Tag Archives: Canadian Wheat Board

Roundup: Nine new senators

Posted on by

Nine new senators were appointed yesterday, with another 12 appointments to come in the next few days. By the time that happens, the non-aligned senators will have the plurality in the chamber, but that is causing a bit of consternation among some of the existing independent senators. Senator André Pratte sent out a missive decrying that committee seats are not proportional yet, while Senator Claude Caignan groused about the appointment process as being neither open, transparent, nor non-partisan, and insinuated that they were all Liberals in all-but-name and intimated that they would all be “steadfastly loyal” to the Prime Minister for appointing them – you know, just like he was unthinkingly partisan and loyal to Harper since his own appointment.

As for some of the new senators, PowerPlay interviewed incoming senator Patricia Bovey and the chair of the appointments committee, Hughette Labelle, while Power & Politics interviewed Diane Griffin. The Canadian Press profiled Daniel Christmas, who will be the first Mi’kmaq senator.

P&P went hard on the fact that some of these new senators had previously donated to parties – and not all of them to the Liberals – which is irksome because it’s giving this message of a rather unfair level of non-partisanship being expected when donations are part of political engagement in our system, and we should want senators who have at least had some level of engagement and were not completely disinterested in politics. As for the pace at which the modernization to the Senate rules are happening, I would caution against moving too quickly – as Pratte is demanding, Senator Peter Harder is glowering darkly about, and Terry Milewski was being ridiculous in his characterisation of on P&P. If we want an upper chamber that is functional but not dominated by parties, we want to make sure that rule changes are done right and not in haste, and we especially don’t want them to be turning over any swaths of power to Harder as the “government representative,” as he is already empire-building and starting to try and co-opt the non-aligned senators as they organise themselves. If they’re not getting on committees fast enough, that’s in part because the rules are such that committees can’t be reconstituted until a prorogation, but we also want to give these new senators time to get adjusted and settled. Throwing them onto committees too soon will be overwhelming, and if they’re interested, they can still sit in on the committee meetings and contribute – they just can’t vote. The proportions of seats will adjust before too long. A little patience is not a bad thing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Beware blinkered history

Posted on by

There is always a danger in trying to look for lessons from history when you do so selectively. This is the case with a column by William Watson in today’s Ottawa Citizen. Watson – an economics professor at McGill and not a parliamentary observer, it should be noted – dug through the 1917 Hansard to look over the debates on bringing in income tax (remember, this was the “temporary” wartime measure that was introduced and then eventually became a permanent thing), and discovered that lo, the debate was so much more serious then and nothing like things are today, ergo Parliament was better in 1917 than it is today.

And then I bashed my head against my desk for a while.

This is what happens when you take a look at a narrow slice of history without actually looking at the broader context or picture. It’s easy to take a single debate and declare a golden age because hey, the government of the day was giving complex answers to complex questions, but that’s not to say that there weren’t antics that took place. Remember that this was not far removed from the days when MPs would light firecrackers and play musical instruments to disrupt the other side during debate. Hell, I was speaking to a reporter who was in the Gallery during WWII, and she said that there was far less professionalism in those days, and MPs who got bored would often break into song during debate. This was also the era before TV, before the proceedings were recorded in audio or video and able to be checked, so we don’t know what the transcriptionists missed. It was also an era where I’m sure that time limits for questions and answers were looser than they are now, and where MPs weren’t playing up for the cameras. Does that make it better? Maybe, maybe not. Parliament was also composed entirely of white men, mostly of a professional background – does that make things any better? You tell me. Parliament had very different responsibilities in those days as well, and government was much, much smaller. Patronage ruled the day, and government was more involved in direct hires of the civil service rather than it being arm’s length. Is this something we want to go back to? Watson kind of shrugs this important distinction off because they had more meaningful exchanges about income tax.

Declaring simply that Parliament was composed of “intelligent, informed adults” in 1917, and the implication that it is not so today, is a grossly blinkered view of history and of civics. I will be the first to tell you that the state of debate today is pretty abysmal when it mostly consists of people reading statements into the record, talking past one another, but that doesn’t mean that MPs aren’t intelligent or informed. Frankly, it seems like Watson is longing for the days of the old boys’ club if you read some of his nostalgic commentary. I’m not sure that’s proof that things were better then, and it certainly should be a caution about taking a blinkered view of history.

Continue reading →

Roundup: De-Canadianizing the Crown

Posted on by

A decision from the Quebec Superior Court came down yesterday which will have grave constitutional implications for Canada, yet few people actually know or understand it. The case challenged the royal succession law that the previous government passed as part of the series of reforms passed in all of the realms that share Queen Elizabeth II as their respective monarch, and by most reckonings, the Canadian law was a complete sham, simply assenting to UK legislation, in essence subordinating the Canadian Crown to a subset of the UK crown, despite the fact that they became separate entities after the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The Quebec Superior Court, however, sided with the Department of Justice, that the monarch was the same per the preamble of the constitution as opposed to a separate legal entity, and essentially reducing Canada back to a subordinate British colony, all because the Harper government didn’t want to go through the necessary steps of doing a proper constitutional amendment to change the Office of the Queen to match the aims of reform. So long, Queen of Canada. We hardly knew you.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699675727185256448

