Roundup: Four new workers!

It’s a special kind of desperation for a good news story when the government holds a press conference to announce four new jobs being filled. Specifically, four jobs on the Irving shipyard refurbishment in Halifax, which will be filled by Aboriginals. I’m still not sure the point of the announcement other than Peter MacKay saying “Look, we’re being diverse!” only they’re not even government positions (though they are getting a lot of government money). Sure, it’s nice that Irving has an Aboriginal employment strategy as part of its contracting procedures, but this was worthy of a government press conference? Sorry, but the news cycle isn’t that slow.

Continue reading

Roundup: Sweeping, questionable changes

The House and Senate have both risen for the summer, but as they did, Jason Kenney and Chris Alexander unveiled their massive overhaul of the Temporary Foreign Workers Programme. It proposes to try and make the programme harder to use, with ever-diminishing caps on the number of workers (who were a fraction of one percent of the total workforce in the country, incidentally) with the aim of getting more unemployed Canadians, as well as Aboriginals, new immigrants and people with disabilities into these low-wage jobs. But Kenney seemed tone deaf to some of the massive labour challenges in Alberta, to demographic issues, to incentivising labour mobility, to the problems of aging populations in rural regions that are depopulating, but most especially to the attitude change that needs to happen if they think that university graduates will think that low-wage jobs in the food service industry or even higher-wage jobs in processing jobs like meat packing are going to be the answer to their labour shortages. The NDP condemned the changes without actually reading them, and all of their objections were addressed, not that it mattered. The Liberals made some pretty salient comments about the implausible changes to inspections and the giant loophole going unaddressed through the youth labour exchange programme. The restaurant and small business associations are really unhappy with the changes, which hamstring their ability to find workers in tough markets. John Geddes starts picking out the flaws in Kenney’s case, including demographics and the notion that it’s likely that non-Canadians made for cheaper and more reliable hires. Andrew Coyne says that the changes are simply bad policy, which punishes the service sector where a government goes out of its way to prevent a manufacturing job from offshoring. Coyne notes that if Canadians don’t want to take these jobs, then they shouldn’t be artificially shoehorned into them, but rather to spend their efforts creating value elsewhere in the economy while those who do want those jobs should be made to be Canadians by using the TFW programme as a pathway to citizenship.

Continue reading

QP: Bluster versus script cards

Possibly the last QP of the year — one can hope — and tempers continued to fray throughout the Precinct. None of the main leaders were present, which wasn’t going to improve the mood either. Peter Julian led things off, where he blustered about Northern Gateway decision, and Kelly Block was the sacrificial lamb sent up to read her talking points about how projects only move forward if they are proven to be safe after a rigorous, scientific review process, and that the proponent has more work to do. When Julian noted that consulting with First Nations was the government’s job, Block read that the government was working with First Nations. Nathan Cullen followed on to carry on the sanctimonious bluster, and Block read yet more of the same talking points. Chrystia Freeland led off for the Liberals, denouncing the justice minister’s sexist comments about female judges, to which Peter MacKay accused her of mischaracterizing his comments and that they only made judicial appointments made on merit. Carolyn Bennett and Scott Brison followed along, Brison characterising it as the Conservatives’ war on modernity, and after MacKay gave another embarrassing qualification, Leitch answered Brison by claiming that the number of female Governor-in-Council appointments is on the rise.

Continue reading

QP: To appoint or not to appoint to the Supreme Court

The last Monday of the spring sitting of the Chamber, and Thomas Mulcair and Elizabeth May were the only leaders in the Commons. Justin Trudeau was in Toronto to help campaign for the forthcoming by-elections, while Harper was, well, elsewhere. Mulcair started things off by asking about the government ignoring the advice on reforming suicide investigations in the military, to which Rob Nicholson insisted that he asked the military to account for the decision and to clear up the backlog, of which only ten cases out of 54 remained. Mulcair pressed in French, and Nicholson repeated his response. Mulcair brought up the Prime Minister’s appointment of a Federal Court judge to the Quebec Court of Appeal, and how this was being challenged by the same lawyer who challenged the Nadon appointment. Peter MacKay insisted that they made appointments based on merit, and listed off the accomplishments of that judge. Mulcair insisted that the government was meddling in Quebec’s courts, not that MacKay’s answer changed. Geoff Regan led off for the Liberals, asking about the decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline, imploring that it be denied. Greg Rickford gave his usual talking points that they were carefully reading a report and the decision would be made soon. Joyce Murray brought up the Request For Proposal that would come out for the fighter jet replacements between 2017 and 2019, and would this mean that an open competition would go ahead. Diane Finley insisted that no decisions had been made, and that they went through an independent process.

