowance as a way of thwarting Ford – and some of that has been fuelled by Toronto mayor John Tory meeting with prime minister Justin Trudeau last night. I can pretty much guarantee you that Trudeau, however, won’t touch the disallowance powers with a bargepole, because a) the powers are defunct for a reason (in that the issues that disallowance was used on are better dealt with through the courts), and b) it would stir up such a shitstorm of epic proportions that it would be difficult to contain the political damage, and I’m not sure that Trudeau is willing to expend that much political capital for something that is really not his political ambit, and he’s likely to win most of Toronto’s seats again regardless. But if you also look at the message that Trudeau’s minister of intergovernmental affairs, Dominic LeBlanc sent out, the not unsubtle language in there is that this is a fight for the political arena, and Ontario voters will have to deal with the mess that they created, which is pretty much how it should be. It’s not going to be easy if we’re having these kinds of issues three months in, but people shouldn’t expect another order of government to swoop in and save them. That’s not how democracy works.

Meanwhile, Emmett Macfarlane walks through what’s constitutionally dubious about the court ruling, while Andrew Coyne invokes some high dudgeon about use of the Notwithstanding Clause and Ford’s thuggish populist tactics. Chris Selley reminds us that so much of this episode is because Ford is all about chaos, and he brings more of it with these tactics. Susan Delacourt, rather chillingly, wonders which will be the next premier to decide that the Charter is inconvenient for their populist proposals. And University of Ottawa vice-dean of law Carissima Mathen both writes about why Ford’s comments are so offensive to our system of laws and governance, plus offers some more context about the Notwithstanding Clause in this video segment that you should watch.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Effacing labour

Posted on by

Yesterday having been Labour Day, there were a couple of topical stories out there – that the government’s look at updating the Canada Labour Codemay look at more measures to help with work-life balance, and that there are ideas on the table to look at taxing robots who replace workers with automation (though this seems fraught with all manner of complications). There is even talk about how this government has given the labour movement a seat at the table with trade negotiations (though there is some talk about how it’s all for show, and that they have little actual impact). But all of this having been said, I found the statements by the leaders to be interesting.

https://twitter.com/MinWorkDev/status/1036629441517182984

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1036677765250965504

Trudeau’s tweet was fairly standard, spoke about the labour movement, and the attached statement went into more detail about the achievements of the aforementioned labour movement. His minister of labour, Patty Hajdu, had a video message that talked about ways they are working on improving the current conditions, with a focus on harassment and coming pay equity legislation. Jagmeet Singh, true to NDP form, spoke about the focus on workers. But Andrew Scheer?

Nothing about the actual meaning of Labour Day. Nothing about the gains made by the labour movement, or the safety of workers, or the eight-hour work day, or weekends. Nope. It’s a holiday before getting “back to the grind.” Now, the previous government was no friend to labour, with vexatious legislation designed to make certification harder, impose onerous financial reporting requirements, the fight with public sector unions over sick days, and numerous back-to-work bills. But to not even mention the history of the movement and the gains made, whether it’s with occupational health and safety, weekends, pensions, anything? It smacks of pettiness, and of effacing history – you know, something he gets riled up when it’s a statue of Sir John A. Macdonald, but apparently not the Winnipeg General Strike.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trans Mountain tantrums

Posted on by

The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (temporarily, at least) – both because of an inadequately scoped NEB report around marine protection and because the government didn’t properly consult with Indigenous communities – caused no shortage of meltdowns and tantrums over all forms of media – with a dash of triumphalism from the environmentalists and some of those Indigenous communities. All of it, from both sides, is pretty much overreaction, but some of the reactions were ludicrous.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1035264446376108034

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1035267000610824192

The one reaction that was probably most ridiculous and unhelpful was that of Alberta premier Rachel Notley, who in a fit of pique, declared that she was pulling out of the federal climate framework until the pipeline was built, and made a list of nonsensical demands that will do absolutely nothing to get said pipeline built. Appealing it to the SCC? On what grounds (and delaying things another 18 months)? Recalling Parliament? To do what? Hold an angry take-note debate? Yes, this is the federal government’s mess, but none of this actually solves it. What will solve it is to follow the roadmap in the FCA judgment, which means reassessing the marine risks and doing proper consultations with those First Nations on their substantive issues. I get that Notley has to make a show of this, but none of this tantrum is constructive in the slightest, and worse yet, it likely undermines her own environmental agenda.

Meanwhile, Jason Markusoff notes that while the government owns this failure, it’s not as though the opposition has offered a solution that would have worked either. Trevor Tombe walks through the decision and what can be done to fix the problems identified therein, but notes there are costs to delays. Tyler Dawson looks at how the populist outrage over this move can start another round of Western alienation (in which, the actual facts of what’s going on won’t matter, because populism).

Continue reading →

Roundup: On track for a final cannabis vote

Posted on by

Over in the Senate, some of the drama around the cannabis bill has resolved itself and we can look forward to some structured, orderly report stage and third reading debate leading up to the June 7thfinal vote. And yes, before you say anything, the Conservative senators are playing along and have been swearing up and down that they will respect this date and not try to play any games and delay it further. (They also know that they’ve burned a hell of a lot of political capital on unnecessary fights lately and aren’t keen to burn any more).

