Tag Archives: Iran

Roundup: Sending amendments back a second time

Posted on by

There’s drama with the Senate, after they sent back the omnibus transport bill back to the Commons a second time, after the government rejected several of the nineteen amendments proposed. We haven’t seen this happen in twelve years, that last time being in 2006 when there was back-and-forth on Harper’s Accountability Act, when he had a minority in the Commons, and the Liberals had a majority in the Senate, giving them the necessary leverage. But while much of the focus is on whether or not there’s going to be a constitutional crisis over this (there’s not, and quit being such drama queens about it), there is actually some nuance here that should be explored a bit more.

There are a couple of reasons why the Senate eventually voted to insist on some of the amendments, and one of those had to do with the way it creates unfairness for the Maritimes when it comes to rail transportation rates, as there is a monopoly in the region. What’s very interesting about this is the fact that after PEI Senator Diane Griffin made her speech about the regional unfairness, all subsequent debate became spontaneous and unscripted – something we almost never see in either chamber. This is how Parliament should work, and based on that speech, some senators changed their votes, which shows that the process does work as it’s supposed to, from time to time. It also shows that the Senate is fulfilling its role when it comes to standing up for regions, as they are doing for the Maritimes in this case. (Griffin, incidentally, says she’ll likely back down if the Commons rejects the amendments a second time).

The other reason the Senate is sending these amendments back, however, is the fact that when the government rejected them, they didn’t offer an explanation as to why, and this is important (and I haven’t seen anyone reporting this fact). And this puts the onus on the government, because they owe senators that explanation as to why their sober second thought is being rejected. Just about a year ago, when the Senate sent back amendments to the budget implementation bill, the House rather snippily stated that such amendments would impede the privileges of the Commons – but never stated how they would do so. While the Senate passed the bill, they did send a message back to the Commons that yes, they do have the ability to amend budget bills thank you very much, but they did make sure to let Bardish Chagger know their displeasure the next time she appeared at Senate QP, where they wanted the explanation as to how the amendments would impact the Commons’ privileges (and she never did give them an answer). Trudeau keeps saying he respects the independence of the Senate, but he should demonstrate that respect by offering explanations and not treating the work of the Senate in such a dismissive manner.

Continue reading →

QP: Performative abortion politics

Posted on by

The Commons was on Wednesday hours to give Conservatives the ability to go to the funeral for Gord Brown earlier in the day. Justin Trudeau was off to Saguenay, Scheer still at the funeral, and even Guy Caron, who is always present Monday to Thursday, was absent. Alain Rayes led off, and demanded that the government hold off on legalising marijuana until all police forces in Canada were equipped and trained to deal with drug-impaired driving. Catherine McKenna got up to reply, and instead brought up Ted Falk’s outburst yesterday about women not having the right to choose, and invited the opposition to recant that position and affirm a woman’s right to choose. Rayes claimed that the words weren’t spoken in the House — not true — and he repeated his question. McKenna repeated her own admonition, and Rayes tried a third time, and this time Ginette Petitpas Taylor responded that they were working with partners to ensure a responsible transition. Diane Finley repeated the question in English, and this time Ralph Goodale got up to remind her that drug-impaired driving is already an issue, not a future one, and that he’s glad they now support Bill C-46 and should encourage the Senate to pass it. Finley tried again, and Goodale elaborated that it’s already in the Criminal Code. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led for the NDP, accusing Kinder Morgan of having privileged access to the government. McKenna retreated to her usual platitudes about the environment and the economy going together, and when Brosseau tried a second time, Marc Garneau assured her that the Trans Mountain pipeline was in the national interest. Nathan Cullen got up to accuse Kinder Morgan lobbyists of attending Liberal fundraisers, to which McKenna reiterated her previous platitudes. When Cullen laid on further sanctimony, McKenna noted that it went through a full review, and it would go ahead.

