Tag Archives: Tough on Crime

Roundup: A “grand coalition” is a terrible idea

Posted on by

Over in New Brunswick, where there has been no movement on whether or not there will be a new government, we are being treated to such views as the suggestion that there should be a “grand coalition” between the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives in the province to…rise above partisan interests? Erm, well, leaving aside the fact that there is a lot of bad blood between the leaders and it’s never going to happen, I find the suggestion in and of itself utterly offensive. Why? Because our system depends on there being an opposition to hold the government to account. That’s the whole point of parliament after all – to hold government to account, and while backbenchers are supposed to play that role as well as the opposition, in practice it often doesn’t work that well because the incentives are rarely there when there are Cabinet posts to distribute and the fact that we’ve bastardized our leadership system so as to neuter caucus’ ability to hold their leaders to account. Such a “grand coalition” would mean that the province has an opposition comprised of two three-member parties, which would have to fight over who gets to be the Official Opposition, and would have a hard time doing the job of holding a massive coalition government to account.

Now, I will add that New Brunswick and its peculiar political culture once returned a legislature that was 100 percent Liberal and had zero opposition members, and they managed to make it work. Sort of. But it’s not a situation that anyone should want to repeat, because it’s a Very Bad Thing for democracy and the practice of Responsible Government. Opposition plays an important role, and I know that people don’t like it because the adversarial nature can become both theatrical (witness Question Period), but if members don’t take that theatricality to heart, it can become embittering – especially if there are few avenues for cross-partisan bonding. I don’t know enough about how that part of the political culture works in New Brunswick, but the diminishing avenues for such bonding in Ottawa has created a less collegial parliament than it used to be in years past, and that’s a problem.

https://twitter.com/SkinnerLyle/status/1052295726477312000

Meanwhile, the lieutenant governor is straying dangerously out of her lane in issuing statements warning the parties to come to a solution because she doesn’t think the province wants a new election, and that means also finding a Speaker. This shouldn’t be public, and I get that some people want transparency, but she shouldn’t be doing this – especially because it gives people the idea that she can boss around the premier, which she can’t actually do unless we want to undo 170 years of Responsible Government in this country. It’s especially bad if the parties are trying to play the LG and trying to force her hand in some way – which is the kind of gutless manoeuvre that we should expect from Canadian politicians who don’t like to be seen to be making unpopular decisions and will try to foist the blame onto someone else. This whole situation is distasteful, and everyone needs to grow up and behave like adults.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1052316915140423680

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1052317982884425729

https://twitter.com/SkinnerLyle/status/1052335901366476800

Continue reading →

Roundup: Protecting parliament from court interference

Posted on by

The decision in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council) at the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday has been described in some cases as relieving the government of the Duty to Consult Indigenous communities when preparing legislation, but I think some of that misses the very real issue of the separation of powers and parliamentary privilege – particularly when the news channels would immediately trot out Indigenous lawyers to say that this was an infringement on the Duty to Consult, and that it was a “missed opportunity” to get legislation right, and so on. (And lo and behold, here’s Pam Palmater to argue just that, and I find her analysis flawed). In fact, the CBC piece on the decision buried the aspect about separation of powers at the very bottom of the piece, despite the fact that it’s at the heart of the ruling.

To recap, the separation of powers is the doctrine that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches have different roles and you shouldn’t have them meddling in one another’s business, which is exactly what the case was proposing to do – to allow the courts to weigh in on legislation before it’s been passed, or in this case, even been drafted. That’s a huge overreach by the courts, and a giant infringement on parliamentary supremacy. Why that’s especially important is because we’re seeing a growing movement of people who try turning to the courts when they lose at politics, which is very bad for democracy. (In fact, it appears that the Mikisew are engaging in a bit of that very thing here, objecting to the changes to the changes to environmental assessment legislation). If the Mikisew had their way, it would allow for the courts to weigh in on the legislative process at all points, which not only makes legislation impossible, but it means that parliament can no longer govern its own affairs, which is a very bad thing. Of course, there were many differences of opinion between the justices as to how this all shakes out, but they all agreed that the courts have no role in interference in the legislative process, and I don’t think that was highlighted nearly enough.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1050384273394622464