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699676140714258434

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699677275999113218

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678028784410624

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678843540545536

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678990441848832

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686628005179392

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686740714463234

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686958084288512

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699687878658494465

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689056171597824

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689344253173761

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691519066947588

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691722750742529

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699811121620889600

Continue reading →

QP: Second verse, same as the first

Posted on by

A very blustery day on Parliament Hill, and all three main leaders made it through the rapidly accumulating snowfall in order to make it to QP on time. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, reading a question about pulling the fighters out of Iraq, insisting that it means that Canada is not fighting terrorism. Justin Trudeau said that they consulted with allies and came up with a robust new plan to do what was needed. Ambrose insisted that military action and fighting was necessary, to which Trudeau quoted to her the US coalition leader saying that they couldn’t bomb their way out of the crisis, and that they needed training. Ambrose switched to the issue of new funding for UNRWA, which was found to be linked to Hamas. Trudeau noted his meeting with Ban Ki-moon, and the commitment to re-engaging with the world. Stephen Blaney was outraged that some of our aid money could find its way to terrorists groups, at which Karina Gould reminded him that our aid money was neutral. Blaney then called the decision to send Griffon helicopters with the new trainers “bungling,” but Harjit Sajjan merely confirmed that yes, the helicopters would be deployed. Thomas Mulcair was up next, outraged that more trainers over in Iraq would mean more risk. Trudeau reminded him that Canadians always stand up to do their duty when called upon. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same answer in French. Mulcair mentioned his trip to Saskatchewan, and demanded EI reforms to help people in the oil price drop. Trudeau said that they were working hard to meet that demand. Mulcair decried a $6.5 billion shortfall for grain farmers without the Canadian Wheat Board. Lawrence MacAulay noted that government no longer had ties to the former Board.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The anti-intellectual warning shot

Posted on by

The markets are crashing, the dollar continues to plummet and the price of oil seems to be in free-fall, but what is it that has the Canadian commentariat entranced – well, aside from the latest Duffy minutiae? The fact that Doug Ford may be contemplating the federal Conservative leadership if Stephen Harper fails to win the upcoming election. It kind of makes me want to weep. “Oh, it’ll be hilarious!” the Twitter Machine keeps relaying, but no, it wouldn’t. It would be heartbreaking for what it means to democracy. As we saw with the Rob Ford years in Toronto, and as we’re seeing play out with the Donald Trump primary race in the States, what more rational people see as hilarious and unbelievable is being embraced by a share of the electorate who are disengaged and who believe that all politicians are liars, so they would rather someone who stands up there and “tells it like it is,” never mind that what they’re telling them is completely divorced from reality and also generally false. We are already dealing with an overload of anti-intellectualism in the Canadian discourse (and no, not just from the right-leaning populists – you should see the abuse heaped on the economists who dared to debunk the NDP’s minimum wage proposal earlier in the week). Do we need it compounded on the federal scene by such an individual? While people may treat it like a joke, it’s a legitimate threat. Remember that Rob Ford got elected mayor because the very people who dismiss the Ford brothers can’t seem to grasp that they do strike a chord with voters, and I can’t think of anything more terrifying for the future of federal politics.

Continue reading →

QP: Pierre Poilievre, de facto finance minister

Posted on by

While it was only Thursday, only two leaders were present — Thomas Mulcair and Elizabeth May, with Stephen Harper off in Winnipeg and Justin Trudeau, well, elsewhere. After interminable members’ statements on how great/terrible the budget is, Mulcair finally got up to lead off, pointing out that the NDP had proposed the small business tax cut that was being gradually rolled out in the budget, and it was voted down, so why should Canadians believe the government about it now. Pierre Poilievre boasted about the low-tax plan in response. Mulcair returned to yesterday’s lead about the problems for their grandchildren that the TFSA increase would create, but Poilievre insisted that TFSAs were great. Mulcair then wondered about Jason Kenney and other Conservatives insisting that the contingency fund wasn’t being touched when it was, and wondered where the finance minister was — as Oliver was once again absent. Poilievre ignored it, and continued to praise TFSAs. Charlie Angus was up next, and returned to the issue of Mike Duffy’s residency regarding his appointment to the Senate, to which Paul Calandra insisted that the practice was clear, and that the NDP was trying to make a victim of Duffy, and oh, they owe for those satellite offices. Angus then asked about entries in Duffy’s diary about meetings on Enbridge that weren’t reported to the Lobbying Commissioner, to which repeated his answer. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, returning to the problems with the TFSA boost and its inherent inequality. Poilievre insisted that the Liberals would raise taxes. Ralph Goodale was up next, bringing up the changes to the OAS in relation to the TFSA changes. Poilievre insisted that seniors were taking full advantage of TFSAs, and another round gave just the same.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Justin Trudeau and the division of powers

