Tag Archives: Refugees

QP: Something pretty fishy

Posted on by

On a snowy day in the Nation’s Capital, we had a mere single major leader present for QP, that being Thomas Mulcair. Denis Lebel led off, railing about Chinese billionaires and ethics rules, which got some of the usual points from Dominic LeBlanc about fundraising rules, seeing that he was answering in the place of Bardish Chagger (who is up north on small business and tourism-related work). Lebel wonder if the forestry industry needed to fundraise for the party to get heard, and Lebel assured him that they were working on solutions for that sector. Lebel switched to English to re-ask his first question, got the same answer, and then Candice Bergen took a turn on the same topic. LeBlanc assured her that the rules were followed, and on the second go-around, LeBlanc started listed similar fundraisers held by Conservatives while they were in power. Thomas Mulcair was up next, raising the Canada 2020 story and their sudden attempt to create distance between themselves and the government. LeBlanc listed fundraisers that Mulcair attended, and they went for another round in English. Mulcair then raised the limitations that the new CPP enhancements would have against women raising children, and Scott Brison said that this was an issue that was being raised at the next meeting with provincial and territorial ministers. Mulcair went another round of the same, raising that Pierre Trudeau fixed this 40 years ago, and Brison reiterated his response with some added praise for the Canada Child Benefit.

Continue reading →

QP: Having trouble with the concept of a charitable foundation

Posted on by

While the PM headed off to Africa for the Francophonie summit, the other major leaders were present, ready to go. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, railing about the menace of Chinese billionaires, apparently selling out the country for Liberal party donations. Dominic LeBlanc reminded her that only Canadian citizens can donate to political parties, and there was full disclosure. Ambrose insisted there was a conflict of interest with government business being discussed there, and LeBlanc deflected, noting the broad consultations that the government engages in all the time. Ambrose raised the case of a judge striking down a mandatory minimum sentence on a child sexual offence, and railed about the PM defending the judge. Jody Wilson-Raybould noted that they take child sexual offences seriously and that they are looking at criminal justice reform with an eye for maximum discretion for judges. Ambrose asked in French, and got the same response. Ambrose then moved onto the issue of Yazidi refugees and the inadequate number being targeted for relocation, and John McCallum stated that the number quoted was not the one that they were working with. Thomas Mulcair was up next, railing about cash-for-access and insinuating that the country was being sold out to these donors. LeBlanc reminded him that the Chief Electoral Officer praised the fundraising rules. Mulcair switched to French to note the donation by that Chinese billionaire to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation as a conflict of interest. LeBlanc noted that the foundation was an independent charitable organization that former MPs Chuck Strahl and Megan Leslie sat on the board of. Mulcair moved to the topic of Kinder Morgan and its pending approval, to which Jim Carr reminded him of the added consultation process they applied to it. Mulcair thundered about the same approach being taken by the Conservatives, and Catherine McKenna asserted that the process was led by science and fact.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Expat voting just fine as is

Posted on by

Democratic institutions minister Maryam Monsef is saying that she plans to table new legislation around expat voting by the end of the year, and I’m going to come right out and say that while I know it’s not really popular to say so, I’m actually not sure that a five-year time limit for expats is so bad, because of the way that our voting system operates. To be more specific, our electoral system depends on your voting in one of 338 ridings to elect a local representative. You’ve not voting for the party banner or the party leader – you’re voting for the representative, regardless of what your particular electoral calculation is when you’re in the voting booth. And as an expat who has been out of the country – and in particular that riding – for more than five years, does it really make sense for you to continue to cast a ballot in said riding if you don’t actually live there?