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050384955954483200

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050386530752032768

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050389501523050496

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050390172947296257

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050393327521038336

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1050397264298950657

This being said, they did affirm that the Duty to Consult is still necessary – just that it didn’t need to be mandatory before drafting legislation. Smart governments who take the Duty seriously would do so in the planning stages of legislation, and there are opportunities to engage in consultation during the legislative process, particularly at committees, when amendments can be proposed that would assist with accommodation. Emmett Macfarlane also suspects that we could see the Senate take a more active role in ensuring proper consultation as it weighs in on bills as well, which could be an interesting evolution in the Senate’s activities as we move forward with its “new” characteristics.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1050391764069019649

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1050392582931369984

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1050393088823185408

Meanwhile, Philippe Lagassé digs into Justice Brown’s reasoning around the Crown’s distinct capacities. Here is a thread from Emmett Macfarlane on his thoughts on the decision. And here’s University of Ottawa law school vice dean Carissima Mathen to explain the decision.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carbon tax opportunism

Posted on by

The latest round of carbon tax drama has the Conservatives drunk with glee, as Manitoba premier Brian Pallister’s decision to scrap his own carbon tax plans has them thinking that they now have a national momentum against carbon taxes. It’s not likely to be that simple – and they may find out that it may blow up in their faces. Pallister says he changed his mind about it after meeting with Trudeau, and found Trudeau intransigent on letting Manitoba keep their tax at a flat $25/tonne when everyone’s else was ramping up to $50/tonne, which sounds like a no-brainer – you want a consistent carbon price across the country to prevent leakage and to keep a level playing field. (Pallister also claims that their plan was so comprehensive, but in interviews would point to things like remediating mines and recycling programmes, which are not about addressing climate change, and his deliberate misinformation should be called out as such). But it also smacks of opportunism, given that small-c conservatives across the country are taking the election of Doug Ford in Ontario as some sign that there is an uprising against carbon taxes when that was very likely not the cause of his election, but rather it was the impetus for change from the province’s tired Liberal government. Overreading Ford’s “mandate,” if we’re going to use that word, is dangerous for them to do. Meanwhile, Ford was yukking it up with Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe in their insulting the federal carbon tax, each believing their mutual court challenges are going to go somewhere (they’re likely not), and Ford would say things like a carbon tax is the worst thing in the world and will do nothing for the environment – complete falsehoods, and all he has to do is look at BC to show the complete opposite.

The federal government, meanwhile, hasn’t been terribly eloquent in their response, on the one hand decrying Pallister’s “flip flop” and worrying that conservatives want pollution to be free, while also pointing out that when the federal backstop comes in, people will be getting cheques in the mail. And that’s going to be the Achilles heel of the federal Conservatives’ belief that the country is going to rise up against carbon taxes. They keep pushing the narrative that it’s a tax grab to feed the Liberals’ “out of control spending” when it’s in the enabling legislation for the carbon tax that the funds will be rebated. But the government hasn’t been eloquent – and has been barely competent – when it comes to any kind of messaging on this file, and that’s the part that will probably hurt them the most, and it’ll be a self-inflicted wound, which makes you just shake your head watching it all go down.

