Tag Archives: Tough on Crime

Roundup: Harder tries to play hero again

Posted on by

After hosting most of the Alberta senators to a lunch in Edmonton, Alberta premier Jason Kenney has written a letter to Senator Peter Harder, Leader of the Government in the Senate – err, “government representative,” to say that he and the leaders of the other two main parties in Alberta are willing to accept Bill C-69 if they keep it as amended by the committee. Those amendments, mind you, were largely all written by industry lobbyists, and gut much of what the bill was trying to accomplish, which was an overhaul of the environmental assessment process, because what’s on the books now (which is the process that Harper gutted in 2012) isn’t working and is only resulting in court challenges.

And Harder? Well, after his whip – err, “government liaison,” Senator Grant Mitchell, has been pushing for the bills to pass largely unamended, Harder says that he now wants to send this bill as amended back to the Commons, as well as the recommendation that Bill C-48 (the tanker ban) – though I’m not sure how that would happen given the de facto committee recommendation is that it not proceed – and let them decide whether or not to keep the amendments. Let the government deal with it – or rather, wear the decision for not accepting the amendments so that Kenney will turn his ire to Trudeau, and not the Senate. Because Harder is such a hero like that (while making up parts of his job description that don’t actually exist).

Meanwhile, former Senator Hugh Segal is taking to the pages of the Globe and Mail to warn the Senate against defeating C-48 because he says it would contradict the Salisbury Convention. *sigh* No. The Salisbury Convention doesn’t exist in Canada, no matter how many times Harder of luminaries like Segal bring it up. It’s contrary to the Constitution, we don’t have the same historical reasons for why Salisbury was adopted in the House of Lords, and it also goes against the whole notion of a more “independent” Senate. Nor is C-48 an election promise so far as anyone can gather, which is a trigger for Salisbury – if it existed (which it doesn’t in Canada). There are plenty of reasons why the Senate shouldn’t defeat C-48, but making up that it’s contrary to Salisbury isn’t one of them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rationalizing a deciding vote

Posted on by

Yesterday, Independent Senator Paula Simons wrote a piece for Maclean’s to explain her vote last week that essentially ensured that the Senate’s transport committee would not vote to report Bill C-48 (the west coast tanker ban) back to the Senate without amendments. It’s a mere delay to the bill, ultimately, and it’s likely that the full Senate will vote to reject the committee report and may entertain another amendment or two at Third Reading, but I would be mighty surprised if this bill didn’t get pass largely unmolested. But as much as I do respect the good Senator, I will take exception to a few of the things she wrote in her piece.

The biggest thing I will always, always object to is when senators say that it’s not their job to defeat bills passed by the democratically elected House of Commons. That’s false – it’s absolutely their job under the Constitution – that’s why it has an unlimited veto. The question is when they should use it, and I’m not sure that this is a good example of a bill, because it doesn’t fail any particular constitutional tests (Jason Kenney’s nonsense rhetoric aside). But for as much as Simons prevaricates on the question of how appropriate it is to block bills in the newly empowered “independent” mindset of the Senate (insert more back-patting about the lack of whips here), she then says that the other tradition is to defend her region, which she did. I have reservations about this line of thinking, because it gives rise to parochialism and some of the flawed thinking that gave rise to a bogus school of thought that believed that a “Triple-E” Senate could somehow force the hand of a government with a majority in the Commons (rather than just become a repository for 105 new backbenchers). If she really were defending her region, she should remember that her region includes BC, whose northern coast the bill is intended to defend. As well, her concerns ignore the process that Trans Mountain has been undergoing for the past year – just because it hasn’t started construction doesn’t mean it won’t, and trying to provide an alternate route that was proved far more problematic in the past – witness the Federal Court of Appeal decision regarding Northern Gateway – I’m now sure that she’s doing anyone any favours by letting the rhetoric of Kenney and the oil industry dominate her thinking.

In the meantime, we should brace ourselves for another round of obnoxious talk about the “Salisbury Convention” (which doesn’t apply to Canada and never has), and about the original intent of the Senate. It won’t be edifying.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1130956002029916162

Continue reading →

QP: Which plan should we adopt?