To recap, part of the drama has been that the Conservatives still plan to move amendments at Third Reading, which is their right. But they wanted this as part of the structured plan, and the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, wasn’t playing ball, and wanted the Social Affairs Committee – which funnelled all of proposed amendments from the four other committees that studied the bill and voted on them there – to have a look at those amendments first. And the Conservatives, rightfully, refused. And then members of the Independent Senators Group started giving quotes to newspapers about how they were open to real amendments and not those that were “superficial, tactical, unenforceable, or would only serve to delay this bill.” That, and throwing more shade about how they believed the Conservatives were just playing games, because the modus operandi seems to be that anything the Conservatives do is partisan and therefore bad, but anything they do out of a shared belief is not partisan and just fine, which is a lot of bunk. And some of the Independent senators are getting downright condescending in trying to make that particular case. Suffice to say, peace has broken out after the ISG got over their issues about the amendments, and they now have a plan for debate that will carry them through to the vote on the 7th.

Meanwhile, there is talk about whether the amendments to C-46 – the impaired driving bill – will survive a full vote in the Senate after the likely unconstitutional provisions around random alcohol testing. ISG “facilitator” Senator Woo is hinting that they would vote to reinstate the provisions. I will add, however, that I am not absolutely not buying their supposition that senators were trying to simply embarrass the government by returning the omnibus transport bill to the Commons a second time because it was their own Independent senators who insisted on those amendments. Sometimes senators insist on amendments because they think they’re in the right – which is a novel concept, I’m sure.

Continue reading →

QP: Investing in assets

Posted on by

While the prime minister was away after this morning’s major announcement on the government decision to acquire the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, all other leaders were present — for a change. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he railed about the Trans Mountain announcement, before demanding to know that it wouldn’t cost more than the $4.5 billion. Bill Morneau responded with a bit more fire than we usually get from him, decrying the audacity of the Conservatives for demanding the pipeline get built and then complaining when they assured it would be. Scheer offered some revisionist history when it comes to governments paying for pipelines (there is in fact a long history of it), and Morneau reiterated that the project was in the national interest. Scheer played the economic nationalist card in that $4.5 billion going to “Texas” shareholders, and Morneau repeated the points about jobs and the economy. Alain Rayes took over in French, and demanded to know how much it would cost taxpayers, and Morneau repeated that it was important to invest in the project, that their investment ensured it would be completed. After another round of the same, Guy Caron got up to rail that this investment was a betrayal, rather than investing in the clean economy. Morneau said gave the usual line about the environment and the economy going hand-in-hand, and that while they invested in clean energy, this project was still necessary. After another round of the very same, Nathan Cullen got up to ramble sanctimoniously about what was in the public interest, and Morneau reminded him that they went through a robust process, and that people need to respect the rule of law. Caron piled on more sanctimony, and Morneau made points about stepping in between provincial squabbling.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Arnold Chan and his parliamentary legacy

Posted on by

News was delivered yesterday morning that Liberal MP Arnold Chan has succumbed to cancer and passed away earlier that morning. The news is a blow for Parliament, as Chan was a very decent and well-liked MP who was serious about the dignity of the institution. Back in June, he delivered a speech in Parliament that was viewed at the time as a bit of a farewell (which he insisted that it wasn’t), in which he implored that his fellow MPs not only demonstrate their love of Parliament, but that they demonstrate it by doing things like ending the reliance on talking points.

At the time that Chan made the speech, I wrote a column about its importance, and why more MPs should heed his words. Scripts and talking points have been suffocating our parliament and our very democracy, and it gets worse as time goes on. That Chan could see their inherent problems and try to break the cycle is encouraging, because it hopefully means that other MPs will too. It’s one of the reasons why I hope that as part of honouring Chan’s legacy, MPs will work to do away with the rules in the Commons that have led to the rise of canned speeches, and that we can get to a place where debate is no longer a series of speeches read into the record without actual exchanges, and where MPs actually become engaged in the material rather than just reading the points that their leaders’ offices handed their assistants to write up for them. Parliament should be more than that, and let’s hope that others follow Chan’s lead.

Here are some more remembrances of Chan by his colleagues.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Picking the overseers

Posted on by

The composition of the forthcoming National Security Committee of Parliamentarians has been brewing under the surface for a while now, given that the legislation has taken a long time to get through Parliament, but it looks like more consternation is on the way. The NDP have complained to the National Post’s John Ivison that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has asked for four names from their caucus for consideration on the committee, and that the PM would pick one, as is his right under the Act. The reason, according to the PMO, is to try and build a committee reflective of Canada – so essentially that it’s not all straight, white men looking at national security issues from that particular lens – and that would be a very easy thing to do. And the NDP’s one and only pick for their party’s representative on the committee, Murray Rankin, is just that – a straight, white man who happens to be eminently qualified for the role. And so Mulcair is, as he so often does, pitching a fit about it.

