Tag Archives: Procurement

QP: Memories of Dion positions past

Posted on by

After the revelries of the weekend, most everyone was present, except Thomas Mulcair. As he so colourfully put it at the Gallery Dinner, he really doesn’t care anymore. Rona Ambrose led off, and immediately laid into the referendum question. Justin Trudeau reminded her that the majority of Canadians voted for parties that wanted change, and that he looked forward to the strong voices that would be heard on the committee. Ambrose raised the issue that Stéphane Dion said in 2012 that a referendum would be necessary on electoral reform, and Trudeau said that they needed committee consultation on such a complex question. Asking again in English, Trudeau gave a more impassioned defence of a robust consultative process. Alain Reyes made the demand for a referendum again in French, and got much the same response. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet led off for the NDP and raised the Liberal Senate leader who did not agree with C-14, and would the government listen to him. Trudeau pointed out that there was no greater endorsement of their reforms to the Senate than the NDP endorsing senators’ work, and then basically admitted that the bill would come back to the Commons with amendments. On a follow-up in French, Trudeau again said that they would look forward to amendments. Murray Rankin took over, raising more objections to the bill, and Trudeau kept saying that they consulted widely and looked forward to the bill coming back.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Monarchial stability

Posted on by

In an interview with CTV’s Question Period about his upcoming trip to the Queen’s official 90th birthday celebrations in London, His Excellency the Governor General credited the monarchy with holding Canada together, and noted that constitutional monarchies are among the most stable of all forms of government – and he’s right. Predictably, however, the republicans among us got right offended, saying that Canadians deserve some of the credit, and it was simplistic, patronising and wrong to say that Canada would “disintegrate without a London-based, hereditary Head of State.” The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores some of the counterfactuals, and what we see in countries where heads of state are elected and who are largely partisan in nature. The stability of those countries is indeed an issue in many cases, and social progress is generally further behind than most constitutional monarchies, which have a demonstrated tendency not to be as conservative or reactionary as one might think given the importance of maintaining those traditions. But the most important reason why constitutional monarchies like Canada’s tend to be more uniting is that they don’t rely on a partisan head of state to be the uniting figure around which all of the pomp and circumstances happens, and you don’t have people going “he’s not my president” and so on. It’s not the partisan head of state’s face on postage stamps and in embassies, or who receives military salutes. Ours is a system designed to keep leaders from developing cults of personality and keeps their ambitions in check because they do not hold power – they merely exercise it on behalf of the one who does (that being the monarch). It’s also why it’s concerning that our prime ministers in this country have been getting presidential envy, and why this “First Lady” business around Sophie Grégoire Trudeau is a problem because it goes against our particular constitutional monarchical order. Having someone be above the political fray has benefitted our society and our culture, and it can’t be easily dismissed as being simple or patronising. Systems help to shape societies, and our system has shaped ours for the better. We can’t simply ignore it out of some childish sense of spite about how and why that system works the way it does.

His Excellency also noted that Trudeau’s children help bring Rideau Hall “alive,” and he reminded us that his own children used to play with Pierre Trudeau’s children when they were the same age, living in Montreal nearby one another.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An exit and a streamlining

Posted on by

In case you hadn’t heard, there are two national political policy conventions happening this weekend, both at the same time, so Kady O’Malley came up with a viewer’s guide to both events. Last night we heard from Stephen Harper in a pretty canned speech that was mostly the same talking points that were in his retrospective video, and he wants the party to look forward. The rest of the Conservative convention is to be dedicated to reinvigorating the party as opposed to giving it a complete overhaul, so say its attendees, but there is a push to get a better organization in place to engage youth in the country – something the party has not been good at doing, officially eschewing a youth wing – and the “draft Rona Ambrose” movement continues to try to get enough support to modify the party’s constitution to allow her to run (never mind that she’s stated repeatedly that she’s not interested in the job).

