Tag Archives: Refugees

Roundup: Asylum claimant dust-up

Posted on by

So there was a bit of a testy exchange yesterday as federal and provincial immigration ministers met in Winnipeg, and Ahmed Hussen got into a bit of a spat with Ontario’s new minister, Lisa MacLeod. Hussen objected to MacLeod (and Doug Ford) using the rhetoric of “illegal border crossers” and ginning up the same rhetoric of the Federal Conservatives that somehow refugee claimants take make it harder for legal immigrants (despite the fact that they’re separate processes and systems). This objection is not new either – Hussen has been saying this for weeks, so for MacLeod to get offended about it yesterday is being performative in the extreme – which is what she wants. With Kathleen Wynne no longer in the picture for her party to pit themselves against, they now need to make Trudeau their straw man. And when Hussen called the behaviour “un-Canadian,” MacLeod and her defenders accused Hussen of “bullying,” which is childish. But wait – it gets better. MacLeod loudly announced that the federal government should pay for these asylum claimants, while Hussen has been saying for weeks that they need Ontario to step up and find places elsewhere in the province than just Toronto to house them, and hey, they’re providing money to do just that. And then, because this wasn’t theatrical enough, Saskatchewan’s minister also refused to sign onto the communiqué from the meeting and demanded that the federal government not only pay for these asylum seekers (of which Saskatchewan has received zero), but that they should pay the full cost of all other government-sponsored refugees. Couple of things: 1) This is starting to get alarmingly close to the kinds of xenophobic populist rhetoric we’re seeing south of the border, and we should be very alarmed by that; and 2) Remember how the federal Conservatives just a few years ago cut refugee health benefits as a “deterrence” mechanism (which the courts later called “cruel and unusual”), which simply downloaded those costs onto the provinces? These are your political brethren.

Also released yesterday were the latest figures for the number of irregular border crossers, and it has plunged again. Because it’s a “crisis” that the government has “done nothing about.” Err, except they have been doing something about it, trying to stem the migrant flow at the source, and lo and behold, it seems to be working. For now, in any case. But the Conservatives continue to press for a meeting of the Commons’ immigration committee next week to rail about it.

Meanwhile, Martin Patriquin calls out the divisive and inflammatory language because it misses the actual issue at play, treating it as a permanent burden rather than a temporary state of affairs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “quiet” housekeeping bill

Posted on by

Do bills get passed “quietly”? There was a bit of debate over the Twitter over this fact yesterday, where it was conceded that a bill was passed with little fanfare, but I wanted to dissect this a little bit. The bill in question was one that was a technical housekeeping bill that legislated that several Minister of State positions were bumped in status, salary and precedence to full ministers, and that they had line departments split out from the previous departments they existed under the envelope of. It had been on the Order Paper since 2016, and signalled that it was happening since the Cabinet was first unveiled in 2015, with Orders in Council doing effectively what the bill did on an interim basis. It garnered attention yesterday because amidst the Cabinet shuffle speculation, it was noted that the bill allows for a couple of more seats to be added to the Cabinet table under this new framework, so Trudeau could theoretically increase the size of his Cabinet (and he yet might). But regardless, because this was passed without fanfare, it was termed as being passed “quietly.”

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1017468288207552512

Part of why I have a problem with the use of “quietly” – not just in this circumstance but in others – is because it implies that that there was intent. A recent egregious example was the renewal of the equalization formula – something that was in the budget document, in the bill (clearly marked), and came up at committee, and on top of that, was the subject of discussions between the federal and provincial governments for months. But nobody batted an eyelash until the Globe and Mail said it was passed “quietly” (apparently because they didn’t report on it, which is like a tree falling in the forest). And like I said with that equalization issue, it’s not the media’s job to flag every little thing for MPs – they can do their own homework.

My other issue with this is that not every bill is going to get fanfare – a lot of it is technical and relatively uncontroversial, there are a number of bills that are financial measures that are eye-glazing that most MPs don’t pay attention to (though they should) and simply pass of to the PBO to do their homework for them on. This particular bill was, as I said, on the Order Paper since 2016. There was nothing really controversial about it because it purported to fix inequities that would otherwise have ensured that a number of the women in the gender-equal cabinet were not equal in status or pay because they were in portfolios that had previously been relegated to “junior” positions, and a few reporters tried to make hay out of that fact when the Cabinet was first announced in 2015. This is not a bill that deserved fanfare. Expecting it is unrealistic and frankly comes off as a bit whiney when reporters can track these things on LegisInfo like everyone else. It didn’t pass “quietly” – it was a technical bill that passed like all technical bills do. And it’s time we struck “quietly” from the political lexicon.

