For a second day in a row, all leaders were present in the Commons, ready to go for QP after a morning of caucus meetings. Rona Ambrose led off, asking about the secrecy over whether our Forces were on the front lines in Iraq. Justin Trudeau said that their role in assisting and training was important and dangerous but necessary work. Ambrose worried that the lack of transparency with no technical briefings, and Trudeau noted the need for operational security. Ambrose asked again in French, got the same response. From there, Ambrose went onto fundraising and tried to link ministers going to fundraisers with the former system in Ontario, and Trudeau reminded her that there are strict and transparent rules. She pressed again, but Trudeau responded a bit more forcefully. Thomas Mulcair kept up the fundraising questions, calling activities “unethical” and wanted tougher rules into law. Trudeau reiterated the strict federal laws, and they went another round of the same in French. Mulcair then moved onto funding for First Nations children, demanding support for their Supply Day motion on the subject tomorrow. Trudeau spoke about respect and working in partnership and the noted the investments to date. Mulcair asked again in English, and got much the same response.
Tag Archives: Iraq
Roundup: No, it’s not cash-for-access
This latest round of pearl-clutching over political fundraising is reaching its fever pitch in a most tiresome way possible, and I’m losing all patience with it. Determined to try and label it “cash-for-access” in order to tie the story in with the gross lack of fundraising rules that existed in Ontario, and the very dubious practices of the government there of having ministers essentially asking for donations from companies lobbying them, what’s going on at the federal level is nothing like that at all. However, bored journalists are drawing lines on between people who are attending or organizing fundraisers and lobbying activities, despite everything being reported and above board, are going “Look! Look! Smell test!” But I’m having a really, really hard time buying this. Likewise with opposition parties going “Sure, it’s in the rules, but Trudeau’s letters said that nobody should have the appearance of conflict of interest and this has the appearance!” No, it actually doesn’t. Just because you say it does, it doesn’t mean that there’s a problem.
I’m trying very hard not to come off as some kind of an apologist, but for the love of all the gods on Olympus, we have a really, really clean fundraising system with clear rules, and it shouldn’t bear repeating (and yet here we are) that you can’t buy influence for $1500. You just can’t. Sure, you might get to meet a minister, but what is that going to get you? You think they’re going to engineer a special loophole in the law for your company because you donated $1500 to their party – registered through Elections Canada, and the lobbying registry? Honestly? And it’s not like there aren’t a hundred other consultations that you could offer your suggestions to a minster or their staff with, because as we know, this government loves to consult. And further to that, are we actively trying to insist that no minister should ever fundraise because, well, “smell test” or “appearance.” Give me a break.
Meanwhile, we get inundated with everyone giving their “solution” to this, whether it’s returning the per-vote subsidy as Susan Delacourt suggests here, or if it’s Duff Conacher howling in the corner that we should adopt the Quebec donor limits of $100 (ignoring that limits that are too low means that money starts getting funnelled in other ways). But maybe, just maybe, we should all take a deep breath and realise that the more we get hysterical about this perfectly above-board fundraising in a clean and quite transparent system, it’s that we’re turning it into some zero-sum game. If we keep inventing scandal, shouting “smell test!” and “appearance!” when no, a reasonable and rational look at the situation shows that there isn’t actually a problem, we’re going to wind up giving excuses for parties to start hiding these activities. To paraphrase Rick Anderson on last night’s Power & Politics, there’s only a perception problem around this fundraising because people are throwing mud. It’s time to stop throwing mud and be grown-ups about it. This isn’t cash-for-access. $1500 is not buying influence. Stop lighting your hair on fire.
https://twitter.com/jec79/status/791117661476388866
QP: Demanding a firm commitment on Yazidis
All leaders, permanent or interim, were present for QP today, and it feels like a while since that has been the case. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, demanding to know how many Yazidi refugees the government would bring to Canada in the next 120 days. Trudeau thanked her for her leadership on the file, and committed to doing so, but didn’t provide a number. Ambrose asked about the call for Chancellor Merkel in Germany to create security zones in Iraq, and Trudeau committed to more aid for refugees. Ambrose moved onto CETA, and demanded Trudeau get on a plane and do anything necessary to get the deal signed. Trudeau reminded her that they already made progress on getting ISDS, and he expected good news in the coming days. Ambrose changed topics again, raised the Medicine Hat by-election as a pronouncement on the carbon tax schemes, and Trudeau promised more visits to Alberta. Ambrose then moved again, this time onto “cash-for-access” fundraisers, and Trudeau reminded her that the low personal limits in Canada ensured that there were no ethical problems. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and tried to go after the same issue, and Trudeau reminded him that looking south of the border, our system was well above and repeated that the low limits meant there were no ethical issues. Mulcair tried again in French, got the same answer, and then moved onto the situation at Muskrat Falls and the health of those Aboriginals who rely on fishing in the area. Trudeau reminded him that the provinces were working on the issue, and he trusted them, and they went one more round in English.