As for the Liberals, it’s not just a victory lap for them as they went from third place and from talks of their time being over and needing to merge with the NDP to forming a majority government. No, they’ve got a very serious debate on their hands as it relates to whether they adopt a new “streamlined” constitution or now, and by “streamlined,” it means more than just the actual streamlining of having 18 different constitutions, but it centralizes all of the power into the leader’s office and eliminates pretty much every accountability mechanism that exists in the party for the sake of becoming a party of Big Data. So while some streamlining is no doubt necessary, I’m not sure that this is the way that the party should be run. There is also a movement to have an emergency resolution debated to pressure the government into amending C-14 to make it more Carter decision compliant, but it appears that the party has quashed it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Term limit nonsense

Posted on by

As we gear up for the Conservatives’ policy convention this weekend, one of the policy resolutions on the table is term limits for the party leader, which they propose to cap at eight years should the leader become Prime Minister. While this is an example of the grassroots showing some displeasure at Stephen Harper and his stranglehold over the party for well over a decade, it’s a terrible bit of Americana that people keep trying to import into our system as though it were a panacea to problems that exist here. They’re entirely wrong, however, but they keep trying. Over in the National Post, John Pepall argues that term limits are fundamentally undemocratic because they prevent people from having the choice of electing a popular leader for as long as they like, but while he has a point, I would stress that term limits in a Canadian context are a complete lack of understanding of our system of Responsible Government, which rests on the principle of confidence. After all, term limits are largely unnecessary because our system can dump a prime minister at any point by means of a vote of no confidence – something that can’t happen in the American system, as they don’t have a system based on confidence, but rather on defined terms, with the relief valve of recall elections in some cases. Otherwise, they are forced to wait out a term until the next election, while in a Westminster system, it can happen with a snap vote in the Commons. Of course, we do have the problem in this country particularly around being able to dump a leader who is not the PM because we have moved away from the caucus selecting the leader, to systems of either delegated conventions, one-member-one-vote, or the latest Liberal abomination, the “supporter category.” Caucus selection kept leaders accountable to them, and it kept them in check, whereas they accumulated more presidential powers as the base that elected them grew larger and they felt more empowered by their “democratic mandate.” While leaders can still lose membership reviews by party members (witness Thomas Mulcair), a caucus can still pressure a leader to resign these days by simply making their dissatisfaction public. In most cases, like with Alison Redford, all it takes is a couple of MPs/MLAs with enough of a spine to go public, and the leader sees the writing on the wall. In cases where the leader digs in their heels – as with Greg Selinger in Manitoba – it can become the death knell for that particular government, as we witnessed in that province’s election just weeks ago. But all of these upsets were accomplished without term limits, and respecting the principles of Responsible Government. Trying to graft on Americana will just turn our system into some kind of monstrous chimera that won’t actually be able to function – hell, the changes we’ve made to leadership selection processes so far have already damaged and warped our system and need to be undone. But if Conservative Party members want to actually respect our system of government, they’ll vote down this cockamamie policy proposal with extreme prejudice, and hopefully we won’t have to speak of this again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Talking out the clock needlessly

Posted on by

As you may have heard, Conservative MPs refused to let debate collapse on Mauril Bélanger’s national anthem bill yesterday, not allowing it to come up for a vote as had been hoped in order to fast-track the bill through the process owing to Bélanger’s condition. While this has been described as a “filibuster,” it’s not quite, but it was dickish behaviour, make no mistake – particularly the fact that all of the Conservative MPs were making the same points over and over again rather than offering any new criticism of the bill (with such novel excuses that it would be a slippery slope – references to God would be next in line, and woe be the age of political correctness, and so on). As a quick explanation, private members’ business cannot be filibustered because it is all automatically time allocated. Under the standing orders, each private members’ bill or motion gets two hours of debate – each hour separated by the precedence list of 30 items, meaning about six sitting weeks – before it goes to a vote. If bills pass the second reading vote, they go to committee for a couple of hours of study before they get another two hours of debate at report stage and third reading (again, separated by the precedence list of 30 items), and then they head to the Senate, where there is no time allocation and they will often get more scrutiny – particularly at committee – but government business taking priority means that they can sometimes languish there for months. In this particular case, there was a hope that debate could collapse and there would be no need for a second hour of debate, but they also requested that they could go straight into the second hour, but the Conservatives denied consent to do so. After all, they had planes to catch back to their ridings. If Bélanger’s health deteriorates further and he is forced to resign his seat – and he did come to the debate directly from the hospital – then it would be possible for another MP to take on the bill in his stead, but that tends to require unanimous consent, and if the Conservatives continue to want to be dickish about this, then they can deny it and the bill will die without its sponsor present. And because this is a private members’ bill, no other MP can launch a similar bill in this parliament, since there are rules around debating the same bill twice. The danger for those Conservatives, however, is that the Liberals can turn around and put it into a government bill and put it through the process that way, which gives them all manner of other tools to use to push it through – particularly on the Senate side. And while nobody is arguing that the bill should pass just because of Bélanger’s health, the argument is that it should have come to a vote so that it could pass or fail at second reading. While Conservatives argue that they have a right to talk out the clock, the fact that they kept repeating themselves is a sign that this was a dilatory tactic and designed to be dickish, which is what has enraged a number of Bélanger’s supporters. And really, it’s unnecessary because it looks like they’re bullying a dying man, and no good can come of it. We’ll see if anyone is willing to trade their upcoming slot in the Order of Precedence to move Bélanger’s second hour of debate up so the vote can be accelerated, but it shouldn’t have been necessary.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Responsible, not rogue

