Tag Archives: Parliament Hill

Roundup: The Brexit meltdown accelerates

Posted on by

The big news yesterday wasn’t really in Canada, but the UK, where two cabinet ministers resigned over the “compromise” Brexit deal, and there remain questions as to whether Thresa May can survive this (though her options are severely limited given the Fixed Terms Parliament Act). Lauren Dobson-Hughes has a good breakdown of just what has been going on:

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016322801072943107

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016323358688927745

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016324262276128770

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016324886845747200

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016325516607905792

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016326668158320640

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016346420712886273

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016346941062410241

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016347987637727237

Andrew Coyne notes the difficult position that May and the Brexiteers find themselves in, where a Norway-style deal may be their out (but it will be a humiliating climbdown). Andrew MacDougall examines the internal party politics playing out with these resignations. John Cassidy highlights that Boris Johnson’s bluster aside, he can’t point to any more credible Brexit deal, which makes his departure all the more opportunistic.

https://twitter.com/cfhorgan/status/1016376257590657026

https://twitter.com/cfhorgan/status/1016376998036320256

And hey, just remember that Andrew Scheer was a Brexit proponent, and fellow leadership aspirant Erin O’Toole promulgated a fantasy Canada-UK-Australia-New Zealand trading bloc that relies on constructing a pre-WWII relationship that really didn’t exist the way they like to think it did. In case you thought that Canada is immune to such flights of fantasy.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1016330038940258306

Continue reading →

Roundup: Forcing a narrative of hypocrisy

Posted on by

The meltdowns over this “groping” allegation continue, and I keep coming back to the ways in which specious comparisons continue to be made with the situations of other MPs who’ve been investigated and/or been kicked out of caucus. The fact that said specious comparisons keep being made fuel the kinds of columns that keep coming out that declare Trudeau to be guilty of hypocrisy in how he’s treating this situation, when there is no actual comparison. Much of this I’ve outlined in my weekend column, but there are a couple of things to highlight that this Robyn Urback column sticks in my craw in particular with the comparisons to Pacetti/Andrews. For one, everything we’ve heard about the 18-year-old incident, from the corroborating editors, was that this was a brief touch, and was not sexual assault. Pacetti, by contrast, had sex with a fellow MP who felt that there was not explicit consent. Can you spot the difference there? Add to that, Urback falls back on the public outcry that the NDP made at the time that Trudeau “blindsided” the complainants by going public, which is part of the problem with someone from Toronto who has never been in Ottawa writing about things that she was not privy to at the time. Those of us who were around and who talked to people involved know that Thomas Mulcair had already called a press conference for that morning where he was going to declare that Trudeau had been warned that he had two MPs that had allegations of sexual misconduct against them in his ranks and he had done nothing about it – but Trudeau headed him off, and Mulcair was left without his thunder. It’s a nasty bit of business, but that was the background scenario, which makes it even more inappropriate for Urback and others to cry hypocrisy with what is going on with Trudeau in the here and now. I know that Urback thinks she’s making a good point, but she’s missing a truckload of context and history, which makes the column look terribly foolish if you’re someone who knows what went down in 2014.

Amidst this, a bunch of concern trolls freaked out that Trudeau went to Kent Hehr’s Stampede pancake breakfast and made a “strong show of support” for his only MP in the city, which is a fairly unavoidable thing for Trudeau to do. (For context, Hehr’s sexual harassment allegations were investigated, partially substantiated, and he made a public apology which was accepted by his complainant). I would be curious to see in the coming months just how “strong” Trudeau’s support for Hehr really is, particularly when it comes to his nomination, and I suspect there will be some backroom engineering of a contested nomination that Hehr may not survive.

Meanwhile, this incident has people fighting over who gets to call themselves “feminists,” and it’s just so tiresome, particularly because some of the players are trying to use the aforementioned specious comparisons to claim hypocrisy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A confirmation of sorts

Posted on by

Because the “groping” story continues to circulate, we got yet more developments yesterday, as Justin Trudeau faced yet more questions and essentially reiterated what he’d said previously but seemed confirm that something may have happened in her perception that he didn’t perceive to be a problem, and sure, keep asking him questions because this is all about the process of re-examination in these changing times we’re living in. And while the concern trolls melted down over that, the woman at the centre of the allegations came forward with a statement that said yes, something happened as reported (but no specifics, for which we continue to be left with vague suggestions as to what did happen) and she’s not talking about it.

When asked about why this is different from other situations, Trudeau said that he’s confident that people can assess this on a case-by-case basis, for which I have doubts precisely because the concern trolls (and even some well-meaning reporters) keep conflating previous issues with this one, entirely speciously. And some of those specious comparisons are done with malicious intent (and when you call them on it, funny that they don’t have an answer).

