After a morning of caucus meetings, the benches were full in the Commons as everyone was ready for the first photo-PMQs of the fall. Andrew Scheer led off in French, mini-lectern on desk, and he read about the “failure” of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Trudeau responded with the tired trope of the environment and the economy going together, before saying they would consult Indigenous people again, and that the Conservatives only wanted to minimize environmental protection. Scheer reiterated the question in English, got the same response, and Scheer then insisted that their government got four pipelines built and accused the government of trying to phase out the oil sector. Trudeau responded with his talking points about economic growth rates. Scheer railed about the $4.5 billion sent to Texas investors, while Trudeau said that the Conservatives must be content to see the project fail because it his government hadn’t bought it, the project would be dead in the water. Scheer ditched his script for the final quote is on, and demanded the prime minister scrap the environmental assessment bill. Trudeau retorted that the Conservatives didn’t have any plans to do anything they demanded. Guy Caron led off for the NDP and railed about Supply Management, and Trudeau repeated his talking points about supporting the system. Caron tried again, got the same answer, and then Ruth Ellen Brosseau took a turn, and she too got the same response. Alaistair MacGregor repeated the question yet again in English, with a Vancouver Island spin, and wouldn’t you know it, he too got the same response from Trudeau, before he repeated his new quip that the Conservatives will sign any deal no matter how bad.
Tag Archives: Trade
Roundup: All about Alleslev
As the fallout from Leona Alleslev’s defection to the Conservatives continues, the comments from her former colleagues have remarkably tended not to be bitter or angry, but more bewilderment as she didn’t express any concerns to them beforehand, though there was understandably some shock from her riding association. That’s a bit shocking considering the pure vitriol that we’ve heard from Conservatives when they had defections in the past (particularly when women defected, if you recall the misogyny lobbed at Belinda Stronach after her floor-crossing). Of course, that also hasn’t stopped the Liberals from leaking effusive emails of praise that Alleslev sent them, and speeches she gave that completely contradict everything that she told the Commons on Monday when she made the decision. I remain struck by this insistence that the current government isn’t offering the “foundational change” she claims to be looking for, yet is aligning herself with a party whose recent policy convention was pretty much dominated with resolutions to simply turn back the clock to the Harper era, which was apparently a golden age. If she wanted “foundational change” from that, I’m not sure that going back to reinforce it is what she’s looking for.
Meanwhile, here’s a look at some of the history of floor-crossings in Canada, and the trends for when it goes well for those MPs, and when it all goes down in flames.
Bernier blindsided
Maxime Bernier’s team is finding it hard to keep up with online groups pretending to act on his behalf but have no actual associations with him, and which are posting offensive material and items that he says are contrary to his positions. I have two things to say about this: 1) It’s hard to believe that his team are such rank amateurs that they didn’t secure these domain names in the first place, which bodes ill for the kind of logistical knowledge they would need to run a national campaign; and 2) Bernier has brought much of this on himself. By winking to white nationalists, and by not even dog-whistling, but rather playing these tunes with a tuba, he’s invited the very xenophobes that he claims aren’t welcome in his party (as he keeps playing their tunes on his tuba while staring wide-eyed as they keep flocking, like he’s the Pied Piper of racists). This credulous, naïve act he’s putting on is getting a bit tiresome. If he doesn’t understand how his message plays out, that’s another strike against him being ready for the prime time of leading a credible political party.
Please note: I’ll be hosting a live chat today at 7 PM Eastern for $10 subscribers to my Patreon, to answer your questions about the return of Parliament. Subscribers have access to exclusive content not available elsewhere.
QP: Not misleading, just misinformed
On a cooler and less humid day in the nation’s capital, things proceeded apace in the House of Commons, and there was far less drama to start off the day. Andrew Scheer led off, mini lectern on desk, demanding to know why the counter-tariffs the government collected haven’t been funnelled directly to business that have been affected by the US tariffs. Justin Trudeau responded that the government was supporting affected industries, but also things like innovation. Scheer then started on his “failure” talking points with regards to the Trans Mountain pipeline, to which Trudeau shot back about the ten years of failure from the previous government, particularly around respecting First Nations. Scheer switched to English to ask again, and Trudeau insisted that growing the economy and respecting both the environment and Indigenous communities went hand in hand. Scheer railed about pipelines line Energy East not getting built, and Trudeau stepped up his rhetoric about not respecting First Nations. Scheer then spun a bunch of nonsense about carbon taxes, and Trudeau didn’t correct Scheer’s mischaracterisation, but responded with some platitudes about paying for pollution. Guy Caron was up next to lead for the NDP, and concern trolled about the effect on Supply Management with TPP, to which Trudeau insisted they were keeping the system intact. After another round of the same, Tracey Ramsey repeated the questions in English, and got much the same response from Trudeau, who added that they got better a better deal than the Conservatives did. On another round of the same, Trudeau insisted that the NDP didn’t want any trade deals, and the Conservatives would sign anything, but he would only sign a good deal, and that included NAFTA.
