Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: Expat voting just fine as is

Posted on by

Democratic institutions minister Maryam Monsef is saying that she plans to table new legislation around expat voting by the end of the year, and I’m going to come right out and say that while I know it’s not really popular to say so, I’m actually not sure that a five-year time limit for expats is so bad, because of the way that our voting system operates. To be more specific, our electoral system depends on your voting in one of 338 ridings to elect a local representative. You’ve not voting for the party banner or the party leader – you’re voting for the representative, regardless of what your particular electoral calculation is when you’re in the voting booth. And as an expat who has been out of the country – and in particular that riding – for more than five years, does it really make sense for you to continue to cast a ballot in said riding if you don’t actually live there?

And this is the part where people start shouting about their right to vote, which is all well and good, but again I go back to the central premise – how can you vote for a representative in a riding if you don’t live there, and almost certainly don’t know who is actually on the ballot? And don’t tell me that it doesn’t matter, that the majority of people vote based on the party or the leader, because it actually does matter. Our system is constructed in a way that ensures maximum accountability (and that accountability is currently wounded by the rules around party leadership selection, but that’s another story for another day), and that means accountability for the MP who was selected in that riding election for that seat (and yes, each riding is a separate election), and later in the House of Commons, when the government is responsible to the whole of the Chamber to maintain confidence to continue governing. And this is where expat voting gets complicated. How can someone who doesn’t live in the riding know what is going on, and whether the MP is doing a good job or not? Sure, a few expats maintain close enough ties, but I would venture that the vast majority don’t, and that the vast majority are looking to cast a special ballot based solely on party or leader preference, but that’s not how the system works, and yes, that’s important because democracy is process. The vote has to have a proper meaning, and that meaning is for the individual MP to fill the individual seat. This is not the United States where people ostensibly cast a direct ballot for the presidency (which again is complicated by their electoral college), but that makes a special ballot for expats a simpler affair. (They also impose taxes on expats, which Canada doesn’t). What about the voter rolls, where expats would ostensibly be listed at an address where they no longer live? How does that actually work in practical terms without creating yet more headaches for Elections Canada? Unless Maryam Monsef can thread the needle to demonstrate how expats can still vote within our current system in an effective manner which means voting for a candidate in a riding, I’m having a hard time seeing how dropping the five-year rule is either beneficial, practical, or even responsible. (And yes, I’m sure that I’m a monster for thinking so).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A badly needed review

Posted on by

The Criminal Code is a mess. The government knows it, and the judicial system knows it, but the question is whether anyone has the guts to do anything about it – particularly because it’s been a particularly easy target to do one-off laws without worrying about the broader consequences. The number of private members’ bills dealing with singular tweaks to the Criminal Code are innumerable, because it’s seen as something that individual MPs can use to take a stand on some issue or another while at the same time considering it to be something that won’t impose a cost on the government as no dedicated spending must be attached to it that would otherwise require a Royal Recommendation. (This is wrong – there are tremendous costs attached to it, but it’s a loophole in the rules that there is no appetite to plug either). And when governments want to increase sentencing to look tough on an issue, they pass new laws to “crack down,” to the point where there is no semblance of a logical sentencing grid any longer. I remember sitting in on a Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee meeting during the Harper years when they were passing another marijuana bill and the Liberal senators were expressing frustration that things were such a mess that these new pot offences were giving more jail time than some child sex offences.

The government’s recent move to repeal some archaic laws around gay sex (including an unequal age of consent) is an example of one place where the government is doing something about a “zombie law” – one that has been struck down by the courts, but remains on the books because Parliament has yet to take the time to actually repeal it. (This was another case were the Conservatives outright refused to when given the opportunity when they were raising the age of consent for hetero teens). But there are plenty of zombie laws still sitting on the books and nothing is being done about them. The CBC has a look here at some of those laws, and expert urging to deal with them – particularly given that murder trial in Edmonton where the judge accidentally handed down a verdict that was predicated on a “zombie” law and he had to go back and give a lesser verdict after the fact to correct the mistake. Clearly this is a problem, but the government isn’t promising much action beyond vague assurances that these sorts of things will be part of their broader criminal justice review – the same review that will be looking at doing away with a number of mandatory minimum sentences. But this is something that they really do need to get cracking on, not only dealing with “zombie” laws, but also sentencing reform so that there is a coherent sentencing grid once again. Part of the problem, however, is that the justice minister and her office are moving at a glacial pace. Everything they’ve been doing, from judicial appointments to moving on certain bills, is taking far longer than it reasonably should, and that’s concerning especially when this criminal justice review is so badly needed. Let’s hope we hear more about it sooner rather than later.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The pull of status quo

Posted on by

The wailing and gnashing of teeth of the electoral reform crowd is about to get worse, as they will soon convince themselves that the government is out to kill their dreams of a new electoral system. Why? Because after the committee demanded that minister Maryam Monsef give them a report of the electoral reform consultations she’s received, she’s told them that those consultations are showing fairly strong support for the status quo, and that there is no consensus on what kind of electoral reform that people prefer. Add to that, there is apparently a strong preference for the local representation connection in their various values questions, which goes toward supporting the status quo argument. I’m fairly thrilled to hear about so much support for team status quo and hope that this bolsters the case to abandon this whole foolhardy process, but I fear we’re still a little ways away from that as of yet.