There are still questions about what happened (though I’m not sure that all of Anne Kingston’s questions here are legitimate), but an independent investigation won’t solve anything because it’s impossible to conduct, and seriously, reporters and pundits should know this. Meanwhile, my weekend column wonders if we can have a nuanced conversation about the “groping” allegations amidst specious comparisons and dubious calls of hypocrisy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Duffy’s poor arguments

Posted on by

Day two of Duffy’s bid to sue the Senate, and his lawyer came up with some…novel arguments. And it sounds like the judge wasn’t buying many of them. For example, they tried to argue that because PMO was exerting influence on the Senate’s leadership that it should nullify privilege. That’s…creative, and utterly ridiculous. When he tried to argue that the suspension should be invalid because it was done for political purposes, the judge wondered aloud if that meant she would have to call every member of the Internal Economy Committee to testify as to their motives – and no, that wasn’t going to happen she quickly decided. They also tried to argue that because the suspension wasn’t related to legislation that privilege doesn’t apply. But that’s also ridiculous because the ability to discipline its members is among the privileges outlined in Section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867. So good luck with that.  Oh, and the “indefinite suspension” argument is also void because it wasn’t indefinite – it was until the end of the parliamentary session, and there was a fixed election date, so it would expire at that point regardless. (Also, the Senate’s privileges allow it to expel a member, so arguing that indefinite suspension is tantamount to expulsion is also not a solid argument).

The final argument was a plea to put the Charter ahead of privilege, which would go against previous Supreme Court of Canada rulings that stated just the opposite – that the Charter doesn’t trump privilege, because that would open up a floodgate to litigation against the parliamentary process. There’s a thing called stare decisis, the doctrine of precedent that binds our common law system, and while there are rare cases where it can be challenges, this isn’t one of them. It’s actually quite audacious that his lawyer would make the case, and I’m not seeing any particular argument about how the judge should invalidate a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. So yeah. Good luck to this case, because I really don’t see it going anywhere fast.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Craven and unnecessary

Posted on by

While Andrew Scheer continues his effort to woo Quebeckers to the Conservative cause, he’s apparently decided to start carrying the Bloc’s water for them, and yesterday morning made the “important” announcement that a Conservative government would ensure that there was a single tax form for Quebec. Which…is a problem that the Quebec government created for itself and could put an end to at any time they choose by returning to the federal tax form that all other provinces use. Scheer insists that this is about listening to Quebec, but it’s just a bit more craven than that, and yes, it’s a promise fraught with problems when you get into the details. It’s also interesting to note that his message changed over Twitter over the course of the day, which makes it all the more curious that he seems to be doing this on the fly.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1011262711034867714

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1011265775573688323

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1011393533343719425

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1011397075932549120

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1011433391986655232

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1011433535368937473

Mental health and Hill staffers

A Liberal Hill staffer, Paul Wernick, went public about a second suicide attempt, brought on by crippling depression and the stress of sixty-hour work weeks that life on the Hill is known for. His story makes some very important points that more Hill denizens should beware of – though he quit drinking years ago, there is a culture of drinking at the myriad of receptions that staffers attend with their bosses, and it can serve to self-medicate the stresses of the job, which is where things can get dangerous. There are resources available for staffers, but they may not be aware of them – Wernick says that he wasn’t, which shows that there’s still work to do when it comes to helping staffers out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cynical procedural gamesmanship

Posted on by

Thursday night’s tantrum vote-a-thon ended mid-morning on Friday, long before it was supposed to have run its course, and no, the government didn’t capitulate and turn over that report that the Conservatives have been portraying as some kind of smoking gun for months now. No, after hours of high-minded exhortations that this, on the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta, was about no taxation without information, or that this was some kind of cover-up by the government intent on raising the cost of living for everyone, they decided to pull the plug as soon as the clock struck ten. Why? Because at that point, it would be too late to start Friday sitting hours in the Commons, and thus cancelling the day’s planned debates around the cannabis bill (where they would have finalized debate on the Senate amendments and send it back to the Upper Chamber). It is probably one of the most cynical procedural stunts that I have seen in all of my time on the Hill, dressed up as bringing attention to the so-called “carbon tax cover-up,” which is itself a cynical disinformation campaign.

Worst of all was the hours of sanctimonious social media warfare that was sustained throughout it, whether it was the Conservatives dressing this up as some righteous fight over the refusal to release the information (which, let’s be clear, was apparently a projection based on the campaign platform that would mean nothing given that the carbon pricing plans will be implemented by provinces, and where the revenues will be recycled by those provinces and is largely irrelevant to the discussion), or the Liberals crying that the Conservatives were keeping them away from Eid celebrations in their ridings (so much so that Omar Alghabra accused the Conservatives of Islamophobia, and then the real wailing and gnashing of teeth started). It was so much self-righteous bullshit, and it made everyone look bad.

