Tag Archives: Refugees

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 →

QP: Borders and pipeline taxes

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was present today after meeting with the prime minister of Estonia, Andrew Scheer was away. In his place, Lisa Raitt led off, worried about irregular border crossers, and the strain it was putting on housing. Trudeau stood to respond, script in hand, to say that they have robust processes, but the previous government left them backlogs that they were still cleaning up. When Raitt insisted that there were three separate problems as a result of his #WelcomeToCanada tweet, the lack of clarity from the immigration minister, and the international development minister welcoming those migrants because they helped with a labour shortage in her riding. Trudeau didn’t take up a script this time and reminded Raitt that they have a system that applies to everyone, and when Raitt tried a third time, Trudeau got more vociferous in his reiteration that there is a proper process, that they ensure that everyone goes through it, whether there are backlogs or not. Gérard Deltell took over in French, reiterating the previous question, to which Trudeau noted that while Canada welcomes people a from around the rule, the system is applied with integrity and that we are a country with a rule of law. On a second time around, Trudeau noted that they still had irregular migrants under their watch, and they cut their healthcare on top of resources to CBSA and the IRB. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, and accused Kinder Morgan of avoiding Canadian taxes, so why would the government give them a blank cheque. Trudeau started with the tired environment and the economy talking point before transitioning to the fact that without the pipeline, our economy is losing out of a $15 billion because of a lack of access to other markets. Caron tried again, and Trudeau doubled down on the need for a better price for our oil. Ruth Ellen Brosseau took over to ask the same again in English, and Trudeau reiterated his answer, and again on a second go around.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Don’t be fooled by Friday’s childish meltdown

Posted on by

You may have heard that there was a bit of a meltdown in the House of Commons yesterday. You may also have heard a bunch of suspect commentary about what it was about, and some particularly dubious ruminations about how noble it was that these opposition MPs were standing up for their rights to examine the Estimates and to ensure that all government spending was properly voted for, and so on. The problem is, is that those sentiments demonstrate that they’ve been taken in by the ruse that this is all related to.

So, to recap: Yesterday the parties were on notice that Government House Leader Bardish Chagger was going to move the motion to start late-night sittings in the House of Commons for the last four scheduled sitting weeks, in order to get bills through and off to the Senate. After all, it’s likely that the government wants to prorogue and have a new Throne Speech in the fall, and it’s better to get as many bills off the Order Paper before that happens. But just before Chagger is going to move that motion during Routine Proceedings yesterday, the NDP’s Daniel Blaikie conveniently stands up to raise a point of order and starts to demand that the Speaker allow them to delete Vote 40 from the Estimates. Vote 40 is related to the $7 billion fund that the government wants to use to get a move on budgetary matters that haven’t made it through proper Treasury Board review yet. The figures are all in the budget, laid out in a table, on how it will be spent. The opposition has decided that this is really a “slush fund” that can be spent on anything (the government is quite insistent that if they spent it on anything other than what’s in the table in the budget that it would constitute unauthorised spending, which is a significant thing). After Blaikie started a lengthy speech about it, the Speaker said he’s heard enough, that the matter is before committee and not the Commons, so it’s not in order. When he tried to move onto other business, Blaikie kept demanding he be heard. The Conservatives joined in. And thus began an eight-minute childish tantrum of shouting and desk banging that drowned out other business, and once that calmed down, endless cycles of points of order regarding whether or not they could hear the motion or the interpretation, and so on. There was no greater principle being expressed or upheld – it was a procedural filibuster. And we know this because they tried other tactics after that one failed, including points of personal privilege over the earlier meltdown, and a concurrence debate on a committee report (which, as Kady points out, is kind of fun to watch because almost no one has prepared speeches for them, so they’re forced to think on their feet, which they should be doing anyway, but whatever).