Continue reading →

QP: Turning Canada to a vassal state

Posted on by

It being the Thursday before a constituency week, the benches were getting a bit thinner, and none of the leaders (save Elizabeth May) were present. That left Alain Rayes to lead off, reading concerns about the Americans being able to weigh in on a potential trade deal with China, and wondered what Canada got in response. Marc Garneau got up to read that the ability to withdraw from an agreement was normal. Rayes railed about all of the various concessions made, and Garneau was “mystified” that the Conservatives didn’t applaud them for getting a deal. Michael Chong was up next, and raised our sacrifices in World War I before complaining that the Article 32 in the new NAFTA makes Canada a vassal state. Garneau insisted there was no loss of sovereignty, and that any party could leave the agreement with six months’ notice. Candice Bergen was up next, and she whinged that Trudeau acted like a bully and called them names on the issue of Tori Stafford’s killer. Jean-Yves Duclos got up to read that politicians can’t make determinations about the sentencing of individual prisoners. Bergen proposed a broad policy of preventing child killers from going to healing lodges, but Duclos repeated his script. Karine Trudel led off for the NDP, worrying about the steel and aluminium tariffs still being in place. Garneau got up to read that the tariffs weren’t justified, which was Canada was retaliating. On a second go-around, Garneau gave the same response, this time without script, before Tracey Ramsey repeated the question in English, with a bit of added condemnation. Garneau reiterated the response in English, and for her final question, Ramsey demanded a task force to help small businesses affected by the tariffs, and this time, Garneau took a few shots a the NDP’s dislike of trade agreements.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not appealing, just consulting

Posted on by

First thing yesterday morning, the federal government announced that they were proceeding with restarting consultations with First Nations affected by the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline, and that they had tasked former Supreme Court of Canada justice Franc Iacobucci to oversee the process. Iacobucci has done a great deal of work around the Duty to Consult in recent years, as this report that he wrote with law firm Torys LLP demonstrates, along with work he’s done with Ontario over the underrepresentation of Indigenous people on juries in the province. Indigenous groups in the region have responded with some optimism, but are also warning that these consultations can’t come with a predetermined outcome if they’re to be meaningful (which may be too far to go given that the government has stated that this project will go ahead). Some of those Indigenous communities are also looking at the fact that this process could allow them to talk more amongst themselves.

https://twitter.com/coreyshefman/status/1047512242109997056

https://twitter.com/coreyshefman/status/1047512244303663104

https://twitter.com/coreyshefman/status/1047512246660808704

https://twitter.com/coreyshefman/status/1047512248716087297

Meanwhile, Rachel Notley and Jason Kenney (among others) are bellyaching that the government has opted not to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, and yet not one of them has articulated what the error in law they are looking to contest would actually be, which is kind of a big deal if they think the Court will hear it. It’s also not clear that an appeal would get them any clarity anytime soon, given that the Court usually gives about six months between granting leave and hearing the case in order to provide time for submissions, and then a decision could take another six months at least – possibly more if it’s a contentious issue, like this one is.

Continue reading →

QP: Ambulance chasing politics

Posted on by

Following a morning of announcements including that of a renewed consultation with Indigenous communities on the Trans Mountain Expansion, all of the leaders were present for this week’s exercise of Porto-PMQs. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and wouldn’t you know it, Scheer led off on the latest outrage around Tori Stafford’s killer, and the coming vote the Conservatives are forcing on it. Justin Trudeau took a script to say that she was still in a medium security facility, and that the Act doesn’t allow the minister to intervene, but they have undertaken a review of the system. Scheer switched to dairy concession in the new NAFTA deal, and Trudeau took up another script to say that they have promised compensation to producers, and that this was just like ten TPP deal the Conservatives organised and celebrated. Scheer said that the TPP was done in exchange for other concessions unlike this deal. Trudeau dropped his script this time to praise the deal, and especially a list of Conservative luminaries. Scheer shot back that Trudeau needed all the help they could get, then railed about prescription drug costs raising because of IP provisions in NAFTA. Trudeau noted that the Conservatives never did anything about drug prices when they were in charge, and Scheer tried one last time to worry about steel and aluminium tariffs, and Trudeau took up a script again to read from Stephen Harper’s memo urging capitulation. Guy Caron then stood up for the NDP, and he railed about the Liberals apparently rewriting history around the elimination of Chapter 11 in the old NAFTA. Trudeau praised its elimination, and when Caron tried again in English, insisting that they were misleading the House over it. The Speaker admonished Caron for the insinuation, and he refused to apologised on the first time, but gave a grudging apology on the second time, to which Trudeau reiterate that they were pleased with Chapter 11’s elimination. Romeo Saganash then got up to accuse the government of not properly consulting with Indigenous groups, and Trudeau stated that they recognised there is a right process that they would follow. Saganash switched to French to insist that there is a right for those groups to say no, and Trudeau reiterated that there are different communities who want and don’t want projects, and they would do their best to ensure their concerns are heard.