Continue reading →

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: 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: Barriers and non-solutions

Posted on by

As part of a discussion on Power & Politicsyesterday on barriers women face in politics, there were a few well-worn tropes thrown out there, but I wanted to poke into a couple of the items discussed (much of which I’ve already written about in my book, but a refresher course never hurts):

  1. This needs to be an issue addressed by the parties at the grassroots level and shouldn’t be legislated top-down. Parties are already too centrally controlled, and if you want empowered MPs that are women and those who are from diverse communities, they need to participate from the ground-up rather than be appointed top-down.
  2. The side-effect of quotas, be they de facto or de jure, tends to be that women and minorities are nominated in “no-hope” ridings. We’ve seen this time and again, even from the NDP, who have their “no nomination can be run unless the riding association has exhausted the possibility for an equity-seeking candidate” rule. That rule is often conveniently broken if they think they have a winnable straight, white male candidate, and 2011 is a perfect example of how they loaded a lot of women and racialized candidates in “no hope” Quebec ridings that got swept up in the “orange wave.” Most were not good MPs, and some had never been to their ridings before winning, which is the opposite of how nominations should be run.
  3. The voting system is not the problem – it’s entrenched barriers in the nomination system where not enough encouragement is given to women to run (i.e. until this last electoral cycle, they didn’t recognize that women need to be asked several times before they will consider running, and they may have things like childcare issues that need to be sorted when running). A PR system usually creates some manner of list MPs, where your women and minority MPs come from lists rather than having had to run and win ridings, which creates two-tiers of MPs. This also manifests itself in countries with quotas, and women MPs in places like Rwanda have seats but little power as a result.
  4. We can’t do much more to make our parliament more “family friendly” without hollowing it out even more than it has been. While there are issues with childcare, MPs are not without resources to address it (like hiring nannies) rather than forcing the institution to hire precariously-employed childcare workers for part of the year with no sense of numbers on a daily basis. While 60-day parental leave is not objectionable, remote voting and Skyping into committee meetings is very much a problem that we should not encourage in any way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performing partisanship

Posted on by

Andrew Potter put out a very interesting post yesterday about self-help for partisans, given the tone of the rhetoric right now, and it came at a particularly apropos moment given how unreadable my Twitter reply column has become since the publication of my fact-check piece for Maclean’s. And no, it’s not just Conservatives who are sore that their team has been caught out, it’s also an equal number of their opponents who are utterly obnoxious in using the piece to prove something about the Conservatives.

What has really gotten me, however, are the number of partisans whom I’ve worked with, who have been sources for pieces I’ve written that have savaged the Liberal government, who are taking to Twitter to accuse me of bias. And I had to step back from my reactions to realise something that Potter articulated in his piece:

And maybe that’s the big problem — that everyone has stopped arguing with their opponents, and has decided to simply perform for their supporters.

And this is it exactly – they’re not engaging critically with what I wrote or acknowledging that I have a record of being just as critical on the government on very substantial issues (as opposed to cheap outrage and the usual hairshirt parsimony that means nothing). They have to take to social media to denounce me in order to perform their partisanship. And I get it. But it’s really, really disappointing.

But as Potter also points out, this is also reflecting itself in how Parliament is operating these days – MPs aren’t debating with one another. They’re performing for their base, and we can see that in the way that we went from debate to reading speeches into the void, and from QP that engaged on issues to one that is now solely focused on generating outrage clips for social media. Parliament is ceasing to be about debate or ideas, or about governance or accountability – it’s about performing for your base so that you can win a few more votes. And that’s not only sad, but it’s terrifying for what it means for the future. And that’s why I think we need to have a rethink of where rules changes have gotten us, and start reshaping those rules that will force MPs to re-engage with Parliament in the way it’s intended to run, rather than allowing it to further degrade into this puppet show we’re careening toward.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fixes to a strained system