And this is the part where people start shouting about their right to vote, which is all well and good, but again I go back to the central premise – how can you vote for a representative in a riding if you don’t live there, and almost certainly don’t know who is actually on the ballot? And don’t tell me that it doesn’t matter, that the majority of people vote based on the party or the leader, because it actually does matter. Our system is constructed in a way that ensures maximum accountability (and that accountability is currently wounded by the rules around party leadership selection, but that’s another story for another day), and that means accountability for the MP who was selected in that riding election for that seat (and yes, each riding is a separate election), and later in the House of Commons, when the government is responsible to the whole of the Chamber to maintain confidence to continue governing. And this is where expat voting gets complicated. How can someone who doesn’t live in the riding know what is going on, and whether the MP is doing a good job or not? Sure, a few expats maintain close enough ties, but I would venture that the vast majority don’t, and that the vast majority are looking to cast a special ballot based solely on party or leader preference, but that’s not how the system works, and yes, that’s important because democracy is process. The vote has to have a proper meaning, and that meaning is for the individual MP to fill the individual seat. This is not the United States where people ostensibly cast a direct ballot for the presidency (which again is complicated by their electoral college), but that makes a special ballot for expats a simpler affair. (They also impose taxes on expats, which Canada doesn’t). What about the voter rolls, where expats would ostensibly be listed at an address where they no longer live? How does that actually work in practical terms without creating yet more headaches for Elections Canada? Unless Maryam Monsef can thread the needle to demonstrate how expats can still vote within our current system in an effective manner which means voting for a candidate in a riding, I’m having a hard time seeing how dropping the five-year rule is either beneficial, practical, or even responsible. (And yes, I’m sure that I’m a monster for thinking so).

Continue reading →

Roundup: The pull of status quo

Posted on by

The wailing and gnashing of teeth of the electoral reform crowd is about to get worse, as they will soon convince themselves that the government is out to kill their dreams of a new electoral system. Why? Because after the committee demanded that minister Maryam Monsef give them a report of the electoral reform consultations she’s received, she’s told them that those consultations are showing fairly strong support for the status quo, and that there is no consensus on what kind of electoral reform that people prefer. Add to that, there is apparently a strong preference for the local representation connection in their various values questions, which goes toward supporting the status quo argument. I’m fairly thrilled to hear about so much support for team status quo and hope that this bolsters the case to abandon this whole foolhardy process, but I fear we’re still a little ways away from that as of yet.

Meanwhile, our friends at Fair Vote Canada are baying at the moon that the new survey the government plans to open to Canadians is biased toward the status quo based on sample questions they found on the testing site. Except of course that those aren’t the actual final questions on the survey, and the questions were generated by the company for testing purposes rather than the government for their actual survey, so no dice (yet) on that particular conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, killing this whole electoral reform headache can’t come fast enough, nor can the justifications based on the “values” quizzes by the government. Then maybe we can focus on the real problems, like civic literacy and engagement, rather than trumpeting solutions in search of problems.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A blistering condemnation of Peter Harder

Posted on by

I’ve long held suspicions about the work that Senator Peter Harder, the “government representative” in the Senate, has been doing, and I will say that I was completely alarmed by some of the things brought to light by Liberal Senator James Cowan yesterday in his speech about Senate modernization. It’s a blistering speech, and I suggest you take the 25 minutes to listen to it all, but some highlights: Harder is engaging in revisionist history to claim that the Senate was never meant to be partisan (which is false), and he is trying to do away with the roles of government and opposition (which are integral to the Westminster system) in order to create a bureaucratic-like structure. In a chamber full of independents, there will be fewer checks on the government, and Harder will amass power by acting like the leader of the Senate as a whole, further weakening the chamber’s role as a check on the power of the executive. Harder has gone so far as to start offering to set up meetings with senators and the premiers of the provinces they represent – meeting he would be present at – which is completely improper and something a government representative should have no role in doing. It’s disturbing to listen to how his plans to reorganise the Chamber would take shape, and Cowan’s speech is blistering in its condemnation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: CETA got signed

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland went to Brussels over the weekend to sign the Canada-EU trade deal (known as CETA), but this was the real signing, as opposed to the several signings staged by the Harper government at much earlier iterations of the process, which they wanted to use to show how pro-trade they were, and how much work they were doing on the trade file. And yes, they did get the ball rolling on CETA, as well as the TPP, and a number of trade deals with a bunch of small countries with tiny economies that do very little trade with Canada, and loudly proclaimed the number (as opposed to the worth of those signed deals). So there’s that. At the signing ceremony, Trudeau also downplayed the delays and praised the democratic way in which it all happened, essentially saying that it’s not a bad thing to raise questions and to have them answered, which is fairly gracious of him (and fits with the overall character of his government to date in acknowledging the challenge function of parliament and the media – though he may want to let his Senate leader, Peter Harder, know, as Harder rather arrogantly doesn’t believe that the Senate needs an official opposition).