Continue reading →

QP: Accusations of rigged rules

Posted on by

For caucus day, all leaders were present (for a change), and when Andrew Scheer led off, he read some scripted concerns about carbon taxes raising the price of everything, and demanded to know how much it would cost families. Trudeau got up to respond that the Conservatives tried doing nothing and were trying to justify it now. Scheer switched to English and said that the PM was gleeful there were high gas prices in BC and accused him of not caring because he’s a millionaire. Trudeau said that it wasn’t what he said, and that this was just an attempt to create fear and division from a party that doesn’t have a plan. Scheer switched back to French to accuse the government of trying to game the electoral system for their own benefit, and Trudeau noted that this was about taking the influence of money out of politics. Scheer accused Trudeau of rigging the system to punish those who disagree with him, listing a number of conflated incidents that were “proof” of such behaviour. Trudeau responded that Conservatives tried to make it harder to vote while his party was trying to make it easier. Scheer accused the government of imposing fundraising restrictions because the Liberals can’t raise as much money as they can, and then demanded that ministerial travel be restricted in the pre-writ period, to which Trudeau said that the record number of voters in the last election was not because of the Conservative changes, but rather, it was about getting Stephen Harper out of office. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, complaining that they didn’t have enough time to evaluate the candidate for Chief Electoral Officer. In response, Trudeau took up a script to read some praise for the candidate, and then Nathan Cullen asked the same in English, but with a truckload of added sanctimony. Trudeau read the English version of his same script. Cullen then accused the government of rigging the Trans Mountain approval process, to which Trudeau assured him that they enhanced the assessment process. Caron took over to ask the same again in French, saying that putting a financial stake in Kinder Morgan was the kind of subsidy that the government promised to end, but Trudeau repeated his response, insisting that any stake was about the project being in the national interest.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An “uncontroversial” bill delayed

Posted on by

It’s starting to become something of a rote exercise – that whenever the Senate does its job and considers large and contentious legislation, it’s accused of moving slowly. Most of the time, they’re actually moving fairly swiftly in the context of how bills get passed, but that’s not the narrative. And every single time, the pundit class will moan about how they’re frustrating the “will of Parliament” (because that’s how they refer to the House of Commons, when it is in fact but a third of what constitutes Parliament – the Senate and the Crown being the other two aspects), and on and on we go. This week’s performative disbelief that the Senate is daring to do the job required of it is around the marijuana bill – but not just that, but the accompanying bill regarding mandatory roadside testing. While the marijuana bill is actually proceeding fairly quickly given the agreed-upon timelines that Senators set for themselves on the bill (though they were slow off the mark because Senator Harder thought it wise to have the Senate rise essentially a week early at Christmas and then not consider the bill again until well after they’d returned so that he could put on the dog and pony show of having three ministers appear in Committee of the Whole before second reading debate even began), the mandatory testing  bill is languishing at committee. Why? While John Ivison may consider the bill “relatively uncontroversial,” it is actually the opposite, and there is a debate raging about the bill’s constitutionality, and many senators – including one who helped to author the Charter of Rights and Freedoms back in 1982 – are unimpressed with the government’s assurances. After all, they went through a decade of the Harper government insisting that their justice bills were Charter-compliant, only for them to be struck down by the courts, one after another.

Of course, this too has led to debates in the Senate about their role and whether they should be challenging the constitutionality of bills. Some of the Independent senators, which Leader of the Government in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder has added his voice to, believing that Senators shouldn’t substitute their judgment for that of the courts, citing that because these issues aren’t black and white that the courts should handle them. (In the same breath as Harder says this, he also says that they shouldn’t be rubber stamps, apparently unable to pick a lane). So to say that this is “uncontroversial” means that someone isn’t paying attention to the debate – only what’s being told to him by the government’s mouthpiece (in this case, Bill Blair).

