While Justin Trudeau was off at the United Nations General Assembly, and Andrew Scheer busy preparing for a 4 PM press conference, Alain Rayes led off, reading some kind words about the response to the tornado on the weekend, and asked for an update on the situation. Ralph Goodale gave his own statement of thanks and condolence, and said the federal government was assisting where they can. Rayes then turned to Bill Blair’s self-admitted mistaken statement on those asylum claimants that have left the country. Blair admitted to the confusion he created and again apologised. Rayes railed that no plan to resolve the border “crisis” has been issued, and this time Diane Lebouthillier was deployed to accuse the Conservatives of creating fear. Michelle Rempel took over, restated the first question in English, and Blair responded with some chiding about her use of “illegal border crossers.” Rempel reiterated her question, noting that he didn’t answer her which created more confusion, but Blair responded with a lecture on due process. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he hectored the government on the duty to consult Indigenous peoples on projects. Amarjeet Sohi responded with the trite lines about the importance of the relationship and assured him they were properly consulting. Caron insisted that they couldn’t be real consultations if they had already decided to “force” the expansion of Trans Mountain, and Sohi responded that Canadians expected them to get new markets for their resources. Rachel Blaney took over and repeated the questions in English, and she got the same response both times, insisting that they will offer accommodation is possible.
Tag Archives: Veterans
Roundup: Leniency for chronic offenders
There was an interesting piece about document security lapses within the federal government, which is something that speaks to me as someone who spent time doing records management within a federal department back during my early days in Ottawa as I was building up my freelance career (before I started on the Hill). The report cited 3075 lapses in the past year at Public Services and Procurement, with six employees being cited as chronic offenders.
During my time doing this kind of document work, there were a rash of news stories about secret documents being left unattended, or being thrown out and found on street corners, and much of it boils down to a culture within the public service of not caring about document security – in part because people aren’t trained to care about it. It was also because, in my department’s experience, every time they would train an admin assistant in document management, she would go on mat leave, then her replacement wouldn’t be trained to the same level, and she would go on mat leave or another assignment, and her replacement not trained, and on it went. So records went unattended, and people in the department stopped properly dealing with their records, including those who were supposed to be kept secret. And you’d see people in the Tim Horton’s downstairs from the office with Protected of Secret file folders on them, despite the fact that they weren’t supposed to leave the office area. And nobody seemed to care about that fact – all of which reinforced the notion that there isn’t a culture of responsibility around these kinds of things.
Which brings me back to the article. With those chronic offenders, they are being treated leniently, despite the fact that they are supposed to be subjected to tough sanctions, including demotion or termination. But as with so many things in the public service, where there are so few instances where there are consequences for transgressions, it seems to reinforce the notion that document security doesn’t need to be taken seriously, and then we get more security and privacy breaches. If there were actual consequences, that might start making an effort at reducing the number of breaches.
Roundup: Carbon backstop bolstered
News of the forthcoming report on the benefits of carbon taxes (and the associated rebates) to individual Canadians has been ricocheting through the Hill, from Liberals cheering on its results – found to be bulletproofed by the fact that they come from Stephen Harper’s former policy director – to Conservatives who are trying to insist that it’s really all a scam, and that these rebate cheques will never actually appear because they want to preserve the narrative that it’s all one big tax grab to pay for Trudeau’s “out of control” spending, and so on. But as economist Kevin Milligan points out, it’s going to be pretty tough for them to ignore
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1042973291089035264
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1042975960151121920
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1042978866136997888
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1042981192755081218
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1042987858552795136
It’s almost like the federal government had this in mind when they gave provinces the directive to design carbon pricing programmes that fit their local economies, with the federal backstop being in place if they chose not to. And has been pointed out, it’s going to be hard to run against the programme if people are getting cheques in the mail from the federal government.