Scheer trying to insist that Energy East would displace Saudi oil. It wouldn’t. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) September 18, 2018
Now Scheer is mischaracterising the large emitter regulations.
Trudeau doesn’t correct, responds with pabulum. #QP— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) September 18, 2018
Roundup: A melodramatic floor crossing
So there was a bit of drama in the House of Commons yesterday as Liberal MP Leona Alleslev gave a speech that served as her rebuke to her own party and her signal that she was crossing the floor to the Conservatives. It’s unusual that this was done on the floor of the Commons as opposed to the usual manner of a surprise press conference where the leader comes out with his or her new MP, and they give a repudiation of the deserted party along the way. And while Alleslev told Power & Politics that she hadn’t made her mind up until the last minute, when she was giving the speech, she had reached out to Andrew Scheer in August and had conversations with him then. But considering that Scheer had already called a press conference for just before QP far earlier in the morning (after Candice Bergen already gave a press conference on the party’s plans of the fall), I’m calling bullshit on that explanation.
Moments ago: Toronto-area MP Leona Alleslev tells House she's quitting the Liberals and crossing the floor to the Conservatives:
"My attempts to raise my concerns with this government were met with silence. It's my duty to stand and be counted. Our country is at risk." #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/Ni2YzM2k2Y
— CPAC (@CPAC_TV) September 17, 2018
While I will defend the rights of floor crossers with my dying breath (and I have a column to that effect coming out later today), there’s something else in Alleslev’s speech that sticks in my craw:
“The government must be challenged openly and publicly. But for me to publicly criticize the government as a Liberal, would undermine the government and, according to my code of conduct, be dishonourable.”
This is ridiculous and wrong. Plenty of Liberal MPs have openly criticized the government. Some have faced minor punishments for it, others not, but I have yet to hear anyone saying that Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, for example, undermined the government. It’s the role of backbenchers to hold government to account, just as much as it is the opposition – they’re not supposed to be cheerleaders (which is especially why it’s frustrating that they treat their QP questions as suck-up opportunities, with the exception of Bill Casey). Government backbenchers get the added ability to have no-holds barred discussions behind the caucus room door with the PM and cabinet, which can be even more effective than opposition questions under the right circumstances. And her former caucus members have expressed some disbelief in her excuse that she’s said that – particularly that there were no warning signs (and I’ve heard this from numerous MPs).
From this afternoon: Wpg MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette — whom no one could accuse of always touting the govt line — was borderline furious at floor-crossing Ont MP Leona Alleslev, who claimed she couldn’t raise constituency issues in caucus. pic.twitter.com/rYLa2LvpAb
— Dylan Robertson (@withfilesfrom) September 17, 2018
I’m also a bit dubious with the reasons she’s given for why she’s decided to cross the floor, particularly because she recited a bunch of Conservative talking points that don’t have any basis in reality, such as the apparent weakness of the economy (seriously, the gods damned Bank of Canada says our economy is running near capacity and unemployment is at a 40-year low), and her concern about military procurement (she does remember the Conservative record, right?). Never mind the fact that she’s suddenly reversing positions she publicly held just weeks ago, as people digging up her Twitter history are demonstrating.
Veeery interesting op-ed from @LeonaAlleslev on the government's military and economic failures… from 2015 https://t.co/ddPVOW93DN pic.twitter.com/z0L5ycA1G1
— Robyn Urback (@RobynUrback) September 17, 2018
On carbon pricing/environmental plan and asylum seekers @LeonaAlleslev might be at odds with her new party. Here are some of her past interventions in the House: pic.twitter.com/n6yc77465F
— Althia Raj (@althiaraj) September 17, 2018
There is also a question of opportunism here, not only for what she thinks she may get by switching her allegiance to Scheer, but she may have read the tea leaves from the provincial election and gotten spooked. Whatever the reason, she made her choice as she has the agency to do, and her constituents will get to hold her to account for it, which is the beauty of our system.