The Trinity Western decision

Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the law societies of BC and Ontario could decide not to accredit the graduates of evangelical Trinity Western University’s proposed law school on the grounds that the mandatory covenant that students are expected to sign infringes on the rights of LGBT students, particularly because it mandates that any sexual activity they engage in must only be within the confines of a heterosexual marriage. Of course, it’s more technical than that, because it boils down to standards of reasonableness with the decision that the Law Societies as accrediting bodies can engage in, and I can’t pretend to understand the nuances of it all – but the very smart legal minds that I follow had some trouble wrapping their minds around it all as well, because the balancing of rights is a difficult issue. Some of the legal minds I follow felt this was one of the worst decisions in years, but I’m not sure how much of that is ideological either. It’s also worth noting that this was the last decision that former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin participated in.

In reaction, here are three legal reactions to the decision, while Chris Selley worries about what it means for religious freedom, and Colby Cosh looks at what the decision means for the Supreme Court, paying particular attention to Justice Rowe’s concurring decision on the meaning of freedom of religion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another useless voting marathon

Posted on by

Unless a miracle happens and someone buckles, MPs will still be voting when this post goes live, because the Conservatives decided to demand another marathon vote session on the Estimates in order to prove a point. The point was that they want the government to table a document prepared by the public service about carbon pricing, which allegedly shows the fiscal impact – but it was redacted when released. The Conservatives see this as the smoking gun they need to “prove” that the federal carbon price backstop is a cash grab. Err, except the federal government isn’t keeping the revenues, and the provinces have until this fall to announce how they will be recycling the revenues, whether through tax cuts or whatnot, and lo, the government last month tabled a report that basically showed the efficacy of carbon pricing and that they’re waiting for the provinces to announce what their systems will be.

The Conservatives decided that their pressure tactic would be another round of line-by-line Estimates – because that worked so well the last time when they tried to force a meeting on the Atwal Affair™, only to buckle before votes could go into the weekend, and then they blamed the government for creating their own discomfort. Kind of like blaming someone else for when you hit yourself in the face on purpose to get attention. “You made me do this!” they cried. No, they didn’t, and worse, it was not only tactically incompetent (the votes had nothing to do with the demand then, and it doesn’t this time either), but by overplaying their hand, they voted against line items in the Estimates for things like funding veterans pensions or public services, all of which went into attack lines. And this time, because the government scheduled the vote for 10:30 PM, the fact that the Conservatives forced the 200 votes rather than the single vote means that Liberal MPs can complain that the Conservatives were keeping them from attending Eid celebrations in their ridings at dawn (some of them going so far as to cry Islamophobia). It’s a reach, and both sides are self-righteous about this, but come on.

As for the Conservatives’ demand, well, it’s a lot of disingenuous nonsense because the costs will be determined by how the revenues are recycled, which the federal government has no control over. Poilievre has been trying the semantic arguments that because it’s a federally-imposed tax that they need to know what the impact will be, focusing only on the cost before revenues are recycled, which is again, disingenuous and the precursor to misinformation. And if they were so concerned, they can do the analysis themselves – as Andrew Leach points out. But they don’t want to do that – this is all cheap theatre, performative outrage that the government is “covering up” information that they’re characterising as something it’s not. But as truth and context have become strangers in this parliament, none of this is unexpected.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trans Mountain decision day?

Posted on by

It looks like today will be the day we get some kind of answer on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion pipeline, and everything will likely be confirmed in the morning as Cabinet meets earlier than usual. The three options on the table are the previously announced indemnification, as well as the option to either buy the pipeline outright (though I’m not sure if that means just the expansion or the original pipeline itself that the expansion twins) in order to sell it once the expansion completes construction, or temporarily buying it long enough to sell it to someone else who will complete construction. The word from Bloomberg’s sources is that the government is likely to buy it outright, on the likely option of buying it long enough to find someone who can guarantee its completion.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1001288600967827456

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1001294404836085760

As for what this will mean politically, you can bet that there will be no end to the howls of outrage from both opposition parties – from the Conservatives, we’ll hear that this never should have happened, and it’s only because of the federal government’s incompetence that it did. (While one can certainly question their competence in a number of areas, this is one where they had few good options, and no, a court reference or a pipeline bill would not have helped because they already have the necessary jurisdiction they need). The NDP, meanwhile, will howl that this is a betrayal of their promises on the environment and the rights of First Nations, and that it pays billions to “Texas billionaires” rather than Canadians, and so on (though one would imagine that the NDP should be all for nationalizing infrastructure projects). And one can scarcely imagine the invective we’ll hear from Jason Kenney, as helpful as that will be. Suffice to say, the next few days (and weeks) will likely be even more dramatic that they have been. Because this time of year isn’t crazy enough in Parliament without this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The problem with coalition speculation