https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/790982900221091841
Roundup: Chong’s plans are a start
While new Conservative leadership candidate Steven Blaney decided to come out swinging with a niqab ban policy designed to appeal to those Quebeckers still hot for the idea and to give Kellie Leitch a run for her money, Michael Chong also came out with some policy yesterday morning – much more modest policy in line with how he thinks he could start to change parliament for the better if he were party leader. Because it’s not big policy pronouncements, it’s more in keeping with the kinds of things that leadership candidates should be focusing on, but that said, there are a few problems with what he laid out. I tweeted some of those concerns earlier, but I’ll elaborate a bit more.
Not sure about some of Chong’s proposals. Some, like the veto, are necessary but needs to be done right. He didn’t with his Reform Act. 1/ pic.twitter.com/eX1lsZ9zJZ
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 24, 2016
So yes, Chong made a valiant attempt at doing this with this Reform Act, but it got so watered down in his amending the bill to get it passed that it rendered it useless, and the veto went from the party leader to their designated surrogate. This is a promise that is more difficult than it sounds because there does need to be a quality control mechanism in place (which is why it was introduced in the first place), but it also needs to be arm’s length from the leader, and Chong’s previous proposals for such an officer didn’t fly. He’ll need to try and thread this needle much more carefully going forward.
I’m not sure the point of free registrations. Most fees aren’t onerous and if they are, parties should address that on their own. 2/
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 24, 2016
This one bothers me a fair deal because it’s buying into the nonsense that the Liberal Party has been spreading with their reforms to their party constitution. They claim it’s about “modernizing” the party structure and making it more responsive, but it’s more about populating databases, so that when they come out with top-down policy pronouncements, they can use their Big Data approach to justify anything. If other parties want to simply populate their own databases to target or micro-target policies even more that the Conservatives did during their decade in office, this isn’t actually good for democracy, and it’s not actually good for the grassroots. You don’t have people who are quite literally buying into the process (thus putting some skin in the game) and having an interest in their responsibilities as members when it comes to policy and nominations. It devalues membership, and I do think that’s a problem.
Changes to the Senate Speaker is a constitutional issue, and there are real implications for letting senators choose Government Leader. 4/
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 24, 2016
The fact that Carignan and now Harder are not cabinet ministers (but still in PC) is simply peevish optics. Not something to continue. 6/5
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 24, 2016
Promising reforms to the way the Senate operates while billing this as part of a package of giving power back to the grassroots is curious, but I’ll run with it only so far as to say that Chong shouldn’t actually be trying to out-Trudeau on this. Trudeau has put some things in motion that are not actually for the better, be it centralizing power in his own caucus, or trying to weaken the accountability role of the Senate, while his current “representative” there is trying to upend the whole system so that he can be the true bureaucrat that he is and empire-build, co-opting the whole burgeoning independent system for his own ends. Chong not grasping the constitutional role of the Senate Speaker, or the role of the Government Leader under Responsible Government is worrying, and I do feel like he should know better and not just try to play the reform-for-the-sake-of-reform card. That becomes a very dangerous thing under our system, especially because the system is not broken, so we should stop trying to break it while insisting on fixing problems that don’t actually exist.
QP: The menace of millionaires
Despite it being Thursday, there were no leaders present in the Commons today (save Elizabeth May), Justin Trudeau at an Amazon fulfilment centre opening in the GTA, and the others, well, elsewhere. Denis Lebel led off for the opposition, decrying the government not respecting provincial jurisdiction regarding healthcare, and Jane Philpott immediately hit back that the previous government didn’t much care for the file and they were making investments. Lebel asked again in English, and Philpott noted that previous investments did not transform the system as was necessary, which they were engaged in. Lebel then moved onto that Bill Morneau fundraiser in Halifax, and Bardish Chagger stood to take that bullet, assuring him that all rules were obeyed. Candice Bergen took over, decrying the appointment to the Port Authority one of the attendees. Chagger repeated her answer in English, and Bergen took her through one more round of the same. Murray Rankin led off for the NDP, his first time as their new House Leader, and he carried on the same line of questioning. Chagger’s answer didn’t change, leaving it for Brigitte Sansoucy to ask again in French, no avail. Sansoucy moved onto the investments in mental health, to which Philpott insisted that this was not a political issue but one of a responsibility to Canadians and ensuring that the investments translated in better access to care. Rankin asked the same again in English, and Philpott responded with an edge in her tone, assuring him that she does not play politics with mental health.