Some recent election results in Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill that might be of some relevance. pic.twitter.com/g2LK9PPMjO
— David Reevely (@davidreevely) September 17, 2018
Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt wonders if Alleslev’s defection means that Trudeau isn’t keeping pace with the rapid change of pace in politics (though I disagree with her on the calculations around prorogation).
QP: The “failure” drinking game
Almost immediately after the dramatic floor-crossing by MP Leona Alleslev from the Liberals to the Conservatives, a smug press conference from Andrew Scheer, and the arrival of new Conservative MP Richard Martel, things settled in for the first QP of the fall sitting. Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he listed off the various “failures” of Justin Trudeau, getting breathier as he went along. Trudeau first welcomed the new batch of pages to the House before he listed the various successes of the government, including the $2000 more in the pockets of families. Scheer listed the “failures” in the energy sector, and Trudeau noted the ten years of failures by the previous government, and that they would get Trans Mountain built “in the right way.” Scheer tried again, and got slightly more pabulum from Trudeau on the need to get more markets for oil. Scheer then switched to the “crisis” of irregular border crossers, and Trudeau reminded him that while it was a challenge, they invested in necessary measures to ensure that rules are all followed. Scheer asked again in French, and got the same answer. Guy Caron led for the NDP, and he immediately launched into concerns about concessions around Supply Management, to which Trudeau assured him that they would get a good deal on NAFTA. Caron name-dropped Jagmeet Singh and worried about someone’s housing situation, and Trudeau reminded him that they have made investments in housing, and they were moving ahead with a $40 billion national housing strategy. Charlie Angus was up next, and offered some disappointment on behalf of the Kasheshewan First Nation. Trudeau mentioned the billions apportioned to Indigenous communities before picking up a paper to list the interim solution they have come to and that more developments were coming later in the week. Angus responded angrily, demanding immediate solutions, and Trudeau responded with the list of ways they are trying to work with Indigenous communities to solve these problems.
Scheer is mischaracterising Bill C-69 as a “ban on pipelines.” #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) September 17, 2018
Roundup: Asking the wrong questions about the rules
There was a piece on the CBC site this weekend that irked me, and I’m not sure it was just the problematic headline – why our ethic rules aren’t keeping politicians out of trouble. It’s a ridiculous construction on the face of it – you can have all the laws you want, and it won’t stop people from contravening them out of malice or ignorance. After all, the Criminal Code hasn’t eliminated crime, so why would an ethics regime miraculously end all ethics violations by public office holders?
While the piece quotes an academic who says that part of the problem is that the rules regime tells politicians how they can’t act, but not how they should act, so much of it is based on judgment calls, and not everyone has good judgment. But more to the point, in the two prominent situations that we’ve seen in recent months – the Trudeau report about his vacation with the Aga Khan, and the LeBlanc report about whether his wife’s cousin counted sufficiently as “family” under the definition of the Act, is that both of these situations were based on the judgement of the Ethics Commissioners rather than what was in the legislation. Mary Dawson took it upon herself to judge how someone defines their relationship with the Aga Khan (who is akin to the Pope of the Ismaili Muslim faith), while Mario Dion took what has been called an overly broad interpretation so that LeBlanc is forced to treat one of his wife’s sixty first cousins as close when all evidence points to them being mere acquaintances (and this after Dion has publicly come out to state that he wants to be seen as tough and not a lapdog). I’m not sure how any of these situations points to how the rules are stopping politicians from staying out of trouble when the trouble they’re in is based on a single person’s choice of how to interpret those rules, in some cases in defiance of common sense.
I would also caution that we need to be careful about setting a regime that is too constrictive, because it becomes either a means of either becoming one of constant investigation for political score-settling, or a system where we have yet another Officer of Parliament who becomes the embodiment of “Mother, May I?” and we don’t let politicians exercise any judgment that we can hold them accountable for – and we can’t hold these commissioners to account for their judgment, even when it can be found to be dubious. (Also note that we also made the requirements for who can be Commissioner to be so restrictive that anyone qualified wouldn’t want the job, which is another problem in and of itself). The amount of energy we put into the penny ante “scandals” in Canadian politics, which are piddling in comparison to the kinds of gross violations that happen regularly in the US, or that did happen in the UK (moat cleaning, anyone?) makes you wonder about our preoccupations. Which isn’t to say that we should ignore them, but let’s treat them with the gravity that they deserve, and I’m not sure that any of the “scandals” we’ve seen in this parliament are worth the energy we’ve expended on lighting our hair on fire about them.