Posted on by

A Liberal MP has broken ranks on a government bill! Oh noes! Let us now treat this as some kind of crisis of leadership! Okay, so the CBC piece about the event is only slightly more measured than that, but their Twitter headline certainly wasn’t.

One of the most enduring problems with Canadian political reporting is the constant conundrum of demanding that MPs exercise more independence, but immediately treating any instances of MPs breaking party ranks as some kind of crisis of leadership, where obviously the grip has been lost and soon it will be all over for the leader. (In some cases, the party itself treats it as some kind of betrayal of solidarity *cough*NDP*cough* and punishes its MPs internally with things like removing QP spots for weeks or removing members from committees or travel junkets). Ditto with senators, or at least until Trudeau kicked his senators out of national caucus – “is the leader losing control of his senators?” was not an uncommon headline either (though not one that is generally screamed as loudly, and one might also add that not enough ink was spilled on the split in caucus over Bill C-377 – the “union transparency” bill – the first time around when they voted to gut it, and Marjory LeBreton stepped down as Government Leader a couple of weeks later after seriously mishandling the whole thing inside her caucus). And yes, Trudeau did promise more free votes, but this is one of those common promises that tends to wind up with MPs voting in lock-step anyway because they all really support their party or they all just happen to all think in lock-step. I am also reminded that when Michael Ignatieff tried to encourage his caucus to vote more freely on private members’ bills by not rarely voting for them personally – so that they wouldn’t look to him as to how to vote – he was punished for it by Jack Layton lying about those missed votes as poor attendance during the election (though Ignatieff should have responded with the policy and shut him down, but didn’t, and lost the election quite badly as a result). Suffice to say, when MPs don’t vote in lockstep, we shouldn’t use terms like “goes rogue,” because it gives entirely the wrong connotation about what has taken place. We want more responsible and independent-minded MPs, so let’s not make it harder for them to do so. And let’s leave the word “rogue” to this for the time being:

Continue reading →

Roundup: A possible pipeline

Posted on by

Pipelines will be the talk of the day, as the National Energy Board gave approval to Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement pipeline to the US late yesterday, and Candice Bergen wasted no time in putting out a press release demanding that the government approve it for the sake of jobs, and so on. Never mind that this pipeline doesn’t go to tidewater, so it won’t actually help Alberta get world price for its exports, but hey, it’s a pipeline and we are apparently in desperate need of them, except when we aren’t because they will encourage the further exploitation of oil and gas which won’t help us reach our climate goals, and all of that. But tidewater remains on everyone’s lips, as there is talk that the Northern Gateway pipeline may not be dead after all, and there is even talk that Enbridge is looking at alternate port facilities than the one that they proposed in their initial bid. There is a sense of a deadline, given that the conditional approval that the NEB gave Northern Gateway would expire by the end of this year, but it’s also hard to say that it was a real approval given the 200+ conditions that they attached to it, which may very well have been quite onerous – particularly any conditions that required First Nations buy-in when they are not keen to allow these pipelines over their territories, nor to have any terminus near the waterways that salmon depend upon for spawning, as that affects their local fisheries as well. That said, all of the agitation for Energy East will continue undaunted, no matter that it hasn’t even begun much of its environmental assessment process, nor the case for its “social licence” as Trudeau likes to call it – not that questions of process seem to matter to those who want it to happen yesterday.