Meanwhile, our friends at Fair Vote Canada are baying at the moon that the new survey the government plans to open to Canadians is biased toward the status quo based on sample questions they found on the testing site. Except of course that those aren’t the actual final questions on the survey, and the questions were generated by the company for testing purposes rather than the government for their actual survey, so no dice (yet) on that particular conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, killing this whole electoral reform headache can’t come fast enough, nor can the justifications based on the “values” quizzes by the government. Then maybe we can focus on the real problems, like civic literacy and engagement, rather than trumpeting solutions in search of problems.

Continue reading →

QP: Trudeau “on bended knee”

Posted on by

With the Prime Minister off in Argentina, neither Rona Ambrose nor Thomas Mulcair bothered to show up for QP either today, leaving Elizabeth May the only leader in the Commons – and she’d already used up her question for the week. Denis Lebel led off, lamenting the lack of create jobs and accused the government of “showing their cards” when it comes to talking about NAFTA — err, except that they haven’t actually said anything other than they are willing to come to the table. Navdeep Bains rose to reply that there are nine million American jobs tied to trade with Canada, and that they are looking out for Canada’s interests. Lebel repeated the exact same question in English, and Bains expanded on the size of the trading relationship between Canada and the US. Lebel moved onto the softwood lumber agreement, and Bains assured him that they were working hard on the deal. Candice Bergen picked up and railed about how naive the PM was for “waving the white flag” on NAFTA (again, not sure how exactly he did that), and Bains kept up his reassurances that they wanted to protect Canadian jobs under the agreement. Bergen then demanded that the government press for TPP to move ahead at the APEC summit in Peru, and Bains gave a dig about how the Conservatives negotiated TPP in secret while the Liberals were being transparent about it. Nathan Cullen led off for the NDP, accusing the government of “decision-based evidence-making” when it comes to electoral reform, and Maryam Monsef said that she was eagerly awaiting the committee report. Cullen claimed that the new survey the government was planning to roll out was to dissuade people from proportional representation, but Monsef insisted that they just wanted to hear from more people. Alexandre Boulerice asked the same again, only angrier and in French, but Monsef kept her happy talking points about being committed to the file and that she was waiting for the committee report.

Continue reading →

QP: Questions about NAFTA

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was off in Cuba, and after Rona Ambrose walked in her party’s newest MP, Glen Motz, she led off Question Period by wondering why the government would be so quick to be willing to renegotiate NAFTA. Navdeep Bains responded, talking about how they were looking to protect and advance Canada’s interests. Ambrose then moved onto the Infrastructure Bank, and wondered who would be backstopping overages, and Marc Garneau got up to praise how great infrastructure spending was, but didn’t really answer the question. Ambrose then moved onto Keystone XL and lamented that the PM was “silent” and misled energy workers. Jim Carr stood up to reassure her that they still supported it and the approvals were still in place, but the company themselves had to reapply to the US. Ambrose switched to French to return to the NAFTA question, and Bains repeated his earlier answer in English. Ambrose then pivoted again to UNRWA funding, accusing the government of using those funds to put Israeli citizens at risk. Marie-Claude Bibeau said that they were ensuring that there were robust controls, but they preferred Palestinian children in schools than on the streets.  Thomas Mulcair lamented instances of surveillance of journalists and demanded a full national public inquiry. Ralph Goodale insisted there were no ongoing operations, and they welcomed input from journalists and lawyers on improving the law. Mulcair switched in French to demand concrete steps to protect freedom of the press. Goodale insisted that there was no argument, that they had appropriate safeguards and were open to input on improving the law. Mulcair then switched to the issue of softwood lumber as part of trade deals, and Bains assured him that they were looking to protect Canadian interests. Mulcair switched to English to press the issue, and Bains insisted that they were looking for Canadian jobs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A blistering condemnation of Peter Harder

