Tag Archives: Tough on Crime

QP: Medium-security condos

Posted on by

Nearly a full day after Donald Trump’s rambling press conference in which he made threats to NAFTA, and both Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were present to face off. Scheer led off in French, and asked why Trudeau didn’t ask for a meeting with Trump in New York. Trudeau took up a script and stated that they were looking for a good deal and not any deal. Schemer switched to English to ask for assurances that there would be no new tariffs next week. Trudeau, still with a script, reiterated that they were looking for a good deal and that the Conservatives would sign any deal put in front of them. Scheer switched topics, and returned to the issue of Tori Stafford’s killer, and Scheer reminded him that she was moved from maximum to medium security under the Conservatives in 2014, and that the Conservatives themselves said that they don’t have the power to affect the security classification of prisoners. Scheer insisted that Stafford’s killer was being moved from behind razor wire and bars to a “condo,” and that the Act gives the government the power to Act. Trudeau accused Scheer of playing word games of his own, and when Scheer tried again, Trudeau reminded him that she remains in medium security. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and worried about Energy East being revived, and Trudeau reminded him that the company withdrew their proposal because of market conditions. Caron switched to English to worry about CSIS spying on environmtal activists, and Trudeau reached for a script to say that they respect the right to protest but that the complaints about CSIS were looked into by SIRC and dismissed. Romeo Saganash wanted the entire Cabinet to meet with Indigenous knowledge keepers to understand the meaning of free prior and informed consent, and Trudeau said that they were working forward reconciliation and meeting with First Nations who both supported and opposed projects. Saganash asked again in French, and Trudeau reminded him that not all Indigenous communities oppose projects.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Harder’s charm offensive

Posted on by

There’s a charm offensive in the works, led by the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, and his staff, to try and showcase how they’re transforming the Senate. In a profile piece of the “Government Representative Office” for the Hill Times, the three members of the office gave lovely little explanations of their duties, and how they’re doing things differently, like Senator Mitchell talking about how he doesn’t have a caucus to whip, so he’s focused on counting votes for upcoming bills, and arranging briefings and such. Bless.

What didn’t get answered in the piece is just why Harder needs his $1.5 million budget, since he isn’t managing a caucus, he isn’t doing his job of negotiating with other caucus groups for the passage of bills, he isn’t doing any heavy lifting in terms of sponsoring bills on behalf of the government, and as we saw during one of his melodramatic moments in the spring, doesn’t appear to be counting votes either. So why he needs that big of a budget, and that many staff, remains a mystery that has gone unsolved. Harder also remained evasive as to just how often he meets with Cabinet, which continues to be problematic because he’s supposed to be the link between the Chamber and the Cabinet, where Senators can find accountability for the actions of the government (which is why he’s supposed to be a full-blown Cabinet minister and not just a member of Privy Council). They did say that he wasn’t at the recent Cabinet retreat, which raises yet more questions, especially when it comes to how he plans to get their priorities through the Chamber as the Order Paper in the Senate is full, and he’s been in no mood to negotiate timelines (which I know for a fact that other caucus groups are willing to do).

Part of the problem with this charm offensive is that it’s preying on the lack of knowledge that members of the media have with how the Senate works, so they don’t know how things have and have not changed – and for the most part, the only thing that has changed are the fact that Harder and company insist on renaming everything and not doing the jobs they’re supposed to be doing, shifting that burden to the other players in Senate leadership. My other worry is that this is the first stage in the push to start making changes like the demand for a business committee, which would have a hugely detrimental effect on the Chamber and its operations. And I would caution any journalists reading to beware of what Harder plans to propose, and how he plans to charm other journalists into writing feel-good stories about his planned rule changes without understanding how they will damage the Senate.

Continue reading →

QP: Playing politics with a child murderer

Posted on by

While the PM was fresh off the plane from New York to attend QP, just in time for his photo-PMQ exercise. Andrew Scheer led off, reading some condemnation about a child murderer being transferred from a federal prison to an Aboriginal healing lodge. Trudeau said that they have asked officials to review the decision. Scheer repeated the question in English, demanding action and not a review, and Trudeau read the same response in English. Scheer demanded that the PM reverse the decision, and this time, Trudeau read a response from Steven Blaney when he was minister in 2013 about the government not controlling the security classification. Scheer insisted that the government had tools to use to reverse the decision, to which Trudeau said that she was always classified as medium security, and they were ensuring that people do their jobs. Scheer laid on the fears that parents have about this kind of killer, and Trudeau said he would let Canadians make the determination as to who is politicising the situation, and that the prisoner in question remained in a medium security facility. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led off for the NDP, pointing to outstanding gender inequities in the Indian Act. Trudeau responded that they had taken great steps, but still had work to do. Rachel Blaney repeated the question in English, and this time Trudeau read a statement saying that the numbers in the media were inflated and incorrect, but they were still working to reform the Indian Act. Niki Ashton demanded housing for First Nations, and Trudeau said that they were moving forward to correct the situation with $8.6 billion in investments, and that their forthcoming National Housing Strategy has an Indigenous component. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet repeated the question in French, and Trudeau reiterated the same response.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Jody Wilson-Raybould is still so proud