Posted on by

A rainy Tuesday, and all the the leaders were present for a change, the only time this week that Trudeau would be, given that he takes off for Paris later tonight. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he was snide about Trudeau having plenty of time to rehearse his script on the Mark Norman case — while his own script was in front of him — and Trudeau reminded him that they were doing due diligence on a Conservative sole-source contract before he went on to talk about the independence of the investigation and decisions taken, and that PMO had responded to all document requests. Scheer took exception to this, describing efforts to avoid Access to Information laws that predate this government, and Trudeau noted that the decision to suspend Norman came from the Chief of Defence Staff, and repeated that they responded to document requests. Scheer tried in French, got the French version of Trudeau’s first response, and then demanded that Trudeau allow the defence committee to probe the issue. Trudeau reminded him that committees are independent of government, and that the Conservatives were desperate to talk about anything but the budget. Scheer then raised the fact that Omar Khadr got $10 million — BECAUSE HE WAS TORTURED — and demanded some kind of restitution for Norman, and Trudeau called the question a distasteful political game. Jagmeet Singh was up next and demanded in French that the government adopt their climate plan, and Trudeau asked which plan in return, given that the NDP plan changes on a weekly basis, and they wanted to shut down the largest project in Canadian history. Singh tried again in English, and Trudeau hit back that Scheer was capriciously looking to end ten thousand jobs on the LNG project after saying that they would leave no worker left behind. Singh then tried to take on the Mark Norman questions, but was halting and unsure in his pacing, and Trudeau called out that Singh was jumping on the Conservative bandwagon because they were floundering. Singh tried again in French, and Trudeau shrugged it off and went back to batting back the NDP’s environmental claims.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A small shuffle

Posted on by

The practical fallout from Jody Wilson-Raybould’s resignation played out with a minor Cabinet shuffle yesterday morning, but rather than simply picking another backbencher to slot into the veterans affairs portfolio, Justin Trudeau moved Lawrence MacAulay from agriculture to put him in veterans, moved Marie-Claude Bibeau from international development to agriculture, and gave the international development portfolio to Maryam Monsef in addition to her status of women portfolio. There are a couple of calculations here – MacAulay held the veterans file over twenty years ago, so he’s not completely new, and he’s someone who is running again and has held his seat forever, so he looks like a steady hand in the department (and as a bonus, the department headquarters is in Charlottetown, and he’s a PEI MP). Bibeau, meanwhile, gets the distinction of being the country’s first woman agriculture minister, but she herself pointed out that she’s from a rural Quebec riding with a lot of dairy farmers, and she knows their issues well, and that’s a constituency that this government is keen to placate after concessions made in TPP and New NAFTA. And Monsef? She’s got a track record of good work in the portfolio’s she’s held, and can handle the added responsibility, as well as it reinforce the whole “feminist foreign policy” line of the government (not that you’d know it from how they’re funding it, but whatever).

In other SNC-Lavalin/Wilson Raybould Affair news, the opposition parties demanded that Parliament be recalled next week to keep this issue going, but Trudeau refused (and it’s worth remembering that the justice committee will still be meeting over the constituency weeks). Former Conservative and NDP Attorneys General have also written to the RCMP to demand an investigation (no political interference here), while former Liberal ones say there’s no clear criminal case. New Attorney General David Lametti says he wasn’t aware that Wilson-Raybould had already made the decision on the SNC-Lavalin file when he took over the portfolio, and that he’s still getting all of the facts on the situation.

For context, here’s a profile of Wilson-Raybould’s former chief of staff, Jessica Prince. Here’s a look at whether the Ethics Commissioner can really look into the whole matter. Here’s a look at the government’s reconciliation agenda in the lens of Wilson-Raybould’s demotion and resignation, and why her Indigenous world-view may have informed her decision not to go ahead with insisting on a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin. Here’s a look back at the measures the Conservatives put in 13 years ago to separate the role of the Crown Prosecutor from the Department of Justice, creating the Public Prosecution Service, which was one of their measures when they rode in on the white horse of accountability. In light of Michael Wernick’s testimony, here’s a look back reforms Brian Mulroney made to the role of Clerk of the Privy Council, which may create untenable contradictions in his role. Here are five possible scenarios for the future of SNC-Lavalin if the trial goes ahead, which includes decamping for the UK, or a foreign takeover.