Posted on by

An independent report on Canada’s refugee determination system was released yesterday, and it recommends various ways to completely overhaul our system, most drastically that it calls for it to be reformed into an agency that reports to the minister, rather than maintaining the quasi-judicial Immigration and Refugee Board. It’s a recommendation that worries groups like the Canadian Council of Refugees because part of what the strength of the IRB is that it’s a quasi-judicial body, and that ensures that there is much greater due process in the system. It’s not perfect, mind you, but that’s an important value of a system that determines what can be life-and-death situations for refugee claimants to have. It’s not a surprise that the system is under stress, not only because of the influx of irregular border crossers, but because the government has been slow to fill vacancies on the board, which cascades through the system, causing delays and huge stresses for claimants (and their lawyers). And if the government could fill those vacancies and add resources to the system in order to clear the backlogs (which were created when the previous government reformed the appointment process under their watch) that would help, but they’ve been apparently in no rush to do so.

Speaking of the influx of irregular border crossers, Toronto’s mayor is complaining to the provincial and federal governments that they’re maxed out on shelter space for those migrants that have travelled to Toronto and want more help in housing them – after having received $11 million in additional funds from the federal government. Part of the problem is that they haven’t been able to find suitable spaces, and additional money can’t build new shelters overnight.

Meanwhile, CBC has an analysis piece about whether suspending the Safe Third Country Agreement would lead to a massive influx of new claims on our system. The answer is a decided maybe, but what’s not really addressed in the piece is the fact that the Agreement virtually eliminated the practice of asylum shopping, where people would make either simultaneous claims in the US and Canada or would try the other if one was due to fail. It is a problem that strains our resources (which are already strained), and it can’t be discounted as a possible side-effect of suspending the agreement.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Delay for the sake of delay

Posted on by

With Parliament now risen for the summer, The Canadian Press decided to take a look back at the rise in obstruction tactics by the opposition in the last couple of months, and some of it is blatant obstruction for the sake of obstruction. And while a number of the usual pundits decried the piece, I think there are a few things to drill into here – not because I don’t think that there are legitimate uses for opposition obstruction and filibusters (because there certainly are), but what it says about the tone of this current parliament.

There are a few examples cited in the piece about opposition tactics that don’t make sense – the insistence on running out the clock on a six-hour marathon of speeches over the Senate public bill about Latin American Heritage Month that all parties supported (though I’m unsure how, procedurally, a Senate public bill got that many hours of debate because it should have really gotten two under private members’ business), the vote-a-thon tantrum that was cynically designed to simply kill Friday hours rather than make any meaningful points about the Estimates that were being voted upon, or the hours of concurrence debates on committee reports that all parties agreed upon. The piece makes the point that there are concerns that these tactics were designed to force the government to bring in time allocation on more bills in order to get them through, so that they could turn around and accuse them of acting in bad faith after they came in promising not to use time allocation (despite the fact that it’s a defensible tactic under most circumstances).

To a certain extent, this is the government’s fault for coming in trying to play nice and operating under the rubric that all parties can be reasonable and agree to debate timetables. That hasn’t always proved true, and when Bardish Chagger’s proposals around scheduling motions like they use in the UK got shot down (legitimately – it’s not something I would have really supported because it means automatic time allocation of all bills), she warned that time allocation would be used more frequently, and it certainly appears that the opposition parties have dared her to do so with their tactics. But I do find it frustrating as a parliamentary observer that good faith attempts and allowing more debate gets abused in order to try and embarrass the government rather than making parliament work better, and then they can complain when the government has to play hard(er) ball. We already know that the rules in which we structure debate here are broken and need to be overhauled to ensure that our MPs are actually debating rather than simply reciting speeches into the void, and that they in fact can encourage this kind of dilatory behaviour. The measures that Chagger proposed to make Parliament work better wouldn’t have actually done so, but I don’t think it’s illegitimate to shine a light on delay for the sake of delay because it does highlight that there are problems with the rules at present. But we need to get over the kneejerk reactions that calls to do so are about partisan purposes rather than about the health of our democracy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Judging Question Period the Toronto Star way

