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.
Tag Archives: Tough on Crime
Roundup: All about the New NAFTA
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.
QP: NAFTA not good enough
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.
Roundup: Dissent without disloyalty
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.
QP: Medium-security condos
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.
Scheer claims that Tori Stafford’s killer is being moved “to a condo.” #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) September 27, 2018
Roundup: Harder’s charm offensive
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.
QP: Playing politics with a child murderer
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.
Senate QP: Jody Wilson-Raybould is still so proud
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.
Roundup: Bernier still hanging on
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
Roundup: Performative obeisance
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.