Roundup: The people’s vanity project
Yesterday, Maxime Bernier confirmed his party will be called the “People’s Party of Canada,” just like so many communist parties in the world. Oops. And like those other “People’s Parties,” he won’t hold a contested leadership race, and he’ll get the final say on policies, so that’s off to a great start. Even better was the fact that his logo is simply a repurposing of an old Reform Party logo, and the policy page is a word-for-word copy of the Libertarian Party’s policy (which people also insist was a copy of Bernier’s leadership race policies), so that’s a great start. And during his press conference, he already started with the policy musings that apparently originated from the Internet’s darker recesses. So there’s that.
Bernier says he wants fewer refugees and Canada to accept fewer immigrants through the family reunification stream. Not clear how the first is possible, and I wonder how popular the second would be.
— Alex Boutilier (@alexboutilier) September 14, 2018
Bernier continues to talk about Canadian values. When asked what that means, he says respecting laws and diversity, and uses example of immigrants who think gay people should be killed. Says they shouldn't be welcome.
— Cormac Mac Sweeney (@cmaconthehill) September 14, 2018
And aside from the trite attempt to use gay rights as a cover for bashing Muslims, Bernier has a glimmer of awareness that he’s going to be branded with the xenophobes he’s riling up, and he insists that anti-Semites and xenophobes will be kicked out of the party, while at the same time as he’s still using not-even-thinly-veiled xenophobia to try and create a wedge between his nascent party and the Liberals. But while he hopes to make immigration and refugees (and yes, there is a difference) between them as a wedge, he’s already getting warnings that he’s going to have to be very careful to keep the racists out (not to mention the alt-right, the MRAs, and whichever other dog-whistles he happens to be blasting at the time).
Meanwhile, John Geddes deciphers Bernier’s messaging and what he’s offering based on it, while Andrew Coyne reminds all of those who insist this will simply split the Conservative vote that yes, there is actually room in the Canadian political spectrum for such a “worthy experiment,” assuming that Bernier were capable enough to pull it off (and Coyne, like the rest of us, has his doubts). And Paul Wells delivers an epic takedown of Bernier’s potential voters.
.@inklessPW take on @MaximeBernier political base. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/mstd6dcBtx
— Power & Politics (@PnPCBC) September 14, 2018
Roundup: Stop saying disallowance
As the drama over Doug Ford using the Notwithstanding Clause to ram through his petty vengeance on Toronto City Hall drags on, we saw new levels of stupid demands yesterday, as Toronto City Council voted on a motion yesterday to request the federal government use its constitutional disallowance powers on the bill and kill it. But that’s never going to happen. Likewise with people writing the Lieutenant Governor to demand that she not sign the bill. That’s never going to happen. As this piece explains, disallowance is a dead letter because it would create a constitutional crisis over federalism, just like a Lieutenant Governor disallowing a bill from a government that has the confidence of the legislature would also be a constitutional crisis. And Trudeau has stated repeatedly that he’s not going to get involved – sure, his Toronto MPs can write a letter to Queen’s Park to express their concern, but this isn’t his fight, and he knows full well that getting involved would create a shitstorm the likes we haven’t seen in this country in decades. So no, Ontario – you get to lay in the bed you made.
More concerning, however, is the fact that Power & Politics brought on a bunch of former premiers who all gave Ford a pass on using the Notwithstanding Clause, and each of them going after the courts in one way or another – Christy Clark in particular making it sound like she would rather a government run roughshod over the rights of minorities rather than let courts protect them at the expense of project approvals (thinking specifically of Trans Mountain). And most alarming was the fact that there was no pushback against any of this, which you’d think would be important to have. Apparently not.
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1040427270945464321
Meanwhile, Supriya Dwivedi writes a stunning takedown of Ford’s many hypocrisies on this issue, and the fact that there is far too much silence over his attack on the fundamental democratic notion of judicial review. As well, the former Executive Legal Officer of the Supreme Court of Canada has some interesting analysis about how Ford’s move could violate international law.
Roundup: Self-inflicted leadership wounds
There was a fairly damning piece out about the state of the NDP yesterday, as they began their caucus retreat in Surrey, BC, and how the party basically put itself on hold for two years after they turfed Thomas Mulcair but left him in place for two years while they engaged in an overly long leadership process, only to let their fundraising collapse and their outreach stagnate. I do have vague recollections about how they were totally going to use the two-year!leadership contest to totally re-energise the party, and it would totally bring in all kinds of new fundraising and members, and so on. Turns out, none of that happened, Mulcair being left in place slowly poisoned the well, and at the end, they wound up with a leader without a seat, and who has been largely absent both from Ottawa and the national stage (leaving another defeated leadership candidate in his place in Ottawa). I’m hoping that the entire Canadian political scene takes this as an object lesson that the way we’re running leadership contests is very bad, and that we need to get back to the sensible and accountable caucus selection (and removal) of leaders. The pessimist in me, however, sees this very likely reality that they won’t take the lesson, and we’ll continue stumbling along.
