Tag Archives: Tough on Crime

QP: Still going while eyes on DC

Posted on by

While Trudeau and several ministers were in Washington, things were still happening in Ottawa. Plenty of things. Rona Ambrose led off QP, asking that the government not approve any environmental measures that the Americans won’t implement themselves. Jim Carr noted that they were restoring credibility to the process. Ambrose then worried about the deficit spending which some economists claimed would have no benefit. Bill Morneau responded that they were making investments in long-term productivity at a time when borrowing is cheap. Ambrose switched to French to ask about the size of the deficit, to which Morneau trotted out his lines about growing the economy. Denis Lebel picked up, repeating the question about the lack of stimulus from the deficit, and he got the same response that Ambrose did. For his final question, Lebel asked the bog standard question of which taxes the government would raise to pay off said deficit, but Morneau stuck to his line of growth for the future. Leading off for the NDP was Peter Julian, demanded action on softwood lumber. David Lemetti stated that Trudeau and Obama signalled that they were interested in having an agreement. Julian railed about Canadian jobs, to which Lemetti finished his previous answer a commitment to report back in 100 days. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet asked a pair of questions about the levels of Indigenous people in prisons, to which Michel Picard promised work to improve the situation.

Continue reading →

QP: Scattering instead of pressing

Posted on by

Bill Morneau’s fiscal update a couple of hours previous before touched off a partisan storm over social media, which was bound to carry over into QP. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on desk, led off by reading a question about the size of the deficit. Justin Trudeau reminded her that they ran a campaign on investing to promote growth. Ambrose demanded to know who would pay for it all, at which Trudeau retorted that that they were already paying for the previous ten years of poor growth. Ambrose tried to burnish the previous government’s record, but Trudeau accused them of creative accounting. Gerard Deltell demanded controlled public spending, for which Trudeau reiterated his response about fudged numbers. Deltell gave it one last kick, and got the same answer. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded the government respect the rights of Aveos workers rather than amend Air Canada’s legislation. Trudeau responded that they were proud that the agreement with Bombardier would encourage investment in aerospace. Mulcair asked again in English, got largely the same answer, and then demanded reforms to the EI system. Trudeau reminded him that they promised to strengthen the system, and they were going to. Mulcair demanded a universal eligibility threshold as part of that reform, and Trudeau reiterated that they were making needed changes.

Continue reading →

QP: Pipeline laments

Posted on by

Thursday in the Commons, and Justin Trudeau was present, but Rona Ambrose wasn’t. That left it up to Opposition House Leader Andrew Scheer to lead off, mini-lectern on his desk, and he read a lament for the government adding more red tape to pipeline projects. Trudeau insisted that the only way to get resources to tidewater was to do it in an environmentally sustainable way. Scheer wanted to know if Western Liberal MPs would be free to vote on the Conservatives’ opposition motion, to which Trudeau panned it as a rehash of their failed policies. Scheer took a dig at Trudeau meeting with celebrities instead of unemployed Canadians. Trudeau hit back with a reminder of the need for sustainability. Candice Bergen was up next, asking if downstream emissions would be part of the new environmental assessment process, to which Catherine McKenna confirmed that it would be a consideration. Bergen decried the uncertainty for ongoing assessments, but Jim Carr praised the change in tone from the current government where environment and natural resource development happened together. Thomas Mulcair was up next, lamenting that the TPP would cost jobs but was being signed anyway, but Trudeau assured him that the signature would just be a technical step that would allow further debate. Mulcair switched to French to continue to hammer on the meaning of the signature, to which Trudeau reiterated that signature and ratification were different. Mulcair changed to lamenting reducing taxes for the well-off instead of tackling inequality, to which Trudeau reminded him that they reduced taxes to the middle class and increased them on the one percent. Mulcair asked again, and Trudeau reiterated his answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Heckling the delicate flowers

Posted on by

Oh, those poor delicate flowers that dwell in the House of Commons. Their poor nerves are so affected by all of the terrible heckling during Question Period that they all need to collapse on a divan, and get out the smelling salts, and blah, blah, blah. Samara just released a report on heckling, and wouldn’t you just know, everyone is aghast by all of the heckling that goes on. Why, it’s just terrible. But here’s the thing – every MP says they hate it, and insists that they don’t do it, except they do. They’ll even deny it when caught on camera. Heckling of course comes in a broad variety of taunts, jeers, and outright boorish behaviour, but really, sometimes it’s more instructive than what passes for debate. Yes, some heckling is sexist and boorish and should be called out, but not all heckling is sexist and boorish. And when there are complaints that women get heckled more, sometimes it’s because of how they’re reading scripts – one of the things about heckling is that it’s trying to knock people off of their talking points. Sometimes it’s clever and witty, and sometimes it’s not. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t value in knocking people off of their message tracks. And if anyone thinks that simply having more women in the place would change that, well, the most vigorous (and indeed some of the best) hecklers in my experience have been the women. And honestly, I can’t think of anything more dreadful than a QP that lacks it. Why? Because we need an injection of theatre into the sitting day, lest we all develop narcolepsy. Has anyone who moans about heckling sat through the rest of the day’s debates? Probably not. I’ve learned more about some issues by the heckling than I have in the scripted responses by ministers. Can it be too vigorous at times? Sure. Can people take it too far? Of course, and it should be dealt with when that’s the case, but this constant pearl-clutching about it is ridiculous, disingenuous, and in most cases, hypocritical. I’d rather a commitment to improving the quality of heckling than to see its elimination, and we’d be better off for it.