If the Senate passes C-45 before C-46, the sky won’t fall. They can apply existing impaired driving laws, because, newsflash, people already drive high while pot is illegal. Once again, the government isn’t inventing cannabis – they’re legalizing and regulating it. Will it be more difficult without detection devices? Maybe. But it’s not like there’s a legal vacuum. Let’s calm down a little.

Continue reading →

QP: The sexist carbon tax

Posted on by

Following meetings with the prime minister of Portugal, Justin Trudeau was in Question Period, while Andrew Scheer was absent yet again. Lisa Raitt led off, worrying about the high price of gasoline in BC, which was being “compounded” by the carbon tax. Trudeau reminded her that BC has had a price on pollution for over ten years, and that carbon pricing allows people to make better choices. Raitt went for incredulous, raising the story that Trudeau has meals prepared at 24 Sussex and messengered to Rideau Cottage, to which Trudeau noted that the Conservatives were only interested in political attacks but not action on the environment. Gérard Deltell took over in French, noting that GHG emissions went down under ten Conservatives without a carbon tax — once again, omitting that it was because Ontario shuttered their coal-fired plants and the economic downturn, rather than anything that the then-Conservative government did. Trudeau reiterated that the Conservatives have no plan so they attack. Deltell asked again, and got the same answer. Raitt got back up, mentioned that the question was originally written by Gord Brown and had planned to ask it later in the week, and raised the issue of compensation for thalidomide survivors. Trudeau picked up a script to first give condolences for Brown’s death, and then added that they would have an announcement for those survivors soon. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, raising the problem of web giants creating the demise of advertising in newspapers which impacted press freedom. Trudeau took up another script to read about their support for a free press on World Press Freedom Day. Caron asked again in English, demanding those web giants be taxed, and Trudeau, sans script, reiterated his response and added that they are supporting local media via transition funding and CBC. Matthew Dubé worried about attempting to apply the Safe Third Country Agreement to the entire border, to which Trudeau said that they apply all of the rules and laws including our international obligations. Jenny Kwan asked the same in English, and got much the same answer with a slight admonishment that they were trying to create fear and conspiracy.

Continue reading →

QP: Applauding the ghosts of the Harper government

Posted on by

While the PM was off in Vancouver to announce a new investment by Amazon, and Andrew Scheer…elsewhere (I believe Toronto), it was up to Candice Bergen to lead off today, concern trolling about the loss of foreign direct investment in Canada, and tying that to the coming federal carbon tax, demanding to know how much it would cost families. Bill Morneau replied, offering some pabulum about how great economy has been doing. Bergen sarcastically suggested that the Liberals are saying that the carbon tax will fix everything wrong with the world, to which Jim Carr noted that they have taken action through the oceans protection plan, strengthening environmental assessments, and their carbon pricing plans were all taking action, unlike the previous government. Bergen accused the government of covering up those costs, and Jim Carr read some stats about how much carbon would be reduced with their plan. Gérard Deltell took over to ask the same again in French, and Carr noted that the opposition had no plan, nor did they while they were in government. Deltell made the “cover-up” accusations in French, and Morneau stood up to offer some pabulum in French. Guy Caron was up for the NDP, and demanded to know if the government denied ordering the Kinder Morgan approval to be fixed. Carr said that he did refute it, and when Caron asked again in French, Carr pointed to all of the materials available on the website. Romeo Saganash asked the same again in French, and Carr listed consultations and engagement including the monitoring panel co-developed with Indigenous communities. Saganashed tried again in French, and Carr noted that they had made accommodations and that the conversations were meaningful.