Continue reading →

QP: Supply Management and prisons, ad nauseam

Posted on by

With the PM off in Vancouver for the announcement of a major LNG project, the rest of the Commons was full and ready to go for QP. Andrew Scheer led off on the Supply Day topic of the day, around Tori Stafford’s killer, and demanded that she be put back in a facility that “looks like a prison” — never mind that the facility she used to be in didn’t have bars either. Ralph Goodale read his usual statement about ordering a review. Scheer then switched to the new NAFTA and the lack of softwood lumber tariff movement, to which Chrystia Freeland insisted that they got good things like eliminating Chapter 11, and removing a throttling of Canadian energy products. Sheer insisted that Canada only achieved losses and no gains, and Freeland read praise from Brian Mulroney in response. Alain Rayes took over to lament the lack of movement on aluminium tariffs, to which Freeland reminded him that they were advocating capitulation just weeks ago. Rayes tried again, and Freeland repeated the points about what they managed to get rid of, this time in French. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and caterwauled about Supply Management. Freeland insisted that they were preserving Supply Management for the future, and when Caron railed about the ways in which the government “caved,” Freeland assured him that they defended the sector in spite of American attempts to dismantle it, and that dairy farmers would be compensated. Tracey Ramsey raised the clause about the US being notified on trade talks with China, and after Freeland praised Ramsey, she insisted that we retained full sovereignty over our trade relationships. Ramsey then railed about steel and aluminium tariffs, and Freeland assured her that they were still behind the sector, and that the measured, dollar-for-dollar retaliatory measures were standing up for the sector.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All about the New NAFTA

Posted on by

So, now that we have some more information about just what is in this renewed NAFTA agreement (no, I’m not going to call it by Trump’s preferred new title because it’s ridiculous), we can get some better analysis of what was agreed to. Here’s a good overview, along with some more analysis on the issues of BC wines, online shopping, intellectual property, Indigenous issues (though not the whole chapter they hoped for, and the gender chapter was also absent), and an oil and gas bottleneck issue whose resolution could now save our industry as much as $60 million. There is, naturally, compensation for those Supply Management-sector farmers who’ve had more access into the market granted (though that access is pretty gradual and will likely be implemented in a fairly protectionist manner, if CETA is anything to go by). There is, however, some particular consternation over a clause that gives the US some leverage over any trade we may do with a “non-market” country (read: China), though that could wind up being not a big deal after all and just some enhanced information sharing; and there is also the creation of a macro-economic committee that could mean the Bank of Canada may have to do more consultation with the US Federal Reserve on monetary policy (though I have yet to find more details about this change). But those steel and aluminium tariffs that Trump imposed for “national security” reasons remain, as they were always unrelated to NAFTA, and their removal will remain an ongoing process.

With the news of the deal also comes the behind-the-scenes tales of how it all went down, and we have three different versions, from Maclean’s John Geddes, the National Post’s Tom Blackwell, and CBC’s Katie Simpson.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1046750795461357568

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne posits that the damage in this agreement is slight but there was no hope for a broader trade agreement given that there were protectionists on both sides of the table. Likewise, Kevin Carmichael notes that the deal limited the potential harm that was looming, but didn’t really break any new ground. Andrew MacDougall says that the deal gives Trump the win he needed before the midterms, while it will also make it hard for Andrew Scheer to stick anything on Trudeau around the deal. Chantal Hébert agrees that if Trudeau loses the next election that it won’t be because of this trade deal. Paul Wells, meanwhile, takes note of how the Conservatives are playing this, trying to lead observers by the hand to show them that Trudeau “failed” in these talks, while glossing over all of the actual context around why these negotiations happened in the first place.