Posted on by

After the day’s repetitive QP in the Other Place, the justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould headed down the hall for Senate Question Period. Senator Larry Smith was up first, asking about the decision-making process to approve only one THC testing device, which many police forces are opting not to buy. Wilson-Raybould replied that they had expertise from the Canadian Society of Forensic Scientists, and that while it was the first device approved, it was not the only tool that law enforcement officers have, which was why they invested in field training for drug detection. Smith asked if there were other devices on the way, and Wilson-Raybould offered the backgrounder on the one approved device and said that she was open to approving others as they are tested.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier still hanging on

Posted on by

Apparently we’re going to talk about Maxime Bernier again, because of course we are. Yesterday’s developments included a couple of new Twitter missives, and Andrew Scheer finally, finally, held a press availability to discuss the situation, in which he basically said nothing. While not condemning Bernier’s remarks yet again (thus tacitly endorsing them), Scheer said that Bernier doesn’t speak for the party, that they value diversity, and no, he won’t talk about “caucus dynamics” when it comes to whether her plans to turf Bernier from the party. But that particular dynamic may be slightly more complicated.

There are a couple of reasons why Scheer is gun-shy when it comes to flexing his leadership muscles when it comes to Bernier’s constant stream of eruptions. One of them is that Bernier has a base within the party that Scheer can’t afford to alienate. Or at least that’s the theory – Éric Grenier teases out the numbers of Bernier’s support a bit more, and he’s not really a top fundraiser, nor may his base be as big as it’s made out to be. Part of this is because a number of supporters flocked to him in the leadership because he looked like a winner, and he got frontrunner momentum. Remember that many of these people also supported Kevin O’Leary, because he looked like a winner. So there’s that. There’s also the theory that because the Conservatives have bound themselves to Michael Chong’s greatly flawed Reform Act that the leader can’t expel a caucus member, that they must do it in a vote. That’s of course more of a theoretical consideration than a realistic one, given that the Act is largely a paper tiger – there is nothing binding in it, there is no enforcement, and it was so watered down in the process of passing it that it’s less than useless (and indeed is actively harmful to how leadership politics works in this country). Not to mention, Scheer has the option of threatening not to sign Bernier’s nomination papers for the next election (something the Reform Act promised to solve then didn’t), so it’s not like Scheer is without actual levers to push Bernier out if he so chose, even if he was bound by the useless Act.

Meanwhile, I will turn your attention to something else that Paul Wells noticed over the past few days when these tweets started.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030207649168543744

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030214242023047169

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030215199809105920

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030247683389181952

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030230923885727744

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performative obeisance

Posted on by

Brave anonymous Conservatives have gone to the media to describe how they asked Andrew Scheer to let them vote to remove Maxime Bernier from caucus. Scheer, smartly, said no, but the whole affair is sordid and more than a little gross. The reasons these brave anonymous Conservatives gave for looking to oust Bernier was because he apparently lied to caucus when he said he was going to shelve his book project and then reposted the chapter that had already been made public on his website. But it’s not really about Bernier’s supposed sins, but rather it’s another instance of MPs being performative in their demonstrations of obeisance to Scheer as the leader, which is antithetical to how a Westminster system should operate.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1014655867529003008

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1014657981416292353

Scheer knows that booting Bernier would cause a rift in the party, where all of the Ayn Rand-reading wannabe-libertarians in the party would storm off after him in a huff, possibly forming a libertarian splinter party in their wake (never mind the fact that Bernier isn’t actually that smart as a politician, as charismatic as he may be, and it would likely all end in tears). But Scheer has to preserve the big tent – or at least the illusion thereof, because gods know that he’s already alienated Red Tories and free-market conservatives with his pursuit of boneheaded populism – and so he’s going to keep Bernier around. Not in his shadow cabinet, apparently, because Bernier has become a liability in his attempt to portray himself as a greater defender of Supply Management than thou, but Bernier will at least be there in the room, tolerated. For what that’s worth.