Procedural shenanigans I’m fine with. It’s a necessary part of Parliamentary democracy. I’m less fine with the infantile tantrum that they threw when they didn’t get their way. That’s the part that needs to be called out for what it was. And I especially resent the fact that you have a bunch of pundit who should know what a filibuster looks like after being on the Hill for so many yearswho were all “They have a legitimate point!” That legitimate point, as meritorious as it may be in a more existential conversation about reform of the Estimates process, was not what this was about, and to treat it as though it was is to fall for the game. I will additionally add that I am especially displeased with the commentary on the Power & Politicspower panel, where pundits who are not in Ottawa and who don’t cover this place got space to ruminate about how the Speaker was acting partisan because the government is on its heels a bit, of that this $7 fund was just like an omnibus bill that they swore they would never use, and nobody pushed back about how bogus this commentary was. (Paul Wells offered the actual take, bolstered by Aaron Wherry, for the record, but regardless). I will reiterate that procedure matters, and it would really help if people covering and commenting on this place understood that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A major amendment at committee

Posted on by

There will be another looming showdown between the Senate and the Commons in the coming weeks, as the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee narrowly voted to remove the random mandatory alcohol testing provisions from Bill C-46, the government’s new impaired driving legislation. And this wasn’t just the Conservatives being obstructionist – Liberals joined in this too, the tie-breaker coming from Senator Serge Joyal. Why? Because this provision is almost certainly unconstitutional. Senator Denise Batters, who moved the motion, explained the reasons in this video here:

It can’t be understated that the criminal defence bar has been warning for months that this will lead to even more court challenges, including Charter challenges, and that it will do nothing to alleviate the backlog in the courts, and would only make them worse in the post-Jordandecision world of tight timelines. And if you don’t think that this won’t create problems, then just look to BC to see what moving to administrative roadside penalties for impaired driving did to their court system – it’s created a cottage industry of court challenges to those citations. I’ve interviewed these lawyers before. One of them, for whom this is her specialty (as tweeted below) knows what she speaks when it comes to what this bill will do.

The government will point to constitutional scholars that told them their plans were sound, but again, this likely won’t be definitively be answered until it gets put to the Supreme Court of Canada. And plenty of lawyers will also point out – correctly – that just because the police are looking for certain powers, it doesn’t mean they should get them because they will infringe on Canadians’ Charter rights. The funny thing is that this creates a schism within the Conservative caucus, with the MPs being in favour of the bill (much of it having been copied from a bill that Steven Blaney tabled), but then again, the Senate is more independent than people like to give it credit for.

So now the justice minister says that this is unacceptable, that it guts the bill (not really true – the marijuana provisions are all still intact I believe, which is why this bill was a companion piece to the marijuana legalisation bill in the first place), and she won’t have these amendments. We’ll see whether the full Senate votes to adopt these amendments or not – there’s been a lot of talk from the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, that they shouldn’t vote down bills of dubious constitutionality because that should be the role for the courts (I fundamentally disagree with that – it’s actually the Senate’s job), and we’ll see how many of the new Independents are swayed by Harder’s arguments. But it’s one more bit of drama to look forward to.

Continue reading →

QP: Conflicts, subsidies, and elections

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was off in Charlevoix, and Andrew Scheer in Laval as part of his “listening to Quebeckers” tour, there were no leaders in the Commons today except for Elizabeth May. Candice Bergen led off, raising new allegations from the Globe and Mail about the Arctic surf clam fishery, to which Dominic LeBlanc assured her the allegation was false, before reminding her that they included Indigenous people in the fishery when the previous government didn’t. Bergen reiterated the previous allegations about the process including the accusation that his family will benefit, and this time LeBlanc was a little more sharp in his reiteration that the allegations are false, and the fact that he has no family connection in the case. Bergen demanded that the prime minister remove him from the file, and LeBlanc assured her that he would cooperate with the Ethics Commissioner, but pointedly reminded her that she should stick to the facts. Jacques Gourde took over to ask the same again in French, and LeBlanc called out the fact that they were simply reiterating the same falsehoods in French. After a second round of the same, Ruth Ellen Brosseau led off for the NDP, demanding an end to fossil fuel subsidies by 2019 and to know how much would be given to Kinder Morgan. Bill Morneau got up to say that they were on track to phase out subsidies by 2020, and that they were still talking with Kinder Morgan. Nathan Cullen reiterated the same in English, with a heap of added sanctimony, to which Morneau repeated his same answer. Cullen then got up to moralise about  getting multi-party support for the elections bill, to which Karina Gould praised it going to committee to get the “study and interrogation” that it deserves. Brosseau repeated the same in French, and got the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unnecessary proposal to cover for abdicated responsibility

Posted on by

When Parliament resumes next week, and the final push of legislation before the summer break starts, I can pretty much guarantee that there will be some gnashing and wailing of teeth in the Senate about the crush of bills headed their way, and the fact that there isn’t a plan to manage it. And from Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, we’ll get a reminder that he’s proposed a business committee to do said managing of the Order Paper. And lo, in Policy Options yesterday, we got an endorsement of the notion of a business committee from a former political science professor, Paul G. Thomas, which read a lot like it was could have been commissioned by Harder’s office.