Posted on by

I’ve long held suspicions about the work that Senator Peter Harder, the “government representative” in the Senate, has been doing, and I will say that I was completely alarmed by some of the things brought to light by Liberal Senator James Cowan yesterday in his speech about Senate modernization. It’s a blistering speech, and I suggest you take the 25 minutes to listen to it all, but some highlights: Harder is engaging in revisionist history to claim that the Senate was never meant to be partisan (which is false), and he is trying to do away with the roles of government and opposition (which are integral to the Westminster system) in order to create a bureaucratic-like structure. In a chamber full of independents, there will be fewer checks on the government, and Harder will amass power by acting like the leader of the Senate as a whole, further weakening the chamber’s role as a check on the power of the executive. Harder has gone so far as to start offering to set up meetings with senators and the premiers of the provinces they represent – meeting he would be present at – which is completely improper and something a government representative should have no role in doing. It’s disturbing to listen to how his plans to reorganise the Chamber would take shape, and Cowan’s speech is blistering in its condemnation.

Continue reading →

QP: The coming Trumpocalypse

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau and much of the cabinet off at an investor summit in Toronto, the front bench was full of seat warmers, but there were still 17 ministers present, which is okay for a Monday. Rona Ambrose led off, warning that the new Trump era will mean a carbon tax sets Canada up for failure. Dominic LeBlanc responded, saying they were looking to transition to a low-carbon future, and that the government looked forward to working with the new administration. Ambrose warned that while the Americans are our closest allies, they’re also our biggest competitors. LeBlanc noted the COP22 conference taking place right now, and that pricing pollution was good for our economy. Ambrose wondered about the future of the Keystone XL pipeline, at which LeBlanc said that it was the company that needed to reapply for a US permit, not the Canadian government. Ambrose demanded public support for the pipeline,  but LeBlanc stuck to fairly anodyne talking points about working with the incoming administration. Ambrose then moved onto NAFTA and the uncertainty the PM created by saying he would renegotiate it. Stéphane Dion said they looked forward to working with the US administration on a number of issues, including trade. While Thomas Mulcair was present, it was actually Jenny Kwan who led off for the NDP, demanding that mothers not be punished with CPP benefits changes. Jean-Yves Duclos said that the CPP changes were important, and that he was glad to see that they had other points of view to further improve the CPP. Brigitte Sansoucy asked the same in French, got the same answer, before Tracey Ramsay asked about the TPP, softwood lumber, and NAFTA renegotiation. Dion said that they were still consulting on the TPP, and when Karine Trudel asked the same in French, she got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The ricochet into Canada

Posted on by

I had idly wondered how long the Trump victory in the United States would take to start showing ricochets in Canada, and apparently it was minutes, as in the middle of the night, Kellie Leitch’s campaign was already putting out fundraising emails drawing comparisons, particularly around their mutual bashing of “elites.” Because Leitch, you see, apparently isn’t an elite, never mind the fact that she’s a paediatric orthopaedic surgeon in Muskoka, a university professor, and former cabinet minister whose was the protégé of the finance minister. No sir, nothing elite about that, because she had to compete with the “biggest old boys’ club” out there, being surgeons, so there. Um, okay. (Incidentally, Leitch previously didn’t want to be compared to Trump, which she kept vacillating over during last night’s leadership debate). And that elite-bashing was quickly picked up by bother other leadership candidates, and others in the party like Tony Clement (who apparently also doesn’t think he’s an elite, despite all evidence to the contrary).

Michael Chong, however, rejected Leitch’s move as being antithetical to the “big tent” Conservative movement that the party is trying to become. Chris Alexander also sounded a cautious note, for what it’s worth, but Lisa Raitt’s tone is less decisive.

https://twitter.com/michaelchongmp/status/796428123768324100

Michelle Rempel, however, seems cognisant enough about the trap of demagoguery when it comes to dealing with difficult issues and cautions against importing that ethos to Canada. Rempel also relayed some of her experiences of what she saw during her recent visit to the States, and the alarming levels of discontent among the populace.

Meanwhile, here’s Justin Trudeau’s statement on working together with a Trump presidency. Thomas Mulcair, on the other hand, wants Trudeau to call out Trump. And over in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn is taking on that message of public anger about the “governing elite” and trying to make hay of it, so no, this kind of rhetoric is not endemic to the right.