Posted on by

From the sounds of it, Justin Trudeau is apparently setting back the cause of federalism in Canada, as he is getting blamed for an increasing number of provincial woes. It’s been happening for a few weeks with some federal Conservatives like Parm Gill, who are agitating against the provincial Liberals’ new sex ed curriculum, but because Gill and others just refer to the programme as the Liberals’ – not specifying that it’s Kathleen Wynne’s government in Ontario – the implication is that they’re one and the same as Gill shills for federal votes on a provincial issue (that is being torqued by provincial Progressive Conservatives and others, one might add). Moving out east, Trudeau is being blamed for complicity in the provincial Liberals in Nova Scotia proposing to reform film and television tax credits in their provincial budget – apparently Trudeau not saying anything about that change, and a number of other provincial budgetary items, makes him complicit in the whole affair. (During his visit to Halifax yesterday, Trudeau did say he was supportive of arts and culture, but reminded them that he’s a Quebec MP and respects provincial jurisdictions). Yesterday took the cake, as the federal NDP put out a press release blasting Trudeau because the provincial Liberals in PEI remain, well, a little backward on the whole issue of funding abortions in that province. This isn’t the first time that the federal NDP have been trying to ride the provincial parties for their benefit, as they keep hauling out this study that shows that provincial NDP governments have better fiscal records than provincial Liberal or Conservative parties in order to somehow prove they’d be great economic managers – never mind that the various provincial parties are largely divorced from the federal ones (with a couple of minor exceptions in a couple of provinces) and that in many cases the only thing they share is a name, though the NDP like to claim that they’re all one party, federally and provincially. It also means that if you stretch that logic, that Thomas Mulcair is responsible for raising the HST in Manitoba, that province’s appalling state of child welfare cases, and the myriad of problems that the provincial NDP in Nova Scotia left behind when they were defeated (prompting the provincial Liberals to table the budget they just did). It’s actually pretty alarming that people don’t seem to understand the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government – particularly when it’s political parties fuelling this nonsense, and they really need to stop.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some context around the defection

Posted on by

While Danielle Smith continues to declare victory as she defends her defection, insisting that the Wildrose had held two premiers to account and that they had managed to shift the PCs to their position under Prentice, there are one or two things worth noting. While I spoke to other day about the problems with calling this defection a “reunification” of conservatives in the province, I think there are a couple of other facts to consider that the pundit classes keep overlooking in their handwringing about the state of democracy in Alberta now that the official opposition has been decimated. The first is that even in a Westminster democracy, there are no guidelines about the strength of the opposition. We’ve even had cases (New Brunswick, I believe) where there were no opposition parties elected, and they had to find a way of including that balance. The other fact is that nowhere in the country is there an opposition so closely aligned ideologically with the government of the day, where you have a nominally right-wing government and an even more right-wing official opposition. That puts a whole lot of context into the unprecedented move of an official opposition leader crossing to join the government ranks, as there is less of a gap to actually cross.

Continue reading →

QP: And to all a good night…

Posted on by

The last QP in the Commons of 2014, and only one of the leaders was present, as Stephen Harper was preparing for a photo op in Mississauga, and Justin Trudeau was, well, elsewhere. Thomas Mulcair led off by demanding Julian Fantino’s resignation twice Julian Fantino, slightly more spirited than his usual robotic reply, decried how often the opposition voted against veterans. Mulcair then asked about impaired driving laws, to which Peter MacKay insisted that they were tough on criminals and respecting victims. Mulcair pivoted again, asking about compensation to Newfoundland and Labrador for CETA implementation, to which Rob Moore noted that the fund was created to compensate for losses, not as a blank cheque, so they were waiting for demonstrable losses. Another pivot, and Mulcair demanded specific emissions regulations for the oil and gas sector. Colin Carrie read that a job-killing carbon tax was “crazy.” Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, and return to cuts to front-line programmes at Veterans Affairs, demanding that the minister be fired. Fantino insisted that the government supported veterans while the opposition voted against them. Joyce Murray noted the government distancing itself from the New Veterans Charter, to which Fantino simply recited his talking points. Frank Valeriote asked about the connection of General Dynamics to the new mental health research for the military, to which James Bezan praised the initiative.

Continue reading →

QP: Consistently improving the lives of veterans

Posted on by

Despite it being Thursday, none of the major leaders were in the Commons to carry on the great exercise of accountability. Stephen Harper made an announcement in Markham, Thomas Mulcair was preparing to jet off to Paris for the weekend, while Justin Trudeau was in St. John’s. That left Peter Julian to lead off, asking about the personnel cuts at Veterans Affairs. In response, Julian Fantino robotically praised the new operational stress injury clinics that they were opening. Julian read off more questions about cuts to veterans services, but Fantino stayed true to his programming, and praised the government’s commitments to veterans. Jean Crowder then asked a pair of questions about a First Nation who was taking the government to court over Site C, to which Colin Carrie insisted that they had extensive consultations and that the generation project would generate the fewest GHGs. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, asking about the recycled funds being used for veterans research, and added the call for Fantino’s resignation. Fantino insisted that the opposition let veterans down by voting against them. Joyce Murray asked about a veteran fighting the government for his pension, to which Fantino accused the Liberals of being responsible for the problems in the system today. Frank Valeriote closed the round asking about court cases against the department, to which Fantino said he wouldn’t comment, but then slammed the Liberals for voting against veterans.

Continue reading →