To wit: One of the reasons why I object to the creation of a business committee is because it will create a powerful clique that will determine the legislative agenda of the chamber in a manner that has the very real possibility of trampling on the rights of individual senators in the name of expediency. Currently the rules allow for any senator to speak to any item on the Order Paper on any day – something Thomas notes has the potential to delay business, but under most circumstances, this can be managed through negotiation, and if abused, a vote can be used to clear that obstruction. But what Thomas’ glowing endorsement of the notion of a committee ignores is the fact that sometimes, it can take time for a senator who sees a problem with legislation to rally other senators to the cause. We have seen examples of that in the current parliament, with bills like S-3, which wound up getting majority support from senators to fix the flaws in the bill, or even with the amendments to the omnibus transportation bill last week, where Senator Griffin’s speech convinced enough senators that there was a real problem that the amendment was meant to correct. Having a business committee strictly lay out timelines will stifle the ability for the Senate to do its work when sometimes it needs time to do the work properly.

One of the reason why this kind of committee should be unnecessary is because the Senate has operated for 151 years on the basis of the caucuses negotiating the timelines they need at daily “scroll meetings,” but it requires actual negotiation for it to happen, and since Harder took on the role of Government Leader, he has eschewed his responsibilities to do so, believing that any horse-trading is partisan. Several of the new Independent senators follow a similar mindset, which is a problem. And while Thomas acts as Harder’s apologist in trying to downplay the criticism that a business committee will simply allow Harder to stage manage the legislative process – and it is a possibility that he could, but only in a situation where there are no party caucuses any longer, and that the Senate is 105 loose fish that he could co-opt as needed – my more immediate concern is that he would use the committee to avoid his actual responsibilities of negotiation and shepherding the government’s agenda, more so than he already has. We already don’t know what he’s doing with this $1.5 million budget and expansive staff, so if he is able to fob off even more responsibility onto this clique, what else does that leave him to do with his budget and staff? It’s a question we still don’t have any answers to, and yet another reason why the creation of such a committee is likely to lead to more problems than it does solutions that aren’t actually necessary if he did his job.

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 →

QP: Performative abortion politics

Posted on by

The Commons was on Wednesday hours to give Conservatives the ability to go to the funeral for Gord Brown earlier in the day. Justin Trudeau was off to Saguenay, Scheer still at the funeral, and even Guy Caron, who is always present Monday to Thursday, was absent. Alain Rayes led off, and demanded that the government hold off on legalising marijuana until all police forces in Canada were equipped and trained to deal with drug-impaired driving. Catherine McKenna got up to reply, and instead brought up Ted Falk’s outburst yesterday about women not having the right to choose, and invited the opposition to recant that position and affirm a woman’s right to choose. Rayes claimed that the words weren’t spoken in the House — not true — and he repeated his question. McKenna repeated her own admonition, and Rayes tried a third time, and this time Ginette Petitpas Taylor responded that they were working with partners to ensure a responsible transition. Diane Finley repeated the question in English, and this time Ralph Goodale got up to remind her that drug-impaired driving is already an issue, not a future one, and that he’s glad they now support Bill C-46 and should encourage the Senate to pass it. Finley tried again, and Goodale elaborated that it’s already in the Criminal Code. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led for the NDP, accusing Kinder Morgan of having privileged access to the government. McKenna retreated to her usual platitudes about the environment and the economy going together, and when Brosseau tried a second time, Marc Garneau assured her that the Trans Mountain pipeline was in the national interest. Nathan Cullen got up to accuse Kinder Morgan lobbyists of attending Liberal fundraisers, to which McKenna reiterated her previous platitudes. When Cullen laid on further sanctimony, McKenna noted that it went through a full review, and it would go ahead.

