Tag Archives: Marijuana

Roundup: Spinning deficit financing

Posted on by

It should be no surprise that a government that likes to re-announce the same funds over and over again are now re-spinning old funds with a new purpose. As previously discussed, they’re going full-speed ahead on rebranding their childcare benefits as economic stimulus – because apparently only families with children should be stimulating the economy. (Singletons, we’re being shafted – again). As well, Scott Brison noted that these cheques are essentially being deficit financed, after the budget raided both the contingency reserve and the EI fund to pay for them while still claiming balance (not to mention their projections for oil prices). And hey, you know what would be a good thing during a recession? A full contingency reserve and an EI fund that’s ready to help any layoffs and job losses that result from said recession. But things were going to be rosy, and there was nothing to worry about – except now there is, but Harper insists it’s all external factors (never mind that he still takes credit when things go well even though it had nothing to do with his government). What great economic leadership…

Continue reading →

Roundup: A curious recommendation

Posted on by

The Senate’s national security and defence committee released an interim report yesterday on countering the terrorist threat in Canada. The report made some 23 recommendations, many of them critical of what the government has and has not yet done, such as making it a criminal offence to be part of a terrorist organization, or having a “no-visit” list to keep known ideological radicals out of the country. The one that got the most attention on Power & Politics and subsequently the Twitter Machine was recommendation 9, which suggests the government “work with the provinces and the Muslim communities to investigate the options that are available for the training and certification of Imams in Canada.” And then they were off about how this was criminalizing speech and thought, and how it was likely to be a Charter issue, but actually reading the report itself, the preceding section noted the problems of amateur prison proselytizers, and that members of the Muslim community were concerned about foreign-trained imams spreading extremist ideology, and noted that certification is already the case in Europe. Not much further down in the report is a reputable Calgary imam talking about how extremist ideology is being protected on campuses under the guise of “academic freedom.” In this context, the recommendation doesn’t seem nearly as extreme as it was presented, but hey, it’s not like that context made it into some of the articles (not that surprising, unfortunately). This having been said, there remain problems with the report, which is why the Liberal senators dissented from the report, looking for more counselling, early intervention, study of the roots of radicalization, and more importantly resources for RCMP that the government seems reluctant to do. Is it perfect work? No. Is it better than we’d get from the Commons? Yes. It’s also still an interim report, and more work will be done on it in the next parliament, so perhaps things will improve with it before the final version is issued. In the meantime, it’s not a bad thing that senators are actually talking about this issue without relying solely on slogans.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Going around the rules

Posted on by

So there were shenanigans in the Senate yesterday, the result of a confluence of a number of factors. Some of them are longer term – the terrible manner in which Harper has made his appointments has left a large cadre of Conservative senators who feel beholden to him and his largely imaginary whip. There are exceptions to the rule, but there are a lot of Senators right now who still feel they need to follow the PM’s rule because he appointed them, and that’s simply not the case. It was just a sensibility encouraged by the Senate leadership on the Conservative side who had far too many newbie senators in place at once. Then there’s the problem of the bill itself. The PMO has ruled they want to see this go through – never mind that it would create a giant bureaucracy at CRA, and that it could have “staggering” compliance costs for mutual funds and other organisations beyond the unions it’s targeting. It’s also a constitutional overreach because labour relations are a provincial jurisdiction, but the government wants this through because they see unions as a big threat to them. It never should have been a private members’ bill, but that was how they introduced it, and got it past the worst of the scrutiny on the Commons side because of automatic time limits. The Senate recognised it as unconstitutional and a threat to labour relations in this country, and even a number of Conservative senators opposed it. Led by Hugh Segal, they voted to amend the bill to near uselessness and sent it back to the Commons – but then prorogation happened, and the amendments were undone when the bill reset (thanks to Senate rules). In the interim, Hugh Segal retired, and Marjory LeBreton stepped down as government leader, almost certainly because of the caucus revolt over the bill. The Conservative senators sat on the bill for months before the PMO decided it wanted them to try and pass the bill. The Liberals, as is their right, filibustered. And they have the provinces on their side – seven provinces representing more than 80 percent of the population are opposed to the bill, and the Senate has a regional representation role. Things came to a head yesterday when the Conservatives tried to break the filibuster by trying to time allocate the bill – something they can’t do under Senate rules, and when the Speaker said no, the Conservatives challenged the ruling – something they can actually do under Senate rules. Kady O’Malley explains some of it here, and I responded with a Twitter essay.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mischief-making with Senate offices