Continue reading

QP: Acting on “extensive consultation”

The shootings in Moncton hung over the mood in the Chamber, and a minute of silence for the three dead RCMP officers was held before QP got underway. When things did get underway, Megan led off for the NDP, as Thomas Mulcair was off campaigning in Trinity—Spadina. Leslie asked about supports for veterans, to which Peter MacKay pointed to the unanimous report of the veterans committee and that they take it seriously. Leslie pointed to the closure of those offices, but MacKay protested, saying that they expanded services to veterans. Leslie then turned to the new prostitution bill and demanded that it be referred to the Supreme Court immediately. MacKay insisted that it was about protecting vulnerable women and to give police new tools. Françoise Boivin picked up the torch, and listed the flaws in the bill, to which MacKay praised their “extensive consultation” and how they acted in response to those consultations, and most outrageously claimed that it respected the Bedford ruling. As Justin Trudeau was in Regina, Scott Brison led off for the Liberals, noting that it was summer job season and that the the government cut the Canada Summer Jobs programme, making it harder for students and their parents stuck paying the bills. Jason Kenney praised that Canada has one of the lowest rates of youth unemployment in the developed world, and their support for internships in the last budget. Brison asked the government to crack down on illegal unpaid internships in federally regulated industries, to which Kenney deflected and decried tax increases and reckless spending. Stéphane Dion closed the round, asking if MacKay was looking in the mirror when he alleged leaks in the Supreme Court selection process. MacKay decried his innocence and took the opportunity to congratulate incoming Justice Gascon.

Continue reading

Roundup: Let’s ignore the Bedford decision!

Well, it’s official – the government is not only going to emulate a version of the “Nordic model” around prostitution laws, but they’re explicitly going against some of the portions of the Supreme Court ruling in the Bedford case, such as communication. The new bill makes advertising illegal, and increases penalties if there is any reasonable assumption that young people will be in the area where prostitutes are soliciting. In other words, by pushing out of the public eye, they drive it further underground where sex workers are isolated and vulnerable to predators, and if they can’t advertise, then what good is it that they are now allowed to hire receptionists or bodyguards that would allow them to practice their trade off the streets? As for talk that police will be given discretion when it comes to the definition of “reasonable expectation” – such as near a school at 3 am – that should also raise red flags because it keeps that power to charge the sex workers themselves. Peter MacKay went so far as to talk about johns as “perverts” and sex workers as “victims” – thus denying them any agency – and the token $20 million being offered to help them exit the trade doesn’t actually address any of the fundamental problems for women who are in the trade for survival, or help those who are in it voluntarily in order to make them safer. As more than one person noted, it’s like they didn’t even bother reading the Bedford decision. Here is one analysis of the bill that pretty much shoots holes through its constitutionality entirely. Another analysis says that MacKay has reframed the terms of debate legislatively from controlling a nuisance to trying to eliminate the practice, which makes the legal challenge more difficult. Emmett Macfarlane notes the arbitrary provisions in the bill like the inclusion of “religious institutions” as a prohibited area – something that is likely to pique the Court – and that it demonstrates that the government is dealing with Charter rights behind the cover of an online poll.

Not surprisingly, the government rejected a BC study that said that the Nordic model does more harm to sex workers rather than protecting them. Their justification? That online self-selected survey they conducted that showed the Nordic model of criminalizing buyers was one the public preferred. Justin Trudeau is calling on those consultations to be made public. We’ll see if either of the opposition parties has the stomach to actually oppose the bill (though the fact that the government went against the Bedford decision may help), but this is going to be a ridiculous fight – especially when my own background sources have said that the government knew they were once again flouting the constitution. It looks like this is just going to wind up back before the Supreme Court under the very same grounds that the laws do more to harm sex workers, and the government can once again say that the Courts are being mean to them.