Of course, now comes the hard part of implementation, which will doubtlessly have numerous stumbling blocks along the way, and we’ll likely need several reminders about why the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism isn’t actually an attack on sovereignty, and how the improvements that Freeland negotiated to the system are a net positive and will likely form a model for other such systems going forward. We’ll hear yet more cries from the NDP and other left-leaning critics about those concerns, but the deal is moving ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, it’s not cash-for-access

Posted on by

This latest round of pearl-clutching over political fundraising is reaching its fever pitch in a most tiresome way possible, and I’m losing all patience with it. Determined to try and label it “cash-for-access” in order to tie the story in with the gross lack of fundraising rules that existed in Ontario, and the very dubious practices of the government there of having ministers essentially asking for donations from companies lobbying them, what’s going on at the federal level is nothing like that at all. However, bored journalists are drawing lines on between people who are attending or organizing fundraisers and lobbying activities, despite everything being reported and above board, are going “Look! Look! Smell test!” But I’m having a really, really hard time buying this. Likewise with opposition parties going “Sure, it’s in the rules, but Trudeau’s letters said that nobody should have the appearance of conflict of interest and this has the appearance!” No, it actually doesn’t. Just because you say it does, it doesn’t mean that there’s a problem.

I’m trying very hard not to come off as some kind of an apologist, but for the love of all the gods on Olympus, we have a really, really clean fundraising system with clear rules, and it shouldn’t bear repeating (and yet here we are) that you can’t buy influence for $1500. You just can’t. Sure, you might get to meet a minister, but what is that going to get you? You think they’re going to engineer a special loophole in the law for your company because you donated $1500 to their party – registered through Elections Canada, and the lobbying registry? Honestly? And it’s not like there aren’t a hundred other consultations that you could offer your suggestions to a minster or their staff with, because as we know, this government loves to consult. And further to that, are we actively trying to insist that no minister should ever fundraise because, well, “smell test” or “appearance.” Give me a break.

Meanwhile, we get inundated with everyone giving their “solution” to this, whether it’s returning the per-vote subsidy as Susan Delacourt suggests here, or if it’s Duff Conacher howling in the corner that we should adopt the Quebec donor limits of $100 (ignoring that limits that are too low means that money starts getting funnelled in other ways). But maybe, just maybe, we should all take a deep breath and realise that the more we get hysterical about this perfectly above-board fundraising in a clean and quite transparent system, it’s that we’re turning it into some zero-sum game. If we keep inventing scandal, shouting “smell test!” and “appearance!” when no, a reasonable and rational look at the situation shows that there isn’t actually a problem, we’re going to wind up giving excuses for parties to start hiding these activities. To paraphrase Rick Anderson on last night’s Power & Politics, there’s only a perception problem around this fundraising because people are throwing mud. It’s time to stop throwing mud and be grown-ups about it. This isn’t cash-for-access. $1500 is not buying influence. Stop lighting your hair on fire.

https://twitter.com/jec79/status/791117661476388866

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding a firm commitment on Yazidis

Posted on by

All leaders, permanent or interim, were present for QP today, and it feels like a while since that has been the case. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, demanding to know how many Yazidi refugees the government would bring to Canada in the next 120 days. Trudeau thanked her for her leadership on the file, and committed to doing so, but didn’t provide a number. Ambrose asked about the call for Chancellor Merkel in Germany to create security zones in Iraq, and Trudeau committed to more aid for refugees. Ambrose moved onto CETA, and demanded Trudeau get on a plane and do anything necessary to get the deal signed. Trudeau reminded her that they already made progress on getting ISDS, and he expected good news in the coming days. Ambrose changed topics again, raised the Medicine Hat by-election as a pronouncement on the carbon tax schemes, and Trudeau promised more visits to Alberta. Ambrose then moved again, this time onto “cash-for-access” fundraisers, and Trudeau reminded her that the low personal limits in Canada ensured that there were no ethical problems. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and tried to go after the same issue, and Trudeau reminded him that looking south of the border, our system was well above and repeated that the low limits meant there were no ethical issues. Mulcair tried again in French, got the same answer, and then moved onto the situation at Muskrat Falls and the health of those Aboriginals who rely on fishing in the area. Trudeau reminded him that the provinces were working on the issue, and he trusted them, and they went one more round in English.