Continue reading →

QP: Tax credit meanies

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was at Gleason gym in Brooklyn, and the Duffy verdict being read out a few blocks away, QP was ramping up for another scintillating session. In the lead up to QP, MPs sang a round of “Happy Birthday” and “God Save the Queen” in honour of Her Majesty’s 90th birthday, followed by a moment of silence for the National Day of Mourning. Rona Ambrose led off, complaining about the demise of the child sport tax credit. Bill Morneau reminded her that the new Child Tax Benefit offers more money for all families to use as they see fit. Ambrose asked again in French, got the same answer, and then moved onto complaining that the Liberals voted down her motion to declare ISIS a genocide. Stéphane Dion reminded her that the official recognition of genocide was serious and should only happen after an international investigation, which is what he was pushing for. Denis Lebel was up next, asking about the aluminium industry in Quebec. David Lemetti reminded him that they are working on the issue. Lebel asked about the issue of diafiltered milk, and Jean-Claude Poissant, responded that they were working on it. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and denounced Bill C-10, refusing to call Marc Garneau by his title. Garneau responded that they were going to rush the bill, which the NDP trie to kill. Mulcair then suggested that it was Carolyn Bennett who let the Catholic Church off the hook for Residential Schools. Bennett listed the dates to prove that it was the previous government, and the government couldn’t force the Church to do anything. Mulcair then changed topics to the Saudi arms deal, at which point Dion repeated Mulcair’s statements on honouring the agreement during the election. Mulcair thundered that the Liberals weren’t defending human rights, and Dion kept reminding Mulcair of his own words on the contract.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Supreme Court hand-holding

Posted on by

I was all set to write about the Liberals invoking time allocation on the Air Canada bill, when I saw this story and it pissed me right off: Thomas Mulcair thinks that the assisted dying bill needs to be referred to the Supreme Court to ensure that it meets the tests set out in the Carter decision. And it set me off, because this is completely ridiculous. The bill hasn’t even been debated yet, and already they want to demand that the Supreme Court start weighing in? Are you serious? Oh, but of course it’s serious – it’s part of this ongoing pattern of a lack of moral courage that MPs are oh so good at demonstrating, where they don’t want to be seen to have to make any tough decisions, so they fob it off onto the courts to do it for them. And here, before he’s even spoken to the bill in the Commons, he wants the court to do the heavy lifting for him. And it’s an endemic pattern. Usually, it involves the officers of parliament, for whom MPs have so successfully fobbed off all of their work that those officers are de facto the official opposition these days, holding the government to account and doing the heavy lifting because MPs won’t. Oh sure, they’re happy to make snide remarks and to manufacture a bunch of fake outrage in QP, but they won’t scrutinise estimates anymore, and barely scrutinise bills. Hell, their very first bill in this parliament got sent to the Senate in an incomplete form because they couldn’t be bothered to actually check it, but rather passed it at all stages in 20 minutes. And now they want the Supreme Court to do even more of that homework for them. And just like with other homework, where MPs use officers of parliament as their partisan shields (witness the number of questions in QP predicated with “The PBO says…”), Mulcair is looking to use the Supreme Court to do just that for this bill. Before it’s even had a minute of debate. Rather than just stand up and say “In my analysis, this bill doesn’t meet the Carter decision,” no, he needs to hide behind the Supreme Court so that it doesn’t look like the criticism is coming from him. That MPs do this is ridiculous and infantile. You’re elected to do a job – so actually grow up and do it.

Continue reading →

QP: We thank the PBO

Posted on by

Caucus day, and all of the leaders were present for the only time this week, Trudeau heading to New York for the rest of the week after things wrapped up. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, and quoted the PBO’s report yesterday, accusing the PM of misleading Canadians on basic facts. Trudeau thanked the PBO for his report, and noted their commitments to things like a larger tax-free child benefit for nine out of ten Canadians. Ambrose wondered how Canadians could have confidence that the government could protect their jobs, and Trudeau reeled off his list of promises of investments. Ambrose then wondered why the BC LNG projects weren’t moving forward. Trudeau reminded her that they couldn’t get the job done because they didn’t care about the environment at the same time as the economy. Denis Lebel got up to repeat the PBO questions in French, got much the same answer in French as before. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and raised the problem of veterans who have to fill out forms every year to prove that their limbs have not grown back. Trudeau reminded him of the promise to make record investments in veterans. Mulcair snidely called out the talking points and demanded an answer for this particular case. Trudeau reminded him of the mandate letter to his minister on the sacred obligation to veterans and that they were cleaning up the mess left by the previous government. Mulcair demanded marijuana decriminalisation immediately in the lead-up to legalisation, and Trudeau first remarked that it was always a surprise which position Mulcair held on marijuana on every given day, and noted that decriminalisation was a pipeline to profits for criminal gangs. Mulcair thundered about it one last time, and Trudeau repeated that legalisation was all about protecting children and starving criminal gangs.

Continue reading →