Tag Archives: Foreign Takeovers

Roundup: Giving the PMO too much credit

Posted on by

Over the past day-and-a-half, everyone and their dog has had an opinion about just what Maryam Monsef was thinking when she stood up in Question Period and said that the electoral reform committee hadn’t done their job in bringing forward a recommendation and then tried to use the Gallagher Index equation as a way of ridiculing their work. And when she stood up in QP to apologise yesterday no less than five times, the opinions got more and more “sure” that everyone knew just what was going on.

And while I am always happy for a Thick of It reference where I can get it, I’ve seen a lot of tweets over the day that have basically posited that Monsef is this vacuous cipher for the PMO, and that she’s just reading the lines assigned to her, and it bothers me. Why? Because Monsef isn’t vacuous. Quite the opposite in fact, and while she may stick to her lines in QP and have all the sweetness of saccharine, she’s very deliberate in the way she responds (as she articulated to John Geddes here). So yes, she prepared for Thursday’s QP and had some lines prepared, including the one about the Gallagher Index, but she also knew that she was going to be bombarded with a bunch of ridiculous questions from the opposition parties who overread the conclusions of the report. Did she go too far? Yes, absolutely, and I think she recognised that. But she’s also been handed a really shit file to manage, and she’s got a tonne of work to do in stick-handling it.

Essentially, the Liberals made a foolish promise that they probably knew they couldn’t keep, but they also managed the expectations around it somewhat with promises for consultation that gives them an out. It was also just one item in a comprehensive reform package, most of the rest of which is well on the way of being implemented, but they went and oversold this one item and now they need to figure out how to break it without looking like they’re breaking it for self-interested reasons. And no, I don’t think they want to break it just because the current system worked out for them – rather, they realised that the alternatives are not actually better for our system in general. Part of how they can hope to break it is to show that the other parties are unreasonable and no consensus can be reached, and to a great extent, the electoral reform committee report demonstrated that, but Monsef went and overshot and her own party members got hit with friendly fire as a result. And now they need to keep up the charade a while longer, but this is something that they need to smother, but they can’t look like that’s their plan, and Monsef has a hell of a job trying to manage that.

Oh, and for everyone who asserts that this is just the PMO pulling the strings instead of the minister, I’m less convinced. I’ve had conversations with people who’ve worked in Queen’s Park who now work here, and their assessment is that this actually is government by cabinet – the centre is not stickhandling everything, and I’m not convinced that Monsef, as junior as she may be, is just a puppet like so many Harper ministers were. The evidence just isn’t there for me.

Meanwhile, Colby Cosh offers some more context for that whole Gallagher Index nonsense, while Paul Wells manages to better interpret Monsef’s reaction and the real reason why the committee failed, which has to do with the referendum question. Andrew Coyne mystifyingly tries to equate the issue with free trade, while again insisting that Monsef is just a cipher for the PM.

Continue reading →

Roundup: MacKay’s t-shirt choices

Posted on by

Peter MacKay’s judgement is once again being called into question after he showed up at a party fundraiser wearing a t-shirt with the logo of the National Firearms Association on it. He later said it was because he was showing support for an Afghan veteran, but one readily suspects that if an Afghan veteran asked him to wear a t-shirt with a pot leaf on it, say to show support for medical marijuana being used to treat an operational stress injury, I doubt MacKay would go for it. The NFA meanwhile declares that MacKay “believes in freedom!” by which they mean less restrictive gun laws. I’m not sure that MacKay’s explanation will quite get him out of declaring that tacit support.

Continue reading →

QP: A premier present, but not the PM

Posted on by

BC premier Christy Clark was in the Speaker’s gallery, here to watch QP in the federal parliament after signing some agreements with the federal government. Alas, despite being back in the country, Stephen Harper was not present to take questions in the House. Neither Thomas Mulcair nor Justin Trudeau were there to ask said questions either, for what it was worth. That meant that it was up to Libby Davies to lead off for the NDP, decrying the expiration of the 2004 health accords. Rona Ambrose reminded her that they were still providing record levels of funding to the provinces, that the provinces were asking for funding predictability, and they were providing that. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet asked the same again in French, and got the same response in English. Boutin-Sweet moved onto infrastructure funding, which Denis Lebel assured her of how great the new Building Canada Fund really was. Scott Brison led off for the Liberals, and asked about expanding the CPP, as recommended by the Finance Department’s own reports. Despite Joe Oliver being present, Kevin Sorensen got up to answer to say that the Fragile Economy™ could not afford more payroll taxes. Brison reminded him that they were keeping EI premiums artificially high to balance the books, and that those payroll taxes could be better spent on CPP enrichment, but Sorensen decried all of the things the Liberals voted against. Ralph Goodale got up to ask about the loss of infrastructure funds coming tomorrow (Lebel: We are giving record funding).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Senators start fighting back