Continue reading →

QP: The scattershot attack

Posted on by

The week slowly drawing to a close, more desks started to empty out in the Chamber, but hey, Justin Trudeau was there for a fourth day in a row — I’m not sure that ever happened under Harper, ever. Rona Ambrose led off, lectern still on desk, and she read a question in French about the size of the deficit. Trudeau rose and stated that they had pledged to be open and honest about budget figures, and they would reduce the net debt-to-GDP ratio. Ambrose then accused the government of doing nothing for the plight of Albertans with dropping oil prices. Trudeau reminded her that the previous government did nothing for them. Ambrose changed topics again, and trolled for support for their opposition day motion to maintain the CF-18 bombing mission. Trudeau reminded her that the Americans were just happy with the Canadian position, and that he was even just invited for a state dinner at the White House, something Harper never got. Denis Lebel was up next, and asked the same question to get the same answer. Lebel then asked why Trudeau thought that the 1982 patriation was a good template for electoral reform, but Trudeau reminded him of the promises made during the election.Thomas Mulcair was up next and noted the RCMP Commissioner’s admission that there were racists in his force and asked what the government was doing about it. Trudeau lamented it, but basically said that it was up to the RCMP to deal with their members. Mulcair asked about boil water advisories on First Nations reserves, to which Trudeau noted they were working with those First Nations. Mulcair changed topics again to Canada Post, and got the very same response he got the past three days. Mulcair gave one last change of topic, asking about which refugees where getting health funding for refugees, which Trudeau said they would be doing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New Cabinet Eve

Posted on by

Welcome to Stephen Harper’s last day as Prime Minister. Tomorrow is the big day, and if you’re in Ottawa and want to take part, well, Rideau Hall is getting it all set, with big screens on the grounds, and helpful hints on attending (like you can’t park there and you’d better wear comfortable shoes, because you might be standing from 10 am to 1 pm). The cabinet will also apparently arrive by bus rather than everyone in their own individual cars, and it sounds like there will be some sort of interaction with the crowds, so I guess we’ll see how that all goes when it happens. Suffice to say, it again marks a change in tone from the last guy. If you’ve missed the others so far, Kady O’Malley gives a good primer on how to form a cabinet, while Nick Taylor-Vaisey fills you in on some more of the background details, like just what is a cabinet, and what are the oaths you need to sign? And no, I’m not going to engage in any cabinet speculation, because it’s a bit of a mug’s game at this point. I also don’t really want to get into the “gender quota versus merit” debate because it’s not a debate. There have always been quotas, be it linguistic, regional or even religious (when that mattered), more than merit, and I can’t believe that this is even a conversation, but whatever. The real question is how many women get into the “big” portfolios of finance, foreign affairs, justice, or defence.

https://twitter.com/ashleycsanady/status/661179686009962497

https://twitter.com/ashleycsanady/status/661180078185775104

https://twitter.com/ashleycsanady/status/661180363868278784

https://twitter.com/laura_payton/status/661291352769064961

Continue reading →

Roundup: Assisted dying heating up

Posted on by

The issue of doctor-assisted dying is heating up the closer we get to Trudeau and cabinet being sworn in, seeing as there’s a looming February deadline on the horizon. Trudeau signalled that he plans to ask the Supreme Court for an extension to their decision to strike the existing laws down, but that too poses its own challenges. The federal government had initially asked the Court for eighteen months, and they gave them twelve, at which point the government sat on it for several months before creating what looked to be a stacked advisory committee to study the issue. That committee is also in the crosshairs, as advocacy groups say that it should be abolished because of its stacked nature. The chair of said committee said that its members’ former positions against assisted dying are no longer relevant because the Court has ruled and they now have to come up with a system that will work to protect the vulnerable while enabling those Canadians who wish to die with dignity to do so on their own terms. It certainly couldn’t hurt Trudeau to let them report and see what they have to say, and then choose to accept or disregard it at that time. The very fact that he’s now forming government should also be a signal that he expects this consultative process to be something other that the one the government engaged in around the prostitution question, in that he is not expecting them to give one response in particular but to have a more thoughtful result in the end. I guess we’ll see. Meanwhile, advocates of religious communities came out against assisted dying again, insisting instead on more resources for palliative care, as though they were mutually exclusive, never mind that the Supreme Court has also made a clear ruling. (And one would think that if they allowed people who wanted to die on their own terms rather to do so, it would free up those resources that were otherwise needlessly prolonging their suffering that could be applied to palliative care, but maybe I’m wrong on that one).