Continue reading →

QP: A smarmier version of Matlock

Posted on by

The first proto-Prime Minister’s Questions of the New Year, with Justin Trudeau finally in town on a Wednesday, and Andrew Scheer was once again no longer present. That left Lisa Raitt to leave off, who was worried that offshore investment into marijuana companies was not the front companies for organised crime. Trudeau stumbled off the block, and gave his worn points about why they are legalising marijuana. Raitt called out the talking points, but along the way, equated former Liberal fundraisers with organised crime, but Trudeau didn’t vary his response. Alain Rayes was up next, and in French, accused Liberal fundraisers of trying to line their pockets though cannabis and accused the government of interfering with debate in the Senate,  it Trudeau stuck to his points in French. Rayes tried again, and this time, Trudeau said that they could assure people that they were not letting organised crime into the system. Rayes went one last round, asserting that legalised marijuana was somehow the new Sponsorship Scandal, but Trudeau reminded him that the previous prohibition model failed. Guy Caron was up next, and kept on the same line of attack, highlighting tax havens, and this time, Trudeau picked up some notes to say that they have been coming to agreements with provinces to provide transparency on corporations and that they were doing background checks on any significant investment in cannabis companies. Caron went again in French, railing about Liberals and tax havens, but Trudeau repeated the assurances in French. Pierre-Luc Dusseault asked the same question again, to which Trudeau assured him that they had an information network to combat tax avoidance and evasion, and when Peter Julian asked one more time, Trudeau picked up his notes again to assure him that there would be mandatory security checks with companies.

Continue reading →

QP: Demands for disassociations

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was present today, post-trip to Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, Andrew Scheer was not. This left Peter Kent to lead off, railing about the “peoplekind” remark and the fact that Trudeau’s principle secretary, Gerald Butts, called out people who crictised it as Nazis. (He didn’t really, but made reference to specific alt-right characters doing the criticizing). Trudeau noted that he didn’t hear a question in that statement, and sat back down. Kent got up to rail about real Nazis and demanded that the PM disassociate himself from Butts, but Trudeau stood up to talk about how they recognise the horrors of the holocaust and that they took that history seriously. Alain Rayes got up next, and railed about the lack of action on the Trans Mountain pipeline, and Trudeau noted that he had committed that the pipeline would get built. Shannon Stubbs returned to the “Nazi” issue, and while Trudeau first dissembled about town halls, on a supplemental, he told the opposition that they shouldn’t let Rebel Media quite their  questions for them, and suggested that they are the ones who should disassociate themselves. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, concerned about anonymised data requested by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and Trudeau noted that they have concluded an agreement with the PBO to get them the information that they need. After a round of the same in French, Charlie Angus got up to demand action on cases like the death of Colten Boushie, Trudeau noted that their hearts went out to the family, and while they couldn’t comment on the specific case, they were working to address the inequities in the system. Angus demanded more action on Indigenous justice, and Trudeau listed areas that they need to fix, and noted that they were at work on it.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/963132017066913792

Continue reading →

Roundup: Oprah and the rot of populist politics

Posted on by

As a rule, I don’t really comment on American politics, but this issue of Americans clamouring for Oprah Winfrey to run for president in 2020 has been getting a lot of press lately. Colby Cosh runs through why it was probably a trial balloon that fortunately deflated, while Rachel Giese worries that the dismissal of the possibility amounts to more racism and sexism rather than dealing with some of Oprah’s ability to connect with people. And she does have that – I used to darkly muse that Oprah could almost certainly run for president and win because back when I worked in book stores during my undergrad years, and every time Oprah mentioned a book, we would be inundated with calls and demands for said tome. Early on we weren’t given advance notice, and it was a gong show, and after she alerted publishers beforehand and we were sent ample shipments of said volumes in time for the show to air, it was more manageable chaos, but it never failed to surprise me with how much she had an ability to influence the viewing public’s shopping choices, and made me wonder how far that power could be extended.

But the fascination with celebrities running for office is not new or novel, and is part of a sign of the deeper rot of populism within our political discourse. The distrust of the political class and career politicians has long been sown by populists, and Canada is no exception. Conservative MP Michelle Rempel penned her own op-ed to talk about this urge for celebrities to be political saviours, and outlined her own particular list of what it takes to make good political leaders (including a few subtle digs at Justin Trudeau in there, naturally), but while she talks about the disconnect that people have between their ability to examine government as its role in our lives has expanded exponentially over the past seventy years, she misses one key point – that Canadians aren’t taught how to engage with the system.