Also in NDP news is the damage control about the Erin Weir debacle, and they’re getting out activists and pet columnists to come to their defence and to insist that Weir is the worst person imaginable, ignoring that he took to the media to defend himself after a campaign of leaks started against him as part of the Mean Girling around him, and they’ve offered nothing to substantiate that he is a harasser in any meaningful sense of the word. Jagmeet Singh even proclaimed that he wouldn’t be intimidated by “elites” from the party’s own grassroots – their own current and former MPs and MPPs in Saskatchewan – into changing his mind. It’s actuall a bit stunning.
Notwithstanding
Because this is still Very Big News, there is talk coming out of PC circles in Ontario that Doug Ford is willing to use the nuclear option to show that he’s tough against the courts where Trudeau isn’t, and then uses the false notion that the Notwithstanding Clause could have been used on the Trans Mountain ruling – which it couldn’t, because the Clause only applies to certain sections of the Charter, for which Section 35 is not a part of. But since when to facts matter when you’re pursuing a private grievance in a big, public way? Worse was the fact that people were trying to get Ford to bring up the fact that Justice Belobaba refused to freeze Omar Khadr’s $10 million settlement and turn it over to the widow of his putative victim. Justin Trudeau, meanwhile, continues to say that this is a political issue for Ontarians to deal with, not for him to swoop in and do something about, and he’s right.
Meanwhile, here’s Paul Wells snarkily congratulating Ford’s government for embracing the extremism it too Stephen Harper a decade to find and for making the Notwithstanding Clause easier for any other government to use in a fit of their own pique. Law professor Vanessa MacDonnell thinks that Ford should clearly articulate why he is invoking the Notwithstanding Clause, while Susan Delacourt wonders why Trudeau left it up to Brian Mulroney to forcefully denounce the invocation.
Roundup: Notwithstanding Ford
It was a crazy day in the state of constitutional law yesterday, as an Ontario judge struck down Doug Ford’s bill to reduce the size of Toronto city council on some rather dubious grounds, and Doug Ford responded by insisting that he would invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to ensure it passed anyway, no matter that the issue by which he’s going to use the seldom-used provision on is of dubious merit, and has all of the appearances of enacting a political grudge (while all of the “reasonable” members of his Cabinet who were supposed to keep his worst impulses in check cheer him on). It’s a full-blown tire fire.
For starters, here’s a bit of context about just what the Notwithstanding Clause actually is, and some history of its use. But what is perhaps more alarming are the number of voices who are calling on the federal government to invoke the defunct constitutional provisions around disallowance as a way of thwarting Ford – and some of that has been fuelled by Toronto mayor John Tory meeting with prime minister Justin Trudeau last night. I can pretty much guarantee you that Trudeau, however, won’t touch the disallowance powers with a bargepole, because a) the powers are defunct for a reason (in that the issues that disallowance was used on are better dealt with through the courts), and b) it would stir up such a shitstorm of epic proportions that it would be difficult to contain the political damage, and I’m not sure that Trudeau is willing to expend that much political capital for something that is really not his political ambit, and he’s likely to win most of Toronto’s seats again regardless. But if you also look at the message that Trudeau’s minister of intergovernmental affairs, Dominic LeBlanc sent out, the not unsubtle language in there is that this is a fight for the political arena, and Ontario voters will have to deal with the mess that they created, which is pretty much how it should be. It’s not going to be easy if we’re having these kinds of issues three months in, but people shouldn’t expect another order of government to swoop in and save them. That’s not how democracy works.
Meanwhile, Emmett Macfarlane walks through what’s constitutionally dubious about the court ruling, while Andrew Coyne invokes some high dudgeon about use of the Notwithstanding Clause and Ford’s thuggish populist tactics. Chris Selley reminds us that so much of this episode is because Ford is all about chaos, and he brings more of it with these tactics. Susan Delacourt, rather chillingly, wonders which will be the next premier to decide that the Charter is inconvenient for their populist proposals. And University of Ottawa vice-dean of law Carissima Mathen both writes about why Ford’s comments are so offensive to our system of laws and governance, plus offers some more context about the Notwithstanding Clause in this video segment that you should watch.