More importantly, this is but one more sign about how venal and degenerate political parties in this country have become as they’ve been hollowed out and serve as little more than personality cults thanks to the bastardized leadership contest rules that each has adopted. Because leaders are chosen in such a broken manner, it has given them the appearance of “democratic legitimacy” that is antithetical to how our system operates, and rather than hold them to account, the caucuses now twist themselves into pretzels to show loyalty to the brand of the leader rather than the ideals of the party. And until we’re willing to stand up and say no, this is a bastardization of our system, it will only continue to get worse (and yes, the Liberals are among the worst culprits for this). This is not how parties are supposed to work. This is not how the Westminster system is supposed to work. And yet we have brave anonymous MPs tattling on each other for thought crimes against their leaders. It’s revolting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A diminishing work ethic?

Posted on by

The Senate rose for the summer yesterday after the morning’s royal assent ceremony, which I find to be extremely curious given that they were scheduled to sit for another week and had a whole new batch of bills sent to them when the House rose on Wednesday. You would think that they would want to get started on them, and possibly even pass a few more of them before rising for the summer, but apparently not, and that does trouble me a little bit. We saw this happen at Christmas, and we’re seeing it again now, where the tradition that the Senate sits at least an extra week to get through the raft of bills sent to them by the Commons is being abrogated by Senate leadership that seems less interested in demonstrating that they’re doing the work that needs to be done when MPs take off.

Speaking of Senate leadership, our good friend, the Leader of the Government in the Senate – err, “government representative” sent out a press release yesterday that pat himself on the back for all of the changes to make the Senate more independent, which he equated with making better laws. Why? Well, 13 out of 51 bills in the current session of this parliament were successfully amended by the Senate, so that must mean it’s working! Well, maybe, but it ignores the context that the current prime minister is more willing to entertain some amendments, unlike the previous one. That gives room for the Senate to propose them, but the vast majority of the amendments that do get accepted tend to be technical rather than substantive ones. Not that it doesn’t happen – the government has backed down on a couple of occasions and accepted major amendments (like with the RCMP unionisation bill, which had a Supreme Court of Canada ruling to back up the amendments), but for the most part, the government has resisted substantive amendments to its legislation, so much that you have their new appointees like Senator Pratte openly questioning why the government bothered with creating its “independent Senate” if they’re not going to listen to what it has to say. Not that I’m suggesting that the government should accept every Senate amendment, but there are recent examples where they probably should have, such as with the impaired driving bill that passed this week. There was overwhelming evidence to show that this was almost certainly unconstitutional and would create havoc within the justice system, but the government refused to listen, and senators backed down and let the government reject their amendments rather than insist upon them in the face of such overwhelming testimony. If Harder were really concerned that the Senate was improving legislation, he might not have insisted that once the government rejected those amendments that the Senate back down rather than stand up for some constitutional principles, but he didn’t. Make of that what you will.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Judging Question Period the Toronto Star way

Posted on by

The Toronto Star released a package of stories yesterday on Question Period, and because this is the way we do journalism these days, it was full of data analysis that looks shiny, and hey, they got some investigative reporters to count questions and responses. Absent from that? A hell of a lot of context. So while you got some backbenchers who don’t participate to gripe about it being scripted (which it is), and some counting up of the talking points (without any context as to why these developed), or a surface-level look at the political theatre of it all (again, absent a lot of context or history, or bigger-picture look at the ways in which the messaging has changed and how it is currently being used to gather social media clips). It’s inch-deep stuff that, for someone who covers QP every single day, is mighty disappointing. (Additional point – most of the writers of these pieces have not attended QP, which is a problem because watching it from your desk in Toronto is not the same thing as being there in person. At all).

What is the most disappointing of all, however, is their “Question Period fact check” piece, which takes a sampling of questions and answers, and assesses the veracity of the questions being posited and the responses. Why it’s a problem is because they fell into the problem of how questions are framed – surface truths that are stripped of context to say something that it doesn’t. An example is when the Conservatives railed that the PBO said that carbon taxes would take $10 billion out of the economy. Which isn’t actually what he said – he said that it would take $10 billion out of the economy if the revenues weren’t recycled through tax cuts or other measures but were just given directly back to taxpayers. That’s a whopping difference in the message, because using only the $10 billion figure is a disingenuous attack line. And what did the “fact checkers” rate it? “True!” even though it wasn’t actually. And the piece was full of problematic fact-checks like that, which makes it infuriating for someone who actually pays attention to what is being said and how. So while everyone pats themselves on the back for the piece, I’m really unimpressed with the package as a whole.