Because we aren’t taught anything other than the fact that you mark a ballot every three or four years, we don’t know how to nominate candidates that speak to our values or that better reflect the diversity in our communities. We don’t understand how the role of joining parties creates a relationship with the caucus because the party creates an interlocutor role between those who are serving in Parliament or in government and those on the ground. We aren’t taught how the act of joining parties entitles us to take part in policy discussions that shape where we want the party and the country to go. All of those are huge ways of engaging in our system of government, but we’re largely not taught them in school, which fuels the disconnect that people feel, which drives people to populists, whoever they may be. Because celebrities are comforting, familiar figures, people will flock to their siren calls, oblivious to the danger of smashing against the rocks they perch upon. It’s why we need proper civics education, so that we can combat the ignorance that fuels the willingness to entertain this celebrity nonsense.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ethics committee theatre incoming

Posted on by

We can look forward to a heap of bad political theatre next week as the Commons’ ethics committee plans to sit on Tuesday and Wednesday in order to demand that the PM appear before them to answer questions in regards to the Ethics Commissioner’s report into his Xmas vacation with the Aga Khan, and to hear from the now-former Commissioner on the report the following day. And you can expect that it’s going to be nothing short of howls of sanctimonious indignation. Oh, and there may be legitimate procedural roadblocks to their plans given that the report hasn’t been presented to the Commons yet, according to a former Commons procedural clerk.

Regarding the demands that Trudeau appear, it would be highly unlikely that the Liberals on the committee will let that go ahead (and they have the votes to block it if necessary). And if the Conservatives cry foul, they can turn around and point to the fact that they blocked an attempt by the committee in the last Parliament to have Stephen Harper appear before them to answer questions related to the ClusterDuff Affair, and fair is fair, besides which, Trudeau has answered in Question Period and the media on this issue. And really, why would a PM expose himself to an hour of MPs trying to play Matlock, asking questions that are all traps designed to get him to incriminate himself, and then baying at the moon when he refuses to answer. It would be worse than the performances we see in Question Period these days (which are generally terrible), and we’d get the same quality of answers from Trudeau, which will be some fairly pat and trite lines unless they trip him up (which is the whole point).

Oh, one might say (and Althia Raj did on Power & Politics last night), if they want to show that this is really a new era of accountability and transparency, they it might be in their best interests to go ahead and have him go before the committee, to which I remind people what happened when Thomas Mulcair appeared before a committee to answer questions related to the satellite offices issue. Mulcair blustered, obfuscated, and then proffered a fiction that Conservatives did it too (they didn’t – the “evidence” was a riding office and a party office in the same mini-mall but several doors down from one another, but hey, they were on the same sign by the parking lot), and as he did so, all of his partisans flooded social media praising that “this is what accountability looks like.” I’m not really sure that this is the kind of thing we want to revisit.

As for Dawson’s appearance, it’s “as an individual” since she will be officially retired by then, and we can imagine that it will be much the same – each side fishing for a media clip that fits their established narrative, which they will then flood social media with – assuming that she can answer, given the procedural issue identified. And we can imagine how many questions about Bill Morneau will be asked, followed by the Liberals asking how many investigations she conducted on Conservative ministers, and on and on it will go. It won’t be a constructive use of anyone’s time, but why does that matter when you’ve got cheap political theatre to perform?

Speaking of Dawson, here’s her exit interview with the Globe and Mail in which she defends how much time she took to write that report, confirms that she didn’t discuss Bill C-27 with Morneau (never mind that doing so would violate cabinet confidence and cabinet secrecy – funny how the Globe continually ignores that fact), and defends the advice she gave to Morneau about a blind trust (“You know what the hell’s in there. That’s a defect on a blind trust”).

Continue reading →