And for pundit comment, Chantal Hébert has four questions about the ongoing situation. Andrew Coyne is not convinced it’s time for a prime ministerial resignation or an RCMP investigation, but that a rethink of our governing culture nevertheless is what will ultimately be needed. My weekend column contemplates the damage to Brand Trudeau™ after the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unexpected shuffle

Posted on by

Yesterday’s Cabinet shuffle came with a few surprises, but the biggest was probably the decision to move Jody Wilson-Raybould from justice to veterans’ affairs – a move which can only be interpreted as a demotion, despite both prime minister Justin Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould making the argument that it was insulting to veterans to think of them as a lesser consideration. Added to that, Wilson-Raybould got defensive and put out a lengthy press release that said she wouldn’t discuss why she was moved, as that’s the prerogative of the prime minister (true), but then went on to laud all of her accomplishments as justice minister (which she bizarrely abbreviated as MOJAG – Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the first time I can recall such an abbreviation being used). The problem, of course, is that there was a lot of talk about how things were not going well in her office. I personally heard from a number of people in the legal community about their concerns about the managerial competence within Wilson-Raybould’s office, particularly around staffing key positions such as the Judicial Affairs Advisor – necessary for the appointment of judges, and a post that was left vacant for months at a time, as the number of vacancies began increasing, and still have a significant backlog in place. There was also a lot of staffing churn within her office, which should be a warning sign that not all is well. And more reports came out yesterday that there had been some tensions around the Cabinet table when it came to Wilson-Raybould, so the fact that she penned a defensive release probably speaks volumes.

As for the other ministerial changes, David Lametti (my Canadian Lawyer profile here) replaced Wilson-Raybould, who replaces Seamus O’Regan at veterans’ affairs, O’Regan moving to Indigenous services to replace Jane Philpott, who in turn replaced the departing Scott Brison. Trudeau added a new portfolio to the mix – rural economic development, under new minister Bernadette Jordan, who is now the Nova Scotian in Cabinet. That portfolio is another one without a ministry, and it looks like it’ll be housed within Innovation, Science and Economic Development, where all of the other regional development ministries are housed, but as with a growing number of portfolios under this government, it’s another minister without a line department of her own, which I find a bit concerning.

Meanwhile, there are so many hot takes on the shuffle, starting with Chantal Hébert, who says the few changes mean it’s steady-as-she-goes for Trudeau before the election. Likewise, Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column says these changes highlight that there is little room for experimentation, this late in the current parliament. Mercedes Stephenson echoes the sentiment, with some added details on O’Regan’s time on the veterans file. Paul Wells brings the shade when it comes to the performance of this government, and the inability for any particular minister to make any meaningful changes in the face of bottlenecks of authority in the PMO, and a government too afraid to make any changes so close to an election. Mike Moffatt delivers a thread on the challenges of rural economic development, and why the portfolio might be a good idea after all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A bad case for a dumb idea

Posted on by

The flirtation with separatist sentiment in Alberta is bringing all the boys to the yard, and suddenly they’re all trying to make a cockamamie case for why this is a real threat. Yesterday it was respected tax economist Jack Mintz who decided to stray way outside of his lane, and insist that Alberta has a better case for this than Great Britain does with Bexit, which is patent nonsense both on its face, and in every single one of his nonsense arguments. And yet, in the rush to pander to the angry sentiment in Alberta and to offer up simplistic solutions and snake oil to what is a series of protracted (and in some cases intractable) problems that require time and patience to resolve. Mintz later went on the CBC to defend his column, and made a bunch of other nonsense arguments that presumes that the US would be a better customer for Alberta oil…despite that the actual pipeline capacity going from Alberta to the US is minimal and don’t think they could easily build more if they can’t even get Keystone XL over the finish line there.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1075414877890502656