Posted on by

Because it’s open season on Senators, the story of their apparent lack of willingness to get office space an added block away from the temporary Senate chamber, adding $25 million to the price of temporary space, has turned into a new round of howls of outrage and outright derision. According to the Senate, however, the figure is false and being used to cast them in a poor light – which is everyone’s favourite game these days. The true costs would be less than half that, according to the Senate law clerk, and the original public works plan would have had them spread out a lot more, which would increase costs for things like transportation and IT services. Not only that, but apparently the people who are trying to make hay out of this story don’t seem to grasp some of the basic geography of the situation. While MPs are staying clustered around the West Block (where the temporary House of Commons will be located), with new office space opening up in the soon-to-be-completely-renovated Wellington Building, Senators won’t get that luxury. In fact, the temporary Senate chamber, to be located in the Government Conference Centre, is much further afield which poses additional challenges for both walking times and getting the little white busses into and out of the location (given the way the roads work around there), while they have thirty-minute vote bells. Add to that, winter is going to be a particular challenge, and you have a bunch of aging senators who are going to need to be extra careful about things like the ice and snow, and it will be a problem. For anyone to start mocking senators that they don’t want to walk an extra block doesn’t seem to grasp the actual sense of the problem, and the churlish and childish taunts of the likes of Thomas Mulcair and Charlie Angus are really unbecoming. It would be a thought if other journalists could actually provide context to the situation rather than engaging in mischief-making and piling on to the Senate in the midst of overblown and torqued reporting on the AG report.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Who’s a racist?

Posted on by

In the fading lights of the 41st Parliament, the Liberals have been trying to get back to the process of painting the government like a bunch of intolerant rednecks, first with Judy Sgro’s question on Wednesday tying in the rise in hate crime statistics against Muslims to government rhetoric (for which the Conservatives got right offended), and then again yesterday when John McCallum tied in that issue to statements that Chris Alexander had made about people with their faces covered taking the citizenship oath and talk of terrorists. But when McCallum hammered Alexander on his comments – and clearly they were complete non sequiturs – Alexander responded by reaching into history and invoking Mackenzie King’s more racists immigration policies and called the Liberals the Racist Party. No, seriously. And when asked for clarification in a walking scrum after QP, Alexander insisted his party was blameless for policies before then, and accused said journalists of being partisans. (Remember when Chris Alexander was the talented golden child who was supposed to be so smart? Yeah, not so much). Paul Wells, upon hearing this, took to the blog machine and completely schooled Alexander on how wrong he really is, because it was totally off base. That said, this kind of cheap points-scoring just highlights the way things are starting to go off the rails, and I think it’s fair that the fixed election date is certainly responsible for part of this. Normally I’d be all in favour of MPs sticking around to pass a couple of more bills before they head off for the summer, but by this point the Commons has thoroughly proven itself to be incapable of being grown-ups any longer. Time to send them home.

Continue reading →

QP: Rushing off to the G7

Posted on by

While it was Thursday, Elizabeth May was the only leader present, guaranteeing another mediocre day. Megan Leslie wondered rhetorically whether the PM was going to defend the status quo in the Senate. Paul Calandra reminded her the Senate called in the Auditor General themselves. Leslie responded that the PM “rushed off” to another continent when scandal broke — you know, because the G7 meeting was called at haste and wasn’t arranged months in advance, and Calandra called the NDP out of their depth. Leslie tried again, at which point Calandra  reminded the NDP of their satellite office expenses. Romeo Saganash was up next to ask about the PM’s meeting at the Vatican and if residential schools came up. Mark Strahl said that the PM raised the letter that the minister had sent. Saganash noted the invitation to the Pope to be in Canada for the 150th anniversary and if an apology could happen then. Strahl repeated his answer. Judy Foote led for the Liberals, pointing out trade deficits and wanted a resolution to the issue of the Newfoundland processing compensation, but Parm Gill read a talking point about how treat trade was. Ralph Goodale asked about pension shortfalls, to which Kevin Sorenson decried the Ontario plan. Goodale pressed, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Privacy Commissioner finally has his say