I’m a bit torn on the outrage here because as much as this is being spun as Trudeau having contempt for Parliament and being a Harper-esque figure in that regard, this is exactly how he drafted the legislation and how it passed, so unlike many of the tactics that Harper employed, he was upfront about his plans how he planned to achieve them. Now, granted, many of Trudeau’s plans and promises have been utterly boneheaded (see: electoral reform, “modernizing” the House of Commons, his “benign neglect” of the Senate, etcetera, etcetera), but he generally hasn’t tried to stealthily undermine the institutions or actively firebomb them. So there’s that. Also, this is how our system of government tends to work – a prime minister who enjoys the confidence of Parliament makes the appointment, and is judged on the quality of them both by Parliament and the electorate. And I get why he would want to ensure a diverse committee makeup, and not want to necessarily have to rely on his own party members to make up the more diverse members of the committee, but rather share that load between all of the parties. Nevertheless, there is something unseemly about not letting opposition parties choose their own representatives (though I hardly imagine that the members he chooses would be any friendlier to him and his agenda than one that the opposition party leader would choose). On the other hand, selection powers can be abused, and things done for ostensibly good reasons (like diversity) can have all kinds of unintended consequences. But in the meantime, this will start to look like yet another self-inflicted wound for Trudeau.

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/903422508774416385

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/903422980616802304

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/903424514985529345

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rejected amendments on C-4

Posted on by

It looks like we may have another bit of drama between the Commons and the Senate with respect to the amendments on Bill C-4, which is the government’s repeal of two private members’ bills from the previous parliament that sought to limit unionisation. While the portions of the bill related to the repeal of the one bill on financial reporting for unions went through, there were amendments to retain the portions of the former bill on ensuring that union drives are subject to a secret ballot instead of the card-check system. The government has signalled that they plan to reject those amendments, which was not unexpected.

The insistence on secret ballots for unionization was a very fraught issue, and having covered the private members’ bills in the previous parliament, I spoke to a number of labour relations experts who said that not only did this was a problematic change because it put the system out of step with much of the legislation around it, but the process for making those changes – a private members’ bill – upset a lot of the balance in the system and because it had the Conservative government’s support, it shifted the role of the government from promoting settlements and giving parties mediators or arbitrators to one of being openly against the unions. None of that goes away with the Senate’s amendment process. This isn’t by any means to say that I’m trying to shill for the unionization side of things – I’m not. But this is one of those issues where process does matter, and the previous parliament upset the usual process by which these issues are agreed to.

And if the Commons rejects the amendments and sends it back to the Senate? Will they accept the judgment of the Commons? Likely. While the Conservatives in the Senate will likely try to fight this tooth and nail – seeing it as a legacy of their time in government – I’m sure there will be some pressure (and no small amount of admonition from Senator Peter Harder) to bend to the will of the elected members. If the Senate didn’t go to war with the Commons over the assisted dying bill, I have a hard time seeing why they would over this one, particularly as there is a good chance it would not survive a Charter challenge.

ETA: I confused C-4 and C-6 with regards to the call for a free vote. Those sections have been excised.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Unions and migrant workers

Posted on by

Six new senators had just been sworn in, and other senators in the chamber had been shuffle around, making for a fuller chamber. This week’s special ministerial guest star was employment minister MaryAnn Mihychuk (and I can’t recall if she’s been here before). Senator Carignan led off, asking about union certification and secret ballots, taking a shot at Senator Bellemare while he was at it. Mihychuk, after getting him to repeat the question, said there was no real reason to move away from the card check system, and noted that while intimidation does exist, they are returning to a system that worked well for years.

Continue reading →

QP: A scrappy anniversary

Posted on by

At long last, all leaders were in the Commons, and Rona Ambrose led off by immediately demanding that the PM stop meeting with billionaires and restoring those boutique tax cuts that the government got rid of. Justin Trudeau reminded her of the tax cuts they made across the board to the middle class. Ambrose worried that the new mortgage housing rules hurting families. Trudeau replied that he was bringing investment into the country and listed the companies that have been moving more operations to Canada. Ambrose went another round in French, and Trudeau listed the ways in which they’ve helped families. Ambrose moved onto the issue of the healthcare accord, decrying waitlists. Trudeau said that Canadians expect healthcare dollars to be spent on healthcare. Ambrose then moved onto the “carbon fuel tax” impacting Alberta, but Trudeau hit back that the last government couldn’t get Alberta’s resources to markets after a decade in power. Thomas Mulcair was up next, decrying a Bill Morneau fundraising event in Halifax which he called “cash for access.” Trudeau insisted that the rules were already the most stringent and they followed them. Mulcair moved onto healthcare funding and the lack of an accord with the provinces, and Trudeau reiterated his previous answer about ensuring dollars are properly spent. Mulcair then moved onto a pair of questions on electoral reform and demanded a proportional system. Trudeau recalled when Mulcair was afraid the Liberals would ram though a new system, and that it was curious that Mulcair was demanding they do just that.

Continue reading →