Continue reading →

QP: Accusations of rigged rules

Posted on by

For caucus day, all leaders were present (for a change), and when Andrew Scheer led off, he read some scripted concerns about carbon taxes raising the price of everything, and demanded to know how much it would cost families. Trudeau got up to respond that the Conservatives tried doing nothing and were trying to justify it now. Scheer switched to English and said that the PM was gleeful there were high gas prices in BC and accused him of not caring because he’s a millionaire. Trudeau said that it wasn’t what he said, and that this was just an attempt to create fear and division from a party that doesn’t have a plan. Scheer switched back to French to accuse the government of trying to game the electoral system for their own benefit, and Trudeau noted that this was about taking the influence of money out of politics. Scheer accused Trudeau of rigging the system to punish those who disagree with him, listing a number of conflated incidents that were “proof” of such behaviour. Trudeau responded that Conservatives tried to make it harder to vote while his party was trying to make it easier. Scheer accused the government of imposing fundraising restrictions because the Liberals can’t raise as much money as they can, and then demanded that ministerial travel be restricted in the pre-writ period, to which Trudeau said that the record number of voters in the last election was not because of the Conservative changes, but rather, it was about getting Stephen Harper out of office. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, complaining that they didn’t have enough time to evaluate the candidate for Chief Electoral Officer. In response, Trudeau took up a script to read some praise for the candidate, and then Nathan Cullen asked the same in English, but with a truckload of added sanctimony. Trudeau read the English version of his same script. Cullen then accused the government of rigging the Trans Mountain approval process, to which Trudeau assured him that they enhanced the assessment process. Caron took over to ask the same again in French, saying that putting a financial stake in Kinder Morgan was the kind of subsidy that the government promised to end, but Trudeau repeated his response, insisting that any stake was about the project being in the national interest.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An “uncontroversial” bill delayed

Posted on by

It’s starting to become something of a rote exercise – that whenever the Senate does its job and considers large and contentious legislation, it’s accused of moving slowly. Most of the time, they’re actually moving fairly swiftly in the context of how bills get passed, but that’s not the narrative. And every single time, the pundit class will moan about how they’re frustrating the “will of Parliament” (because that’s how they refer to the House of Commons, when it is in fact but a third of what constitutes Parliament – the Senate and the Crown being the other two aspects), and on and on we go. This week’s performative disbelief that the Senate is daring to do the job required of it is around the marijuana bill – but not just that, but the accompanying bill regarding mandatory roadside testing. While the marijuana bill is actually proceeding fairly quickly given the agreed-upon timelines that Senators set for themselves on the bill (though they were slow off the mark because Senator Harder thought it wise to have the Senate rise essentially a week early at Christmas and then not consider the bill again until well after they’d returned so that he could put on the dog and pony show of having three ministers appear in Committee of the Whole before second reading debate even began), the mandatory testing  bill is languishing at committee. Why? While John Ivison may consider the bill “relatively uncontroversial,” it is actually the opposite, and there is a debate raging about the bill’s constitutionality, and many senators – including one who helped to author the Charter of Rights and Freedoms back in 1982 – are unimpressed with the government’s assurances. After all, they went through a decade of the Harper government insisting that their justice bills were Charter-compliant, only for them to be struck down by the courts, one after another.

Of course, this too has led to debates in the Senate about their role and whether they should be challenging the constitutionality of bills. Some of the Independent senators, which Leader of the Government in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder has added his voice to, believing that Senators shouldn’t substitute their judgment for that of the courts, citing that because these issues aren’t black and white that the courts should handle them. (In the same breath as Harder says this, he also says that they shouldn’t be rubber stamps, apparently unable to pick a lane). So to say that this is “uncontroversial” means that someone isn’t paying attention to the debate – only what’s being told to him by the government’s mouthpiece (in this case, Bill Blair).

If the Senate passes C-45 before C-46, the sky won’t fall. They can apply existing impaired driving laws, because, newsflash, people already drive high while pot is illegal. Once again, the government isn’t inventing cannabis – they’re legalizing and regulating it. Will it be more difficult without detection devices? Maybe. But it’s not like there’s a legal vacuum. Let’s calm down a little.

Continue reading →