Tag Archives: Space

Roundup: End of round one

Posted on by

The first round of NAFTA talks has ended without any firm conclusions in one way or another, which is to be expected. It is also noted that they were free from any public drama, but it’s still early days, so we’ll see how long that lasts, especically considering that we’re dealing with an Uncertainty Engine for a president in the United States. While the US is signalling that Buy America is a non-negotiable in NAFTA talks, the PMO has assembled a crack unit to deal with the fallout of a US walkout on talks, seeing as Trump already played his walkout card months ago so it gave them time to prepare.

Meanwhile, trouble with NAFTA talks could mean an economic slowdown, as there have already been some signs of slowdown in the manufacturing sector, and expectations that GDP growth could start to slow for the remainder of the year. That having been said, there’s also talk that if the Trump administration tries to simply tear up NAFTA, there are recourses that Congress has at its disposal that would essentially work to keep the existing agreement up and running by backdoor means, but it’s messy and complicated (and you can see Alex Panetta talking about that starting at 10:51 on this Sunday Scrum segment).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rural nomination angst

Posted on by

In yesterday’s Hill Times, a few would-be Liberal candidates in rural ridings are talking about how they want nominations to start sooner than later, citing the challenges of rural life when it comes to door-knocking – owing to the difficulties of travel in the winter, the best time for them to meet constituents is in the summer and autumn. Hence, they want the nomination process to be over before summer 2018, so that they have a long lead-time to do the campaigning in large rural ridings – something that is less of an issue in urban ridings.

As far as suggestions go, it’s not a terrible one. I think that parties should have a fairly long lead-up with a nominated candidate, particularly in unheld ridings, so that they can do the work of grassroots engagement and get people involved in the process. This also being said, in a riding that has an incumbent, you also don’t want to run the nomination too early because an open nomination is also a way to hold that incumbent to account by their grassroots members, so if you hold the nomination too early, you don’t get as much of their tenure to judge them by. I know that some Liberals are agitating to have their nominations protected, while Conservatives have a threshold system in place to protect their nominations (which I am less keen on because it can short-circuit accountability), but I also know that the Liberals haven’t made up their minds how they’re dealing with nominations for 2019, which boggles the mind. Of course, this is part of the fallout of their wholesale party constitution rewrite (which, I will remind you, centralised even more power in the leader’s office at the expense of the grassroots), so we’ll see how they decide to deal with this, and how much lip-service they pay to the grassroots while still keeping their newly acquired centralized power. Suffice to say, nominations remain the most important part of our democratic process, so watching a party flail about it is never a good thing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: MPs shouldn’t become social convenors

Posted on by

Sometimes when former politicians opine on their former profession, it can be insightful, and sometimes inspiring, but sometimes it can be gobsmackingly terrible. Former Ontario MPP and cabinet minister John Milloy ventures into the latter category with a piece in Policy Options on the “future of work” when it comes to parliamentarians. After Milloy correctly asserts that most parliamentarians don’t know their own job descriptions and that leaves them vulnerable to the machinations of unelected political staff, he veers off about how nobody trusts politicians anyway so their actual roles are becoming obsolete and hey, government is too slow to deal with policy in the modern world, so let’s turn our parliamentarians into social convenors.

No, seriously.

Apparently, the real drivers of change and action are service clubs, community groups and church organizations, so what parliamentarians should be doing is trying to bring those groups together to do stuff because they’re not community leaders anymore, so hey, they can be referees or coaches instead!

Head. Desk.

One would think that someone who used to be in elected politics like Milloy was would understand that the whole point of grassroots riding associations is to gather those kinds of voices around policy concerns, where they could help develop those into concrete proposals to bring to the party, or to communicate their concerns to the caucus (whether or not theirs is the elected MP in the riding). A properly run riding association has the hallmarks of service clubs or community groups because they provide both the social aspect around shared values, and work toward the care and feeding of political parties from the ground-up, the way that they’re supposed to. This is the kind of thing that we need to be encouraging if we want a properly functioning political system in this country. Instead, Milloy would see us let that atrophy and let outsiders shout from the side lines while the political staffers continue to consolidate power in the leaders’ offices. No, that’s not how politics are supposed to work. We can’t keep washing out hands of this and dismissing political organizations. Joining parties and getting involved is the way to make change happen, and as for MPs, we can’t just let this trend of self-made obsolesce go unchallenged. The “future of work” shouldn’t be irrelevance – it should be re-engaging with the system and actually doing their jobs. And shame on Milloy for abandoning his former profession to the wolves.