Posted on by

We’re only a few days into the Ontario election campaign, and we’re already hearing far too much of the c-word for my liking. And by c-word, I mean “coalition” (though I have no doubt that the other c-word is being uttered by trolls over social media). And it’s so utterly frustrating because most of the time, the talk isn’t accompanied by any particular understanding of how Westminster governments work so you get a ham-fisted attempt to force coalition talks into the early days of a campaign, during which the polls could easily swing (and have in the past). And yet here we are.

Paul Wells did a great service by calling out this kind of talk in Maclean’syesterday, reminding everyone – and especially We The Media – that this kind of talk, especially on the back of torqued headlines, doesn’t really help anyone. Why? Because, aside from the fact that it’s just pure speculation, and that it distracts from actual issues at play, it also forces leaders to start ruling out hypotheticals that aren’t in play but one day might be. He also makes the salient point that post-election, things are not on a level playing field – the incumbent government is still the government, regardless of how many seats they won, and it sets up interesting scenarios if the seat counts are close, as what happened in BC last year. And time and again, media commentators seem to utterly forget that fact, which becomes extremely frustrating as they give authoritative commentary about things that are in contradiction to the realities of how the Westminster system operates.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/996229744285794304

Now, I sort of appreciate what Wherry is saying there, but the problem is that unless and until our media commentators bother to learn how the system operates, we will continue to trade in misinformation, that gets torqued for the sake of headlines, and it will exacerbate the situation and make it worse. Remember the prorogation crisis of 2008 that was precipitated by a potential coalition government willing to step in if they defeated the Harper government on a vote of non-confidence? And how the government’s talking heads were giving all kinds of nonsense answers about it being “anti-democratic,” or that they were going to “go over the head of the Governor General” and incite civil unrest if she let Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton form government? Don Newman was the only journalist who challenged these statements to their faces at the time, and, well, Don’s retired from the news business, and the rest of the pundit class hasn’t learned much since then, unfortunately, so I really am not confident that there would be pushback to wrong notions that will get promulgated if a coalition does become a reality in Ontario post-election. But as Wells pointed out, this kind of pointless speculation is the kind of empty calories and time-wasting that is irresistible to the media landscape. Meanwhile, I’ll be right here, head exploding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sending amendments back a second time

Posted on by

There’s drama with the Senate, after they sent back the omnibus transport bill back to the Commons a second time, after the government rejected several of the nineteen amendments proposed. We haven’t seen this happen in twelve years, that last time being in 2006 when there was back-and-forth on Harper’s Accountability Act, when he had a minority in the Commons, and the Liberals had a majority in the Senate, giving them the necessary leverage. But while much of the focus is on whether or not there’s going to be a constitutional crisis over this (there’s not, and quit being such drama queens about it), there is actually some nuance here that should be explored a bit more.

There are a couple of reasons why the Senate eventually voted to insist on some of the amendments, and one of those had to do with the way it creates unfairness for the Maritimes when it comes to rail transportation rates, as there is a monopoly in the region. What’s very interesting about this is the fact that after PEI Senator Diane Griffin made her speech about the regional unfairness, all subsequent debate became spontaneous and unscripted – something we almost never see in either chamber. This is how Parliament should work, and based on that speech, some senators changed their votes, which shows that the process does work as it’s supposed to, from time to time. It also shows that the Senate is fulfilling its role when it comes to standing up for regions, as they are doing for the Maritimes in this case. (Griffin, incidentally, says she’ll likely back down if the Commons rejects the amendments a second time).

The other reason the Senate is sending these amendments back, however, is the fact that when the government rejected them, they didn’t offer an explanation as to why, and this is important (and I haven’t seen anyone reporting this fact). And this puts the onus on the government, because they owe senators that explanation as to why their sober second thought is being rejected. Just about a year ago, when the Senate sent back amendments to the budget implementation bill, the House rather snippily stated that such amendments would impede the privileges of the Commons – but never stated how they would do so. While the Senate passed the bill, they did send a message back to the Commons that yes, they do have the ability to amend budget bills thank you very much, but they did make sure to let Bardish Chagger know their displeasure the next time she appeared at Senate QP, where they wanted the explanation as to how the amendments would impact the Commons’ privileges (and she never did give them an answer). Trudeau keeps saying he respects the independence of the Senate, but he should demonstrate that respect by offering explanations and not treating the work of the Senate in such a dismissive manner.

Continue reading →