Posted on by

The Toronto Star released a package of stories yesterday on Question Period, and because this is the way we do journalism these days, it was full of data analysis that looks shiny, and hey, they got some investigative reporters to count questions and responses. Absent from that? A hell of a lot of context. So while you got some backbenchers who don’t participate to gripe about it being scripted (which it is), and some counting up of the talking points (without any context as to why these developed), or a surface-level look at the political theatre of it all (again, absent a lot of context or history, or bigger-picture look at the ways in which the messaging has changed and how it is currently being used to gather social media clips). It’s inch-deep stuff that, for someone who covers QP every single day, is mighty disappointing. (Additional point – most of the writers of these pieces have not attended QP, which is a problem because watching it from your desk in Toronto is not the same thing as being there in person. At all).

What is the most disappointing of all, however, is their “Question Period fact check” piece, which takes a sampling of questions and answers, and assesses the veracity of the questions being posited and the responses. Why it’s a problem is because they fell into the problem of how questions are framed – surface truths that are stripped of context to say something that it doesn’t. An example is when the Conservatives railed that the PBO said that carbon taxes would take $10 billion out of the economy. Which isn’t actually what he said – he said that it would take $10 billion out of the economy if the revenues weren’t recycled through tax cuts or other measures but were just given directly back to taxpayers. That’s a whopping difference in the message, because using only the $10 billion figure is a disingenuous attack line. And what did the “fact checkers” rate it? “True!” even though it wasn’t actually. And the piece was full of problematic fact-checks like that, which makes it infuriating for someone who actually pays attention to what is being said and how. So while everyone pats themselves on the back for the piece, I’m really unimpressed with the package as a whole.

Equalisation reform

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe released his plan to reform equalisation yesterday and it’s…not equalisation. It’s like he doesn’t get the concept at all. Which at this point should not surprise anyone, because it’s been so badly reported on for decades and has been the tool of demagogues to bash Quebec rather than understanding how the system actually works – paid for by federal income tax out of general revenues to a province that doesn’t have the fiscal capacity to offer comparable services. It’s not one province writing a cheque to another one. For provinces that pay into it more than they get out, it’s because they have high incomes, thus they pay more income tax. It’s not that mysterious (and yet most reporters simply write “it’s complicated” and leave it at that). And Quebec has structural issues related to their fiscal capacity (and yes, their tax rates are already high relative to other provinces) but the per capita equalization they receive is actually low, not that the shock-and-awe figure of the total amount isn’t constantly being weaponized.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1009498701151158272

And what does Moe suggest? Basically taking money from Quebec’s share and giving it to all provinces whether they need it or not. It’s bullshit that fortunately a number of economists called out – not that it’ll matter, because the audience that Moe is speaking to dismisses what economists have to say. Sigh.

Continue reading →

QP: The other conspicuous silence

Posted on by

For the final QP of the spring sitting (barring unforeseen circumstances), all leaders were present, and plenty of MPs kicked off with statements of thanks to spouses and supporters. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, reading congratulations for his new MP, before reading some aged talking points about the India trip. Justin Trudeau first congratulated the new MP, and thanked the pages and the Commons staff, but didn’t respond to Scheer’s question. Scheer read the laundry list of the prime minister’s supposed sins, worried about his reckless spending. Trudeau responded with a reminder about the investments they have made in the middle class. Scheer breathlessly read the costs of upgrades to the PM’s residence at Harrington Lake, and Trudeau stuck to his talking points about investing in the middle class, avoiding Scheer’s bait. Scheer tried again, and this time Trudeau took up a script to talk about the NCC’s responsibilities in maintaining official residences. Scheer tried yet again, and Trudeau sanctimoniously talking about all of the problems facing the country and the world, while that was what Scheer was focused on. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and demanded to know if the US was still considered a safe country for asylum seekers. Trudeau took up a script to respond that Canadians are concerned, and they were looking for ways to modernize the Safe Third Country Agreement, and they were monitoring the situation. Caron demanded that Trudeau denounce what was going on, to which Trudeau reiterated that the situation was unacceptable and they were monitoring it. Jenny Kwan took over in English, louder and angrier, and Trudeau took his script back up to repeat that what’s happening is wrong, and that he would stand up for those seeking refuge. Kwan tried one last time, and got the same answer.

https://twitter.com/cfhorgan/status/1009505095225151488

Continue reading →