In terms of fallout, we hear from prominent Canadian women like Kim Campbell, Elizabeth May and Michelle Rempel. Shannon Proudfoot writes about how brutally appropriate the end of the campaign ended up being. Bob Fife notes how the Trudeau PMO has had to scramble to adjust to this new reality. Robyn Urback looks at how the Democrats bungled the election, while the Guardian features a column about how liberals helped Trump’s victory. Anne Kingston writes about Trump winning his war against the media. Paul Wells writes about next steps for Trudeau, while Chantal Hébert wonders how much of Trudeau’s agenda is affected by this change, particularly in areas like climate change, or foreign policy (per John Geddes). Both Paul McLeod and Susan Delacourt saw similarities in the way Trump and Trudeau ran their campaigns. Here’s a look at how pundits and pollsters got things wrong, and Andrew Coyne writes a particularly poignant piece about how Trump’s ability to throw out the rules has vindicated some of the worst elements and impulses, and worries what this signals going forward.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about ordered repayments

Posted on by

Conservative-turned-independent Senator John Wallace is asking questions around the decision to withhold Senator Mike Duffy’s salary to repay inappropriate expenses that were uncovered as part of his court case, and in particular, whether the Internal Economy Committee’s three-member steering committee has been exceeding its authority in making decisions without the full committee signing off. The steering committee after all is supposed to be limited to some administrative matters, but in cases of “emergency,” they can do more. So was this an emergency? There is the argument that the decision was made over the summer when the full committee could not meet, and it was in accordance with rules laid out as part of the broader expenses issue and dispute resolution process, which Duffy did not avail himself of, his lawyer insisting that he was “fully exonerated” by the judge in his court case (which is not what the judge said, but rather that what he did simply didn’t meet the threshold of being criminal, and yes, there is a vast difference). With a case as high-profile as Duffy’s, the fact that inappropriate expenses have been flagged meant that the appearance of doing something about recovering those expenses was a very real consideration for the continued public legitimacy of the institution whose reputation has taken a beating, and letting Duffy get away with those inappropriate expenses would continue to damage the institution in the eyes of the public. But, that having been said, was this a decision that could or should have waited for the full committee to decide up on in the fall, and is this a case of procedural unfairness or worse, of a lack of any kind of due process, as has happened on more than one occasion as this whole expenses issue has reared its head? I’m not sure, but it does bear asking. I do think that something needed to be done to address the issue in a timely manner because the Senate has to rebuild its public image after senators like Duffy have done so much to muddy it, but whether what happened was right, well, that’s not a question I can answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, it’s not cash-for-access

Posted on by

This latest round of pearl-clutching over political fundraising is reaching its fever pitch in a most tiresome way possible, and I’m losing all patience with it. Determined to try and label it “cash-for-access” in order to tie the story in with the gross lack of fundraising rules that existed in Ontario, and the very dubious practices of the government there of having ministers essentially asking for donations from companies lobbying them, what’s going on at the federal level is nothing like that at all. However, bored journalists are drawing lines on between people who are attending or organizing fundraisers and lobbying activities, despite everything being reported and above board, are going “Look! Look! Smell test!” But I’m having a really, really hard time buying this. Likewise with opposition parties going “Sure, it’s in the rules, but Trudeau’s letters said that nobody should have the appearance of conflict of interest and this has the appearance!” No, it actually doesn’t. Just because you say it does, it doesn’t mean that there’s a problem.

I’m trying very hard not to come off as some kind of an apologist, but for the love of all the gods on Olympus, we have a really, really clean fundraising system with clear rules, and it shouldn’t bear repeating (and yet here we are) that you can’t buy influence for $1500. You just can’t. Sure, you might get to meet a minister, but what is that going to get you? You think they’re going to engineer a special loophole in the law for your company because you donated $1500 to their party – registered through Elections Canada, and the lobbying registry? Honestly? And it’s not like there aren’t a hundred other consultations that you could offer your suggestions to a minster or their staff with, because as we know, this government loves to consult. And further to that, are we actively trying to insist that no minister should ever fundraise because, well, “smell test” or “appearance.” Give me a break.

Meanwhile, we get inundated with everyone giving their “solution” to this, whether it’s returning the per-vote subsidy as Susan Delacourt suggests here, or if it’s Duff Conacher howling in the corner that we should adopt the Quebec donor limits of $100 (ignoring that limits that are too low means that money starts getting funnelled in other ways). But maybe, just maybe, we should all take a deep breath and realise that the more we get hysterical about this perfectly above-board fundraising in a clean and quite transparent system, it’s that we’re turning it into some zero-sum game. If we keep inventing scandal, shouting “smell test!” and “appearance!” when no, a reasonable and rational look at the situation shows that there isn’t actually a problem, we’re going to wind up giving excuses for parties to start hiding these activities. To paraphrase Rick Anderson on last night’s Power & Politics, there’s only a perception problem around this fundraising because people are throwing mud. It’s time to stop throwing mud and be grown-ups about it. This isn’t cash-for-access. $1500 is not buying influence. Stop lighting your hair on fire.

https://twitter.com/jec79/status/791117661476388866

Continue reading →