Continue reading →

QP: Tributes for Prentice

Posted on by

Half of the leaders were present in the Commons today, and after some tributes for the late Jim Prentice from all parties and a moment of silence, QP got underway. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on desk, asked about the size of the deficit, which is more than had been promised. After a quick rebuke about making investments, Justin Trudeau gave a tribute to Prentice of his own. Ambrose was concerned that jobs were not being created and demanded that he stop spending and focus on jobs instead. Trudeau noted that the Conservative approach didn’t create growth, while he was cutting taxes for the middle class. Ambrose then mischaracterized a whole list of things as taxes before decrying the possibility of a Netflix tax. Trudeau repeated his response about cutting taxes on the middle class. Denis Lebel was up next, decrying the lack of a softwood lumber agreement and how it was hurting families. Trudeau responded with the list of ways they are helping families. Lebel doubled down on the softwood lumber agreement, and Trudeau agreed that they were concerned about the file, but the former government’s broken relationship with the Americans didn’t help. Peter Julian led off for the NDP, demanding money for home care while mischaracterizing the changes to health care escalators. Trudeau reminded him that the Harper approach to healthcare was to write a check and not ensure that the money was spent on healthcare. Julian demanded that the health transfer escalator remain at six percent for another year, but Trudeau was not responsive to his logic. Brigitte Sansoucy repeated both questions again in French, and got much the same response from Trudeau in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A dying brand of politics

Posted on by

As tributes to Jim Prentice continue to roll in, we see one in particular from Michael Den Tandt, who says that the particular blend of civility and competence that Prentice had is becoming a fading quality in politics, not only looking south of the border to the giant tire fire that they call their presidential election, but also toward the Conservative leadership race in this country. Why is it fading? Because that kind of politics isn’t selling to the angry populist wave that seems to have captured so many imaginations, and in that race, it’s less Maxime Bernier who is capturing that angry populism (despite his claiming the “Mad Max” label by being “mad” about so many government problems) than it is by Kellie Leitch and her campaign manager, Nick Kouvalis. And case in point, Leitch officially launched her campaign on the weekend (remember, it was just an exploration beforehand), and lo, was it full of angry populist rhetoric that doesn’t make a lot of sense when you actually listen to it. Leitch continues to insist that she’s not anti-immigrant – she just goes about completely mischaracterising this country’s immigration system (you know, which the government that she was a part of had an opportunity to apparently do something about over the last decade and apparently didn’t), and pits “good” immigrants against “bad” ones – which, to be fair, is something Jason Kenney got really good at over his time as the cultural outreach guy in the Conservative party. Suffice to say, here are Justin Ling’s tweet’s from Leitch’s launch, and if it sounds like her going down the angry populist checklist, it’s because that’s what it pretty much is – which lends a little more credence to what Den Tandt was saying about Prentice’s breed of politician fading away.

https://twitter.com/Justin_Ling/status/787359199957245952

Continue reading →

Roundup: A short history of trans rights bills

Posted on by

The government is unveiling their promised trans rights bill today, and throughout the day, you’ll be reminded that other trans rights bills have been introduced in the House, and twice died in the Senate, and there will be a general sense of the NDP trying to anoint themselves in this glow of having been the fearless pioneers on this file. And it’s true – they did introduce previous trans rights bills, some of them more successful than others. But there is more to the story than is usually presented, and as someone who used to cover this file extensively (back in my Xtra! and the much lamented Outlooks days), it’s a little more complicated than is often presented. And yes, the NDP have largely introduced iterations of this bill but the sponsor, then-MP Bill Siksay, was too far down the Order of Precedence for it to be ever debated. During the 40th Parliament, however, he was high enough on the Order that the bill came up for debate, and narrowly passed the Commons. By the time it reached the Senate, however, it had mere days before the government was defeated. The Senate has no mechanisms by which to accelerate a private members’ bill, and the justice committee – where it would have been sent to – was jammed full of “tough on crime” bills and a private members’ bill never would have been able to come up for debate (as government bills always take priority). Nevertheless, the Senate was blamed for “ragging the puck” and it died when Parliament dissolved and an election was called. By this time, Siksay had announced that he was not going to run again, and Liberal MP Hedy Fry had said that she would re-introduce the bill in his stead if re-elected. She was, and fulfilled his promise. The NDP’s newly elected MP Randall Garrison was named the party’s new LGBT critic, and he was incensed that Fry had re-introduced the bill and decided to table his own version, but because you can’t have two identical bills on the Order Paper, he needed to come up with some creative drafting in order to differentiate the two bills. And then, by sheer fate, his name came up right before Fry’s on the Order of Precedence when the lottery was drawn, so he went ahead with his poorly drafted bill, while Fry’s version of the same bill was not put forward (and she went on to introduce a cyberbullying bill that was defeated). Not only did Garrison’s bill go ahead, but he decided to introduce amendments that would partially gut the bill and do things like put in definitions for “gender identity” into the text (something that would put it out of step with any other protected grounds in legislation). The resulting bill was a dog’s breakfast, and he managed to squeak it past the Commons, but he actually lost some Conservative support because it was such a hot mess. And when it reached the Senate, there were concerns. Conservative Senator Don Plett had some particular concerns and wanted to raise amendments, and while this whole “bathroom bill” nonsense began circulating, his amendments, while not great, were blown out of proportion by supporters of the bill as being far more odious than they were. And that bill eventually died on the Order Paper when Parliament dissolved, but while the NDP railed against the Senate as “killing” a bill that the Commons passed, they ignored the fact that it was objectively a bad bill and this was more of a mercy killing. And now, we have a government who has committed to making this one of their priorities, and they are, which we should applaud.