QP: Competing moral indignation
In ten years of covering Parliament Hill, I have never seen a prime minister attend Question Period four days in a row in a single week, and yet here we are today. Andrew Scheer, however, was absent. Pierre Poilievre led off, and claimed that Trudeau was pretending to be tough in NAFTA talks while giving Trump cheap oil and letting him get away with lowering taxes and taking Canadian jobs. Trudeau responded with some pabulum that they have seen high growth and record low unemployment. Poilievre went another two rounds of the same, getting more intense in his rhetoric, and Trudeau responding with greater bombast in return. John Brassard was up next, decrying that convicted murderer getting veterans’ benefits while not serving, to which Trudeau gave soaring rhetoric about veterans’ families serving with them, but not commenting on that case. Brassard demanded that benefits be stripped, and Trudeau accused them of stooping low to play politics and refusing to answer further. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, decrying the millions spent by the Infrastructure Bank while not funding projects. Trudeau responded that they were investing in communities for the long-term, and accused the NDP of choosing the Conservative path of cuts to balance the budgets. Caron went a second round, and Trudeau reiterated the great things about infrastructure. Brigitte Sansoucy went for another round two rounds of the same question, got the same answer from Trudeau both times.
Curious that Poilievre is invoking Trump as the bogeyman today. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) September 20, 2018
QP: Supply Managed Pipelines
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.
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
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: Offering justifications for the indefensible
The attempts by conservatives, both provincial and federal, to justify the use of the Notwithstanding Clause is in full swing, and it’s a bit fascinating to watch the intellectual contortions that they will go through in order to justify a) the abuse of process for Bill 5 in the first place, b) the need to ram it through during the middle of the election itself in order to interfere, and c) why they need to go to the mat and use the nuclear option in order to help Ford enact petty revenge. One of Ford’s MPPs wrote up her legal analysis, which is more than Ford or his attorney general have bothered to do, but it still didn’t explain the need for haste when an appeal of the lower court decision would have been the proper way to go about disputing its reasoning. Ford’s MPPs would go on TV and throw around the word “elites” as though that justifies the nuclear option, which, again, doesn’t actually constitute a proper reason for employing said nuclear option. Andrew Scheer, meanwhile, is falling back on the technicality that Ford’s using the Clause is “within the law” because municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction, which is beside the point – the point being that Ford is violating the norms of our democratic system for his own personal ends, and not calling out that violation of norms is troubling.
Even more troubling was that during yesterday’s raucous Question Period in Queen’s Park, Ford stated that we don’t need the Charter because people elected him – all of which just continues his particular inability to discern between popular rule and democracy. Popular rule is justifying breaking rules and norms because you got elected – democracy is those rules and norms that keeps power in check. That he can’t grasp the difference should be alarming.
Our democracy is upheld by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Horwath responds. "Does the premier think there should be any checks at all on his power?" she asks. Ford responds the bill was introduced to end the gridlock at City Hall. He's not answering the question.
— Jessica Smith Cross (@jessiecatherine) September 12, 2018
The LeBlanc Report
The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner issued his report yesterday on whether Dominic LeBlanc violated ethics rules regarding the awarding of the Arctic surf clam fishery to a company that was headed (on an interim basis) by his wife’s cousin – the context is that he’s one of sixty first cousins, and his relationship with LeBlanc is at best described as an acquaintance. Reading through the report, it hinges upon the Commissioner reading the definition of family much more expansively than it is interpreted elsewhere in the very same regime, which is how LeBlanc interpreted it. LeBlanc took responsibility, vowed to do better in the future, but that hasn’t stopped the opposition from taking the usual route of wailing and gnashing of teeth to decry just how unethical this government is.
In the demonstrable instances, however, the ethics violations have been pretty small ball (i.e. Bill Morneau not properly reporting the ownership structure of the French villa he disclosed), or legitimate differences of opinion on relationships (whether the Aga Khan was a family friend in Trudeau’s case, or the closeness of the relationship between LeBlanc and his wife’s cousin in this case). These are not instances of influence being peddled, people being unjustly enriched (and I know people will quibble about the Bell Island vacation, but the Aga Khan is not some tycoon looking to increase his corporate holdings by way of government connections), so perhaps a bit of perspective is warranted. Should Trudeau and LeBlanc have cleared things with the Commissioner beforehand? Absolutely. But this performative outrage we’re seeing will only get you so far, and railing that there have been no consequences beyond naming-and-shaming means little considering that it was the Conservatives and NDP who designed this ethics regime back in 2006, and they could have designed a more robust system them – or at any point that it’s come up for statutory review – and they haven’t.
Among the many amendments the Act needs is a clearer definition of relative by affinity. Does it cover second cousins? Uncles by marriage twice removed? I’d suggest beyond immediate family, the (already unclear) friendship test should apply.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) September 12, 2018