Posted on by

Bill C-51 is now getting its review in the Senate, hearing from someone that the Commons didn’t – the Privacy Commissioner. What they got was an earful – there are some big problems with the information sharing provisions in the bill that would allow large amounts of personal information to be collected and shared between departments with little justification, and that his office would be swamped with work because of it. He’s also calling for oversight – like everyone else – and for the ability for different watchdogs to communicate with one another and coordinate their investigations in order to get a better picture of what these organisations are doing as they work together but their oversight remains siloed. Those other oversight bodies – SIRC and the CSE Commissioner – had much the same concerns when it comes to the ability to work together, and just keeping pace with the increasing scope and scale of operations. But will any of this have an effect? Maybe, as there are some Conservative senators who are concerned about these kinds of things and who may push back. But the government may bully through, and said senators may decide that this isn’t the hill they want to die on (which does happen), and they’ll let it go through. Suffice to say, the issue has not gone away.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A possible return to deficits

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer gave his pre-budget analysis, and said that while the books look balanced this year, the government’s continued focus on tax breaks, spending announcements and the low oil price environment could mean heading back into deficit in two years – not too surprising really if you’ve been paying attention. Part of the fiscal breathing room the government is using right now is coming from their decision to freeze EI rates rather than let them fall to a level that reflects the actual unemployment rate, which sounds a lot like the kinds of things they used to curse Paul Martin for doing. And then there are the asset sales, such as all of those GM shares – possibly sold at a loss – that just pad the books in the short term. But hey, they can claim to balance the budget without raising taxes (err, except for all of those tariffs that they raised this year) and try and sell that as sound economic management going into the election. The actual numbers tell a different story, as we’ve seen, but hey, why mess with a narrative?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rushing through the bill…again

Posted on by

With the clock ticking down to the end of the current parliament, the government is going to start lighting a fire to getting C-51 passed over the next two weeks, before the Easter break. That means accelerating the committee hearings to largely stuff them in the next week, with lots of witnesses in single sittings and little time to hear from each of them. It’s not a surprise that the government would use this particular tactic again to ram though contentious legislation, as they’ve done repeatedly, because they apparently have little capacity or desire to actually do the due diligence that they’re supposed to when it comes to these kinds of bills. Not surprisingly, there’s going to be plenty of opposition to large parts of the bill, and some of those who do support parts of the bill are at least concerned that there’s not enough study of the ramifications, or that there is enough needed oversight. But will the government make changes? Unlikely. Adding their voices to the opposition to the bill over the weekend was the Canadian Bar Association.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Deciding on a witness list

Posted on by

We have our preliminary witness list for the C-51 hearings, and lo and behold, none of those four former prime ministers who signed that open letter are on it – and it’s just as well, because if there’s one thing the country doesn’t need, it’s former prime ministers to be arm-chair governing and telling people what to do. Yes, they raised concerns, which is fine, but bringing them to a Commons committee would be little more than an exercise in opposition MPs trying to get them to say how awful the current government is, while the governing party MPs would be doing their best to discount those former prime ministers because of previous scandals, etcetera, etcetera. The only real purpose in having them testify would be for the media circus value, which I’m not sure helps anyone in this situation, and would probably detract from the seriousness of the issues at hand. The same goes for former Supreme Court justices, despite the fact that Justices Arbour and Major are possibilities on the list, though you could maybe convince me about Justice O’Connor – a former Associate Chief Justice of Ontario – to talk about his conclusions from the Arar inquiry, which haven’t yet been addressed. Arar himself is also on the list, as are some former members of SIRC and a few different activists who have concerns of their own, which does the balance the list out so that it’s not just security experts but also those who have civil society concerns. It should be interesting nevertheless, but hopefully they won’t all be crammed onto overstuffed panels where nobody really gets a chance to speak – though that does seem to be the way things go these days.

Continue reading →