Equalisation reform

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe released his plan to reform equalisation yesterday and it’s…not equalisation. It’s like he doesn’t get the concept at all. Which at this point should not surprise anyone, because it’s been so badly reported on for decades and has been the tool of demagogues to bash Quebec rather than understanding how the system actually works – paid for by federal income tax out of general revenues to a province that doesn’t have the fiscal capacity to offer comparable services. It’s not one province writing a cheque to another one. For provinces that pay into it more than they get out, it’s because they have high incomes, thus they pay more income tax. It’s not that mysterious (and yet most reporters simply write “it’s complicated” and leave it at that). And Quebec has structural issues related to their fiscal capacity (and yes, their tax rates are already high relative to other provinces) but the per capita equalization they receive is actually low, not that the shock-and-awe figure of the total amount isn’t constantly being weaponized.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1009498701151158272

And what does Moe suggest? Basically taking money from Quebec’s share and giving it to all provinces whether they need it or not. It’s bullshit that fortunately a number of economists called out – not that it’ll matter, because the audience that Moe is speaking to dismisses what economists have to say. Sigh.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Accidental passage

Posted on by

The spring sitting of Parliament is almost at its end, and it’s a bit of a race to see what is left to be passed – other than the cannabis bill, of course. It’s looking increasingly unlikely that the elections bill will clear the Commons, let alone even begin study in the Senate before they rise, and it’s just one of several agenda items that this government is having a hard time pushing through – not that the opposition has made any of this easy for them (not that it’s their job to), particularly as several sitting days have been lost to procedural shenanigans including the vote-a-thon tantrum last week. But down the hall in the Senate, there were a few quirky things that happened last week, in which both the budget implementation bill and the impaired driving bill got passed prematurely, entirely by accident.

As I understand it, according to my Senate sources, the intent was that the Conservatives had meant to ask for leave to deal with the report from the national finance committee on C-74, and then start third reading at the same time, but the Senator moving the motion got confused and inadvertently requested the vote for third reading happen immediately, and because everyone thought they were dealing with the report, they agreed. Oops. Several senators had been looking for amendments to C-74 at third reading – in one case, around trying to get propane and natural gas as legislated exemptions as farm fuels to the carbon tax backstop legislation included in the bill, but that didn’t happen. (Senator Robert Black later used the procedural manoeuvre of speaking in reply to the Speech from the Throne to get his concerns about C-74 on the record).

Likewise, with C-46, the impaired driving bill, the general disorganization in the Chamber had it passed on division (a particular kind of voice vote) rather than a standing vote, but that’s a bill that I suspect we’ll see pushback from in the Senate if the government insists on the clause on random alcohol screening, given the overwhelming weight of expert testimony against the provision, so any back-and-forth between the chambers will be around that, and you can guarantee that we’ll see the threats that making the Commons sit longer than Friday will cost so many thousands of dollars to Canadians, and wouldn’t that be just terrible, and we’ll all roll our eyes because the inherent cynicism that MPs shouldn’t sit longer to debate necessary legislation is a little bit offensive when you think about it for half a second. So will MPs be going home for the summer by Friday? I guess we’ll see who digs their heels in.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier booted from shadow cabinet

Posted on by

The surprising news last night was that Andrew Scheer had finally had enough and removed Maxime Bernier from his shadow cabinet, reassigning his critic portfolio to Matt Jeneroux. The ostensible reason that Bernier was booted? That he uploaded that chapter from his cancelled book in which he decries the tyranny of Supply Management. Never mind that the chapter was already floated to the Globe and Mail and was published weeks ago, which led to the outcry that had Bernier pull the book until his political retirement. Scheer said that this constituted Bernier breaking his word to caucus on the book, never mind that it was already in the public domain.

A more plausible explanation? That Scheer was getting a lot of heat about Bernier’s views about Supply Management in the face of Trump’s tweets about dairy tariffs that are part of the system, where the government could point to Bernier being on Scheer’s front bench as proof that the Liberals cared more about Supply Management than the Conservatives did. In fact, the swipes about this got increasingly nasty in QP the last few days, to the point that Luc Berthold got right indignant about it when it was thrown in his face yesterday. Add to that, there’s a by-election coming up in a rural Quebec riding, where this is one of those issues that they care a lot about, and Scheer (who is campaigning there later this week with the former Bloc leader who has renounced separatism and taken out a Conservative membership card) wanted to prove that he’s listening to Quebeckers on Supply Management – even though Bernier himself is a Quebecker. (Note: This is also why the Conservatives rarely ask Supply Management questions in English during QP – this is all about pandering for Quebec votes).

I do think that this is further proof that there is little room in the current Conservative party for actual free-market conservatives, and that they are working hard to cravenly embrace right-flavoured populism that is divorced from the values that they claim to espouse (as I wrote a year ago when Scheer first won the leadership). My only question now is whether Bernier will be banished to the nosebleeds along with fellow disgraced caucus member Kellie Leitch.

Continue reading →