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/659187808322605056

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/658299297897824256

Continue reading →

Roundup: A potential TPP deal

Posted on by

While signs that the election could become an ugly question of identity politics continue to circulate, the impending announcement of some resolution or other in the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks could swing the election narrative yet again. While an announcement was supposed to have been made yesterday, it was held over until morning today, and we’ll see what becomes of it. Back in Canada, Harper has been talking up the deal, while Thomas Mulcair has taken to using the TPP as his new wedge. While trying to change the channel from the niqab issue, and his own rapidly softening poll numbers, Mulcair has become the born-again protectionist, declaring that Harper has no mandate to negotiate the deal (despite the fact that there is both precedent and it would still require parliamentary approval for enabling legislation), loudly decrying the impact on dairy farmers and auto parts manufacturers. The curious thing, however, is that two months ago he declared himself an enthusiastic supporter of the potential deal. The Liberals, meanwhile, are saying that they are supportive of free trade but won’t make any comments one way or the other about the TPP until they have more details – for which the NDP are castigating them for not taking a stand. Remember how at the Maclean’s debate, Mulcair was making a big deal about not wanting to take a stand on certain pipeline projects until he had a better environmental assessment? Suddenly waiting for more details is irresponsible. It gives me a headache.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ramping up the moral panics

Posted on by

With the end finally nearing in sight with this interminable election, and the logjam still present in the polls, this nasty undercurrent of identity politics has been creeping in. What started out with the niqab ban issue has been growing, all of it with seeds laid in the last parliament. That niqab ban challenge has been inflaming passions, but when Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi called out the xenophobia behind it, Jason Kenney retorted that the mayor “and people like him” are politicizing it. While people could take this as a racist jab, knowing Kenney it is more likely this dismissal of Nenshi as some bleeding-hearted liberal who is too politically correct for his own good. Or as Nenshi responded, “thoughtful people.” Elsewhere, Pierre Poilievre wouldn’t rule out the idea of banning face coverings in the public service period, which start to sound a lot like the PQ “Charter of Quebec Values” proposal. But it’s more than the niqab issue – it’s also this citizenship-stripping process that they’re pushing, and trying to deport people despite the fact that in at least one case, it’s involving a person who was born in Canada and has lived their whole life here – deporting him to Pakistan, where he has never lived or visited but only has a connection there though his parents – it’s a perverse and hugely unconstitutional measure. It’s also a big problem because it no longer becomes a question of dual citizenship, but rather the presumption that this person can get it with another country, so we would insist that they do and then deport them there. Not only does it not make any sense – if you really think that rehabilitation isn’t possible, why does dumping these terrorists into another country that doesn’t have our security services or monitoring regime for recent parolees, then you’re asking for them to join a terror group in that other country. To make it worse, Harper was musing openly on a radio show about extending this to other heinous crimes. But when you boil it all down, this is more security theatre – it looks like it’s keeping us safe, while it’s really just putting on a show and likely making things worse in the long run. But it’s just about looking tough, right? Damn the consequences.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/649729354918985729

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/649729812194570240

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/649730053836812288

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/649730543643455488

Continue reading →

Roundup: Two senators are not enough

Posted on by

After Thomas Mulcair indicated that he’d been approached by a couple of Senators who would be willing to help him pass his agenda, we now get a couple of names – Liberal Senator Larry Campbell, and Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth, though the latter isn’t talking about it (and personally I wonder why she would volunteer considering how shoddily she’s been treated by the NDP after she made that joke about camembert, and yes, it was a joke). But it’s not quite as cut-and-dried as Mulcair seemed to make it out to be. Campbell, in an interview with CBC, said he’d be willing to ensure that bills get due credit, but that’s not exactly putting oneself in the position of shepherding through an entire NDP agenda. I also have my doubts when Campbell says that the Senate doesn’t need a leader of the government and a leader of the opposition, largely because it clashes with our system of Responsible Government. The current framework allows for Senators to hold the government to account in the way that MPs can, by asking questions of a member of cabinet – nominally the leader of the government in the Senate, never mind the fact that Harper’s current leader is not in cabinet because he churlishly is trying to distance himself from the Senate. And one of the most underrated ways in which Senators perform this accountability is in the leader’s ability to take questions on notice and provide written responses. Losing this ability would be a blow to the Senate’s accountability function, which is a vital part of their role of Sober Second Thought. You need answers from government if you are to properly consider their legislative agenda, and losing that conduit is going to hamper that ability. Campbell and Senate Liberal whip Jim Munson also mused about making the Senate Speaker elected by the chamber, but I’m not sure how easily this can be accomplished considering that the Senate Speaker has duties beyond what the Commons Speaker does in terms of protocol and diplomatic duties, which is one of the reasons it’s a Governor-in-Council appointment. He or she is the “Queen’s man” (or woman as the case may be) for a reason, and there may be a lot of hoops to jump through in order to make that change. I’m not saying it’s not doable, but it may not be easily doable – particularly if you have an NDP prime minister who has no interest in doing anything for the Senate. Suffice to say, it’s not enough for Mulcair to use these couple of senators as an excuse to ignore his constitutional obligations.

Continue reading →