Posted on by

It seems that some senators have had enough, and they’re not going to take it any more. First we saw Senate Speaker Kinsella bash back at NDP leader Thomas Mulcair’s unfounded smear during Question Period earlier in the week – for which Nathan Cullen went whining to the press about how it “undermined the Senate,” showing that he neither understands the role of the Senate Speaker and how it differs from that of the Commons, nor that Kinsella was simply responding in kind to Mulcair’s attack. That the NDP have built up a huge straw man around the supposed “non-partisan” nature of the Senate – which never has been the case nor was it ever the intention – shows the lengths to which they will construct fictions in order to suit their partisan abolition call. Yesterday we saw Quebec Senator Claude Dagenais unleashing his full fury on NDP MP Charmaine Borg after he received one of her ten-percenters about abolishing the Senate. His public response challenged her assertion that Senators were useless by remarking that constituents whom he has sent to speak to her (their local MP) found her to be useless and powerless, before he suggested that Borg go to the Parliamentary and read up on the institution before she attack it. He then unloaded on the fact that they were only elected by a surge of spontaneous sympathy for Jack Layton in Quebec (and it will be noted that Borg was one of the McGill Four who never even visited her riding during the election). He also has no intention of backing down so long as the NDP continue to attack the Senate. Meanwhile, some Conservative senators are also tired of being given orders by the PMO, and are meeting this weekend to talk about steps to reassert their independence – things like refraining from attending national caucus and possibly establishing bipartisan regional caucuses instead. That’s an incredibly encouraging sign and would go a long way to the chamber reasserting itself after being pushed around by a PMO bent on control.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Harper’s need for ambiguity

Posted on by

At a business school event, the Prime Minister said that they don’t want foreign takeover rules that are too clear because the government wants room to manoeuvre in the event that some takeover bids aren’t good for the country and need to be blocked. He also said that the free trade deals that they are negotiating with China, India and South Korea aren’t going to be the same as the EU trade deal just agreed to, as they won’t be of the same depth or comprehensiveness.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Harper’s restive senators

Posted on by

There is unrest in the Conservative Senate caucus, as they feel increasingly sandbagged and abandoned by their own party in the wake of the spending scandals of those four embattled Senators, three of which are Harper’s appointees. And while they may feel like there should at least be some mention to the Senate made in the Throne Speech – such a promise for new accountability measures or promises for reform measures in line with what the Supreme Court rules after their reference case – it’s unlikely to happen since the government has deliberately put distance between itself and the Senate as a whole. It’s not the wisest move ever made either, considering that their decision to keep the Leader of the Government in the Senate out of cabinet will come back to haunt them the moment they want to introduce a government bill in the Senate, as they are wont to do, only to find that there is no minister to shepherd it through. Oops. But it doesn’t help that Conservative senators are hearing tales about how when Claude Carignan was sworn into the Privy Council as part of his new job as Senate leader, that Harper simply told him “Good luck with that.” And Harper may soon find that there could be nothing more dangerous to his own government and agenda than a Senate caucus who that is tired of being pushed around and ignored, and indeed being dumped upon by their own party and the public at large, and they may decide to start flexing their muscles, to show that they do have a job to do – as with the “union transparency” bill that they gutted and sent back to the Commons.