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1075415929394102272

Meanwhile, Tyler Dawson makes the case that such a separatist movement not only lacks logic, it also lacks a real leader or the intellectual heft to actually make it something viable. Andrew Leach takes Mintz to task on his assumptions about demand for Alberta oil. Jen Gerson tells Alberta that while they have legitimate grievances, the insistence that Ottawa is simply out to get them risks becoming a pathology, while the separation talk is terrible, and simply burning the system down won’t help anyone. Can I get an amen up in here?

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1075469089450078208

Continue reading →

Roundup: Courting the tinfoil hat crowd

Posted on by

Over the past few days, the Conservatives have been delving into tinfoil hat territory in their attempts to stir up panic and anger toward the UN compact on global migration, which Canada plans to sign next week in Morocco. According to the Conservatives, this non-binding political declaration will somehow erode Canadian sovereignty and be tantamount to “border erasure,” and that if you listen to the Twitter trolls picking up on Andrew Scheer and Michelle Rempel’s posts about this, it will make criticizing immigration a “hate crime.” All of which is complete and utter bullshit, and even Chris Alexander, one-time Harper-era immigration minister, calls this out as factually incorrect. And yet, the Conservatives plan to use their Supply Day today to force a vote on this very issue so that they can express performative shock and dismay when the Liberals vote it down.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1070071215384080389

While Justin Trudeau and Ahmed Hussen have quite rightly called the Conservatives out on this issue as repeating Rebel Media talking points, I have to see this as yet another example of Conservatives not only shamelessly lying to score points, but trying to dip their toe into extremist territory, and the belief that they can just “just enough” extremist language and talking points to try and stir up enough anger and paranoia that they think it will move their poll numbers, but no white supremacists or xenophobes please, “we believe in orderly immigration.” And of course, real life doesn’t work that way, and they wind up stirring up elements that they say they disavow, but continue to wink at because they think it’ll get some kind of benefit out of it.

The other theory raised about why the Conservatives are going full steam on this issue is because they’re trying to head off Maxime Bernier, who is also trolling on this particular bit of lunacy. Why they think this would be a good strategy, I’m not entirely sure, but it’s not as harmless as they might think it is, and that should be concerning to everyone.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Refusing to learn their lessons

Posted on by

A former PQ minister wants to run for leadership of the Bloc, and I just cannot. Can. Not. The challenger this time is Yves-François Blanchet, who served in Pauline Marois’ short-lived Cabinet, and has since taken on a political pundit career since being defeated in 2014. He apparently met with the caucus yesterday, and the majority of them – including their past and current interim leaders – all seem to like him, but I keep having to circle back to this simple question: did you learn nothing from your last disastrous leader?

I can’t emphasise this enough. Since their demise in 2011, the Bloc have had a succession of seatless leaders, including Mario Beaulieu (who now has a seat, incidentally, and is the current interim leader), and while he stepped aside so that Gilles Duceppe could return (unsuccessfully), they keep going for leaders who aren’t in caucus, and time after time, it goes poorly for them. Every single time, I have to wonder why they don’t simply do as our system was built to do, and select a member from caucus. Constantly bringing in an outsider does nothing for their profile (ask Jagmeet Singh how that’s going), and their leaders keep being divorced from the realities of parliament. And time and again, they keep choosing another outsider. Why do you keep doing this to yourselves? Why do you refuse to learn the lessons that experience has to teach you?