Continue reading →

QP: NAFTA not good enough

Posted on by

After a morning of press conferences and celebratory back-patting from the government on the conclusion of NAFTA talks, all of the leaders were in the Commons, and ready to go. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he read his disappointment about concessions made to Supply Management. Trudeau enthused that it was a good agreement, and that they worked closely with the dairy industry and would continue to work so regarding compensation. Scheer worried that there were no gains, only losses, and worried in particular about Buy America policies. Trudeau continued to enthuse about the deal, and didn’t really answer about Buy America. Scheer lost his script, and listed other concessions, and asked after Buy America again. Trudeau took a shot at Stephen Harper advocating selling out before thanking Canadians for being united on the issue. Scheer then asked about softwood lumber tariffs, and Trudeau tut-tutted that the opposition thought it was a bad deal — but didn’t answer about softwood. Sheer asked after softwood again, and Trudeau again insisted it was a good deal. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, who was worried that there were no gains on Indigenous or gender rights or the environment and they caved on Supply Management, and Trudeau pointed to the environmental protections now in the agreement that the old agreement didn’t have, and took a shot at the NDP not liking any deals. Caron railed about Supply Management being compromised, to which Trudeau insisted that they did protect Supply Management. Tracey Ramsey took over in English on her list of things she didn’t like in the agreement, and Trudeau insisted that yes, it was a progressive agreement, especially around labour rights and strengthened environmental protections. Ramsey demanded the deal be brought to the House of Commons, and Trudeau listed the unions that support the deal, and said they would bring it to Parliament in the ratification process.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dissent without disloyalty

Posted on by

Yesterday on Power & Politics, we saw something that is far too rare in Canadian politics, but should be the norm. In response to the government signing on the US’ recent initiative at the UN to basically renew the “war on drugs,” Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith went on the show to publicly disagree with his party and the government that his party forms, and more to the point, we didn’t see anyone clutching their pearls about this, or higher-ups in the party make threats. Shocking, I know.

The civics refresher here is that all MPs are supposed to hold government to account, whether they’re in the opposition or in the government’s backbench. Holding the government to account is the very raison d’etre of Parliament, but you wouldn’t know it given how many government backbenchers think it’s their job to be cheerleaders, to give unquestioning support, and possibly to suck up in the hopes of a Cabinet posting or parliamentary secretary position. I also know that this isn’t quite as true behind the caucus room door, but we see very little dissent in public. We see even less dissent in other parties – the NDP enforce solidarity and uniformity in all positions, and have been known to punish MPs who step out of line, while we’ve seen the amount of tolerance that the Conservatives have for dissenting opinions with Maxime Bernier’s post-leadership experiences (though I will grant you, there is still some diversity of thought in there, but it’s rarely expressed publicly). And while I don’t praise Justin Trudeau for many things, I will say his openness to dissenting voices is unquestioningly a good thing in Parliament.

And this brings me back to Leona Alleslev’s defection to the Conservatives last week, and the statements she made about how she didn’t think she could openly criticize the government and not be perceived as disloyal. This is one of those statements of hers that I called bullshit on at the time, and I will call bullshit on it doubly today given this latest incident where Erskine-Smith broke ranks and nobody is calling him disloyal for it. He’s doing the job he’s supposed to do, and which not enough MPs take seriously (and this is also because the lack of proper civics education and training for MPs when they’re elected). I’d like to see him setting an example that others will hopefully follow.

Continue reading →