Continue reading →

QP: Benefitting all Canadians

Posted on by

As Wednesdays are caucus days, the MPs tend to be fired up, and QP a little more boisterous. Today was about average when it comes to energy levels and decorum, for what it’s worth. QP got underway with Thomas Mulcair reading off questions about youth unemployment costing the economy $21 billion. Harper responded that job creation and economic prosperity was his government’s top priority and look at all of the jobs that have been created. Mulcair ended by asking pretty much the exact same question on First Nations education as the previous two days, to which Harper touted the 250 newly-built and renovated schools on reserves. Jean Crowder was up next to ask about releasing documents to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Residential Schools, to which John Duncan said that they were reviewing the court decision on documents but intended to comply with the spirit of it. Bob Rae asked about low First Nation graduation rates, and why their issues weren’t mentioned in his caucus speech that morning. Harper said that their commitment to economic prosperity was to all Canadians. Rae moved onto the issue of EI and those without public transport, quoting Diane Finley’s explanation for why she bills for limo service as there is no transit in her riding, so why not that single mother in PEI. While Finley had a good laugh, Harper assured Rae that EI will always available to those who need it. For his final question, Rae turned his attention to the replacement of the PBO, and Harper replied that the office will be there to provide non-partisan advice (which really does seem to be quite the insinuation against Kevin Page).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Investment rules and an eye on joint ventures

Posted on by

Those new foreign investment rules unveiled by Harper along with the Nexen and Progress Energy decisions will likely have an impact beyond the oil sands – but it’s clear as to how just yet. What it will likely do is involve state-owned enterprises in more joint ventures and having them become minority shareholders to conform to the new rules. Economist Stephen Gordon looks at the economics of investing in the oil sands and why there is a need for foreign investment (and why most of the fears about foreign state-owned enterprises are overblown).

Oh, and those theories that Harper put these markers around state-owned enterprises as a marker for future trade negotiations with China? Paul Wells wonders about the logic of that considering that Canada-China FIPA that’s sitting there, unratified…

On the F-35 file, certain critics say that the promised industrial benefits (currently pegged in the $9 billion range, down from the $12 billion originally stated) aren’t likely to materialise, which is a ticking time bomb for the government. To date those industrial benefits have amounted to less than $500 million.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A very big decision while a firestorm rages

Posted on by

The government has decided to allow both the CNOOC-Nexen and Petronas-Progress Energy takeovers go through, but with the warning that henceforth, no more state-owned enterprises will really be allowed to invest in the oil sands barring “exceptional circumstances.”  And the fact that Harper himself held a press conference and took questions for thirty minutes – something he never does – means that this was really a Very Big Deal. And yes, the NDP are opposed, in case you were wondering. In advance of the decision, Macleans.ca had a Q&A that explains the review process and what it all means. Here’s a look at Nexen’s market share in Canada. Andrew Coyne notes how big of a mess the foreign investment rules are going forward.

As the renewed firestorm over the F-35s continues – John Ivison now reporting that the KPMG report says they’ll cost nearly $46 billion to purchase – word has it that the government will have four independent monitors to vet the process, including the retired RCAF commander of the Libya mission, and University of Ottawa professor Philippe Lagassé – not that this is confirmed yet. Lagassé, incidentally, also wrote an op-ed yesterday that highlights the systemic procurement problems at DND, and concludes that the Canadian Forces won’t be able to fully recapitalise its fleets and assets unless they get a significant budget increase once the deficit is slain. John Geddes notes that a panel is one thing, but the hard work of what plane to get is quite another. Andrew Coyne says that the entire debacle has proved to be a failure for democratic accountability, as every mechanism we have to ensure it has been evaded, subverted or ignored.

Continue reading →

QP: Dancing around disability questions

Posted on by

It was nearly a full House, which is rare for a Monday, but as is also the norm for a Monday, Harper was absent. Nevertheless, Thomas Mulcair got the ball rolling by reading a about the government missing its economic targets, to which John Baird, the designated back-up PM du jour, first congratulated the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on their happy news before he moved onto approved Economic Action Plan™ talking points. When Mulcair pressed on about job numbers and temporary foreign workers, Baird kept on with the Action Plan™. Peter Julian was up next to denounce the supposed fire sale of Canadian resources to China, to which Christian Paradis assured him that they will ensure investments provide a net benefit to Canada. Bob Rae was up then for the Liberals and asked about the government’s disability tax credit and whether or not it would be made refundable. (It was Persons With Disabilities Day, for the record). Baird danced around the question with feel-good talking points about all kinds of tax credits.

Continue reading →