Continue reading

QP: The Commissioner’s conflicts

Things got off to an unusual start, as the Commons immediately descended into Committee of the Whole, and Olympic and Paralympic athletes were invited into the Chamber for the MPs to congratulate them on their performances at Sochi. It was too bad that this couldn’t have taken place while the Prime Minister was here. And there were so many selfies taken by MPs. When QP did begin, Thomas Mulcair asked about the recommendations put forward by the veterans affairs committee about changing the system for the better. Peter MacKay thanked the committee for the report, and pledged the government’s continued support for veterans. Mulcair wondered what he meant by “deal with the recommendations,” to which MacKay snapped back that “It means we act on them.” Mulcair brought up that veteran’s wife who has been asking for support and training for spouses, to which MacKay thanked her and her spouse, and noted the improved benefits for veterans in eight budgets that the NDP voted against. Mulcair changed topics, and noted the places where the nominee for privacy commissioner would need to recuse himself for a conflict. Tony Clement noted Therrien’s thirty years of service, and noted that the commissioner has an office that can act in his stead. Mulcair pointed out that the Official Opposition didn’t agree to the nomination, and that the conflicts pointed out why Therrien couldn’t become the commissioner. Clement said that Mulcair’s attempts to drag Therrien’s name in the mud were shameful. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals — two days in a row this week! — and asked about the process for the next Supreme Court vacancy. Peter MacKay said that they intend to consult widely, but were concerned about the leaks in the previous process and that they would proceed with caution. Trudeau moved on, and pointed out that next year, there would be more temporary foreign workers accepted than permanent residents. Chris Alexander insisted that they got rid of backlogs and had increased the number of immigrants. Trudeau shot back that as a percentage of the population, the number of immigrants was down, but Chris Alexander tried to correct Trudeau and took several swipes at their record.

Continue reading

Roundup: Filling the empty seat on the bench

The Prime Minister has finally announced his choice for the new Supreme Court Justice to fill the seat left by Justice Fish nearly a year ago. And yes, this one is qualified, as he currently sits on the Quebec Court of Appeal, where there isn’t a whole lot known or said about him. It has been noted that this is another male appointment – six out of seven for Harper, including Nadon, which keeps the gender imbalance on the bench. This appointment won’t face a “vetting” by a Commons committee, but considering how much of a face that process proved to be, I’m not sure that it’s any great loss.

Continue reading

QP: The most qualified candidate

It was a rainy day in the Commons, and one already subject to procedural shenanigans as the NDP had already tried to adjourn the day’s activities in order to avoid the investigation happening in the Procedure and House Affairs committee around their expenses. Stephen Harper was also on his way to Europe for the remainder of the week, so yesterday was all we were going to see of him. Thomas Mulcair began by asking about the fact that the new privacy commissioner nominee gave legal advice to national security agencies — ignoring that he told the committee that he disagreed with the government positions. Tony Clement responded that the candidate had thirty years of experience, and was chosen after a rigorous process. Mulcair asked how many programmes he gave advice on and now many he approved — something that would never be answered given solicitor-client privilege. Clement repeated that he was the most qualified candidate. Mulcair insisted that the nominee wouldn’t be able to see the legislation objectively, to which Clement made a crack about Mulcair’s position going in a mail out. Mulcair changed topics, and asked about regulations on GHG emissions in the oil and gas sector, but Leona Aglukkaq responded that they took action two years ago — except those were on coal, not oil and gas. When Mulcair pressed, Aglukkaq insisted that Canada represents less than two percent of global emissions. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and reiterated the question, pointing out that our oil and gas sector is our largest source of emissions, as coal is the Americans’ largest sector. Aglukkaq simply repeated her answers, trying to imply that Trudeau did nothing about it. Trudeau asked again more pointedly, to which Aglukkaq reminded him that Michael Ignatieff said that “we didn’t get it done.”

Continue reading

QP: Privacy Commissioner conspiracies

It was a scorching Monday in the Nation’s Capital, which always has the potential to make MPs crankier. Thomas Mulcair led off by reminding the Commons of the incident six months ago when a Canadian was denied entry into the States because of treatment for depression, and that his candidate for Privacy Commissioner helped to negotiate the information sharing agreement with the States. Stephen Harper, in the Commons for a rare Monday appearance, reminded him that the appointee was a non-partisan public servant with decades of experience. Mulcair pressed, pointing out all the various surveillance measures that the candidate had worked on, but Harper shrugged it off, saying that Mulcair sees conspiracy theories everywhere. Mulcair went at it again, insisting that there was a conflict of interest of someone who dealt with surveillance legislation — and referring to the Liberal leader as Harper’s pal — but Harper reiterated his response and said that the nominee could explain it before committee. For he Liberals, John McCallum led off — Trudeau again being elsewhere — and noted that Alberta’s labour minister offered to take over aspects of the Temporary Foreign Worker programme in his province. Harper insisted that the Liberal position was confused, and that they opposed strengthening the enforcement measures. McCallum pointed out that there remained no employer on a blacklist for abuse or that been fined, but Harper reiterated in is answer. Marc Garneau asked about grants for federal social housing agreements, to which Candice Bergen said that the Liberals cut funding for housing in the nineties.

Continue reading