Update: The differences between Fry’s and Garrison’s bill weren’t as pronounced as I remember the debate being. Apologies to all involved, and thanks to Justin Ling for the correction. The amendments, however, were a dog’s breakfast.

Continue reading →

Roundup: And now the environmental policy

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau was out in Vancouver yesterday to unveil the next plank in his party’s platform, filling out his previous environmental proposal to sit down with the provinces to allow them to collectively come up with a climate plan in the short time between the election and the Paris climate conference in December. Trudeau’s new announcements included phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, putting more money into clean tech jobs, restoring the environmental assessment process and adding more teeth to the National Energy Board and its review processes, increasing the amount of protected coastal areas, and cancelling fees at national parks in 2017 to celebrate Canada’s 150th anniversary. Overall, his message was that there will be a price on carbon if the Liberals form government. Predictably, the Conservatives came out with cries of “carbon tax!” while the NDP rolled their eyes and muttered about vague targets with no actual named carbon price. Paul Wells notes that one really can’t criticise Trudeau for being devoid of policy any longer, and that it may force voters to give him and his party a second look.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rise of the Potemkin bills

Posted on by

It is likely the final sitting week of the House of Commons this week, and they can’t go home soon enough. With the whole sorry affair now running on fumes, and all parties reduced to reading their platforms’ press releases instead of doing any actual work, it’s for the best – really. Of course, that hasn’t stopped the Conservatives from introducing a raft of new bills, and making zero headway on them – like the way they insisted on a standalone bill for the Universal Childcare Benefit, and haven’t done anything with it, even though they rammed through their omnibus budget implementation bill, where you think such a provision would actually be relevant. Of course, it’s all political. Some of it is about laying markers for the campaign and things they want to do in the next parliament. Some of it is about checking off items from the Speech From the Throne (like the genetic privacy bill, which is terrible and completely useless, by the way). And then there are a number of tough-on-crime bills that are just hanging there that they’ll try to claim the opposition stalled and dragged their feet on – never mind that it’s the government that sets the agenda, and they’ve not only not brought them forward but wasted a bunch of time on things like concurrence debates on months old committee reports (like the sham of a Health Committee report on the “dangers of marijuana”) when they could have been passing any of these “urgent” bills that they had to table in the dying days. But since they’re not serious about moving forward on any number of these bills, it looks like the anticipated workload in the Senate to tie off things before they too rise for the summer is going to be less than expected, and hopefully that means taking down a few of the more objectionable private members bills (like Michael Chong’s toxic Reform Act) with them when they go. Just remember that if they start to claim that they just couldn’t get this stuff through that it’s all a big charade and they need to be called out on it.

Continue reading →

QP: Good administration for veterans

Posted on by

It was a full house for caucus day, and there were numerous paeans to Jean Beliveau before things got started. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about the staff reductions at Veterans Affairs, to which Stephen Harper said that they were increasing services for veterans, before he offered his own statement about Beliveau. Mulcair turned to veterans service centre closures and wondered why he wasn’t firing the minister instead. Harper insisted that they took resources away from back room bureaucracy and were delivering more services, calling it “good administration.” Mulcair moved to the government’s court arguments that the sacred obligations for veterans were just political speeches signifying nothing. Harper insisted that he would not comment on matters before the courts, but that the substantive measure was that they enhanced veterans services in numerous ways. Mulcair pressed, to which Harper insisted that the items he was listing were not political rhetoric but were real action for veterans, which the opposition voted against. Mulcair promised that an NDP would reopen every one of those offices, before pivoting to the issue of funding for thalidomide victims. Harper said that the meetings were ongoing, before returning listing to the veterans programmes that the NDP voted against. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked about the underfunding of military cemeteries, to which Harper insisted that the government enhanced funeral services for veterans, which Liberals voted against. After another round in French, Trudeau asked about the government meeting with an École Polytechnique survivors group, Harper insisted that they knew why Marc Lepine targeted those women and they would continue to support victims.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An upcoming rounding error surplus

Posted on by

Joe Oliver delivered his fall economic update in Toronto, and as expected, the government is still technically in deficit until next year, at which point they are expected to turn out a modest $1.9 billion surplus, most of which is pretty much spent on their suite of “family” tax measures including the income splitting tax credit – all of it a challenge to the opposition parties and specifically Justin Trudeau, daring them to cancel the “tax cuts” (most of which aren’t really cuts). And it’s not a surplus plan without risks. Thomas Mulcair immediately called the figures a “mirage” because they depend on spending cuts, while Justin Trudeau referred to the tax measures as “unfair” because the income splitting measure in particular disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Andrew Coyne notes that Harper has put the opposition in a box with his tax cuts and expenditures unless those parties are willing to raise the GST. Paul Wells notes that this falls squarely within Harper’s re-election plans – that he doesn’t need to promise anything other than the fear that his opponents’ plans are ruinous. Stephen Gordon provides some context to Oliver’s pronouncements.

Continue reading →