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/790982900221091841

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chong’s plans are a start

Posted on by

While new Conservative leadership candidate Steven Blaney decided to come out swinging with a niqab ban policy designed to appeal to those Quebeckers still hot for the idea and to give Kellie Leitch a run for her money, Michael Chong also came out with some policy yesterday morning – much more modest policy in line with how he thinks he could start to change parliament for the better if he were party leader. Because it’s not big policy pronouncements, it’s more in keeping with the kinds of things that leadership candidates should be focusing on, but that said, there are a few problems with what he laid out. I tweeted some of those concerns earlier, but I’ll elaborate a bit more.

So yes, Chong made a valiant attempt at doing this with this Reform Act, but it got so watered down in his amending the bill to get it passed that it rendered it useless, and the veto went from the party leader to their designated surrogate. This is a promise that is more difficult than it sounds because there does need to be a quality control mechanism in place (which is why it was introduced in the first place), but it also needs to be arm’s length from the leader, and Chong’s previous proposals for such an officer didn’t fly. He’ll need to try and thread this needle much more carefully going forward.

This one bothers me a fair deal because it’s buying into the nonsense that the Liberal Party has been spreading with their reforms to their party constitution. They claim it’s about “modernizing” the party structure and making it more responsive, but it’s more about populating databases, so that when they come out with top-down policy pronouncements, they can use their Big Data approach to justify anything. If other parties want to simply populate their own databases to target or micro-target policies even more that the Conservatives did during their decade in office, this isn’t actually good for democracy, and it’s not actually good for the grassroots. You don’t have people who are quite literally buying into the process (thus putting some skin in the game) and having an interest in their responsibilities as members when it comes to policy and nominations. It devalues membership, and I do think that’s a problem.

Promising reforms to the way the Senate operates while billing this as part of a package of giving power back to the grassroots is curious, but I’ll run with it only so far as to say that Chong shouldn’t actually be trying to out-Trudeau on this. Trudeau has put some things in motion that are not actually for the better, be it centralizing power in his own caucus, or trying to weaken the accountability role of the Senate, while his current “representative” there is trying to upend the whole system so that he can be the true bureaucrat that he is and empire-build, co-opting the whole burgeoning independent system for his own ends. Chong not grasping the constitutional role of the Senate Speaker, or the role of the Government Leader under Responsible Government is worrying, and I do feel like he should know better and not just try to play the reform-for-the-sake-of-reform card. That becomes a very dangerous thing under our system, especially because the system is not broken, so we should stop trying to break it while insisting on fixing problems that don’t actually exist.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding adult supervision

Posted on by

Despite the fact that it was a Monday, none of the leaders save Elizabeth May were present in the Commons. Denis Lebel led off, blaming Chrystia Freeland for being unable to conclude the Canada-EU trade agreement, or any other trade agreement. Freeland insisted that Canada had done its job, but this was an internal dispute for the EU to resolve and then come back to Canada, and that she remained committed to it. Lebel repeated the question in English word-for-word, and Freeland elaborated on her answer. Lebel demanded that the PM head to Europe to salvage the deal — as though that was how negotiations work, and Freeland started getting feistier about the previous government’s record. Gerry Ritz picked up the torch, and took on a more bullying tone with a pair of questions that belittled Freeland for her visible emotion in Brussels, and saying that she needed the “adult supervision” of the Prime Minister. Freeland had none of it, and hit back on the previous government’s record on the stalled agreement and expensive signing ceremonies for a deal that wasn’t done. Murray Rankin led off for the NDP, and kept up the same topic, but from the angle that they needed to drop the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism. Freeland listed socialist governments in Europe who had signed onto the deal, trying to prove it’s not just an ideological divide. Niki Ashton then got up to decry the comments from the Finance Minister about “job churn,” decrying precarious work. MaryAnn Mihychuk said that the new work environment had a lot to do with technology but they were helping Canadians. Ashton demanded that Morneau and the PM attend their precarious job summit, to which Mihychuk reminded her that they have a youth workers council.

Continue reading →