There is one current MP who is considering a run, Michel Boudrias, and if the Bloc was smart, they would choose him by virtue of the fact that he’s in the caucus, he’s in the Commons, and he knows how Parliament works. Of course, if they interested in ensuring he’s accountable (especially given just how big of a gong show their last leader was), then it would be the caucus that selects him so that the caucus can then fire him if he becomes a problem (again, if history is anything to go by). But that would take some actual political courage by the party, and given their apparent reluctance to learn the lessons from their mistakes, that may be too much to ask for.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Deficits vs spending choices

Posted on by

It was the autumn fiscal update yesterday, and it should be no surprise that the deficits are going to continue for foreseeable future. It was also notable for the measures that were implemented to compete with the US corporate tax cuts without making similar cuts in Canada, and these were measures that were designed to keep businesses investing in growth rather than simply offering share buybacks or dividends, as we’ve seen in the US. These targeted measures included immediate write-offs of new machinery and equipment, certain clean-energy equipment, and writing off some assets more quickly than before, with the calculated marginal effective tax rate of these measures apparently besting the US’ rates. So there’s that. There were also some tax credits for digital subscriptions in media, and a $600 million fund to offset the cost of hiring staff as part of that. There were also measures around removing internal trade barriers (yet again) and improving supports for businesses looking to export. On top of that, it also noted that the Trans Mountain Pipeline has earned the government $70 million since it bought the pipeline, and is on track to earn it some $200 million per year.

The deficit issue is one that we’ll continue to hear about, and it’s probably more complex than just a “deficits bad” kind of debate to have. On the one hand, the Liberals took government at a time when the books were $70 billion worse off than initially advertised (not to mention the Conservative “surplus” booked a bunch of false savings) so the 2015 promises met a different reality. On the other hand, they are spending any revenue growth rather than paying down the deficit faster, insisting (not incorrectly) that a declining debt-to-GDP figure is a more important measure, and we should remember that the deficits are really quite modest in comparison to the size of our economy. But they are making spending choices, and we should judge them on that. Here’s Kevin Milligan with some more context and analysis:

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1065412694709174274

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1065413839905206273

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1065415196624080898

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1065416625275334658

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1065418354809139200

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1065419580523180032

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1065419900699602945

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1065466832356728832

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1065468145832407040

John Geddes offers his summary of the update, while Andrew Coyne pans the government’s propensity to spend any new revenues it gets rather, meaning that their deficits continue to be by choice rather than necessity. Kevin Carmichael says that in spite of the deficit problems, the most audacious part of the update was the plan to tackle the overhaul of federal regulation. Susan Delacourt notes the difference in tone between the federal fiscal update and that in Ontario last week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not an election issue to fight over

Posted on by

The leader of the Independent Senators Group seems to have inserted himself into the political discussion by demanding to know where parties stand on the issue of Senate appointments in advance of the next election. Senator Woo’s concerns seem to be that he doesn’t want people to “unwittingly” vote for a party that doesn’t conform to their views on the Senate. I’m going to go ahead and say that this was probably a mistake because it’s very easy to construe that he’s looking to shill for the Liberals since they are the only ones to are half-arsing the issue of Senate modernization, at least in this particular bastardized vision of a completely “independent” Chamber that is more likely to be problematic than anything.

In case you were wondering, the Conservatives say they don’t have a firm position yet, but their democratic institutions critic says she prefers the Harper system of appointing candidates voted on in “consultative elections” – you know, the ones that the Supreme Court of Canada said were unconstitutional because they were attempting to do through the backdoor what they couldn’t to through the front door. Oh, and they support a partisan Senate because they have a “very strong Senate group.” And the NDP, well, they’re still insisting that they want to abolish the Senate, never mind that they will never, ever, get the unanimous support of the provinces to do so. That leaves Senator Woo holding the bag for the Liberals by default, which isn’t a good look if he wants to keep insisting that he’s independent from the Liberals.

And those of us who think that maybe the Senate is better off with Liberals, Conservatives and a group of crossbenchers in roughly equal numbers? Who are we supposed to vote for? I suspect we’re SOL, unless the Liberals decide to change their tune after their “experiment” in a totally independent Senate starts to blow up in their faces and they can’t get bills passed (in part because their Government Leader – err “representative” – doesn’t want to do his job), but yeah. I’m not sure this is an election issue to fight over because nobody knows what they’re doing and we’re going to find ourselves cleaning up the mess made in this institution for a generation to come.

Continue reading →