QP: A scrappy anniversary
At long last, all leaders were in the Commons, and Rona Ambrose led off by immediately demanding that the PM stop meeting with billionaires and restoring those boutique tax cuts that the government got rid of. Justin Trudeau reminded her of the tax cuts they made across the board to the middle class. Ambrose worried that the new mortgage housing rules hurting families. Trudeau replied that he was bringing investment into the country and listed the companies that have been moving more operations to Canada. Ambrose went another round in French, and Trudeau listed the ways in which they’ve helped families. Ambrose moved onto the issue of the healthcare accord, decrying waitlists. Trudeau said that Canadians expect healthcare dollars to be spent on healthcare. Ambrose then moved onto the “carbon fuel tax” impacting Alberta, but Trudeau hit back that the last government couldn’t get Alberta’s resources to markets after a decade in power. Thomas Mulcair was up next, decrying a Bill Morneau fundraising event in Halifax which he called “cash for access.” Trudeau insisted that the rules were already the most stringent and they followed them. Mulcair moved onto healthcare funding and the lack of an accord with the provinces, and Trudeau reiterated his previous answer about ensuring dollars are properly spent. Mulcair then moved onto a pair of questions on electoral reform and demanded a proportional system. Trudeau recalled when Mulcair was afraid the Liberals would ram though a new system, and that it was curious that Mulcair was demanding they do just that.
EVERY VOTE ALREADY COUNTS. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 19, 2016
Wait, so apparently Canadians "deserve" a proportional system. Okay then. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 19, 2016
QP: Tributes for Prentice
Half of the leaders were present in the Commons today, and after some tributes for the late Jim Prentice from all parties and a moment of silence, QP got underway. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on desk, asked about the size of the deficit, which is more than had been promised. After a quick rebuke about making investments, Justin Trudeau gave a tribute to Prentice of his own. Ambrose was concerned that jobs were not being created and demanded that he stop spending and focus on jobs instead. Trudeau noted that the Conservative approach didn’t create growth, while he was cutting taxes for the middle class. Ambrose then mischaracterized a whole list of things as taxes before decrying the possibility of a Netflix tax. Trudeau repeated his response about cutting taxes on the middle class. Denis Lebel was up next, decrying the lack of a softwood lumber agreement and how it was hurting families. Trudeau responded with the list of ways they are helping families. Lebel doubled down on the softwood lumber agreement, and Trudeau agreed that they were concerned about the file, but the former government’s broken relationship with the Americans didn’t help. Peter Julian led off for the NDP, demanding money for home care while mischaracterizing the changes to health care escalators. Trudeau reminded him that the Harper approach to healthcare was to write a check and not ensure that the money was spent on healthcare. Julian demanded that the health transfer escalator remain at six percent for another year, but Trudeau was not responsive to his logic. Brigitte Sansoucy repeated both questions again in French, and got much the same response from Trudeau in French.
It's the Netflix Tax™! OH NOES! #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 17, 2016
Peter Julian tries to assert that a funding increase is a cut. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 17, 2016
Roundup: Modernization beyond cameras
The Senate’s modernization committee came out with their first report yesterday that had 21 recommendations, almost all of which were fairly common-sense, but wouldn’t you know it, the only one that most media outlets glommed onto was the one about broadcasting Senate proceedings, never mind that it was pretty much always the plan to do so once they moved to the new chamber in 2018 (as it was too expensive in the current one given the maxed out infrastructure). Other recommendations that caught the mainstream attention were developing a mechanism to split up omnibus bills, giving a more proportional role for non-aligned senators on committees and coming up with a modified way of selecting the Senate Speaker (in a rubric that doesn’t require constitutional amendment) were also up there, while Kady also clocked the recommendation on ensuring that they recognise any group over nine senators that wants to organise themselves as a caucus or parliamentary group that can choose its own leader, and that those groups can have access to sufficient research dollars.
Less publicised were the number one recommendation of a mission statement for the Chamber to guide its activities in the Westminster tradition, finding ways to reorganise its Order Paper and Senate Question Period to not only formalise inviting ministers but also Officers of Parliament (but I’m less keen on reducing it to two days per week to give the “Government Representative” a break – if he wants the salary, he should keep up with the workload). The Independent Working Group says they’re mostly happy with these changes, but want more assurances of representation on key committees like Senate Rules and Internal Economy, where they need to have the actual power to break up the duopoly that currently exists between the established parties, which is fair.
What the report does not say is that parties should be eliminated, and in fact goes out to specifically say that the institution functions within the Westminster model, which includes government and opposition roles, and nothing in that report is intended to assume or advocate for the elimination of those roles, and that’s important. Opposition is important for the practice of accountability, and that’s something the Senate is very good at providing. There will be more reports and recommendations to come, and I’ll have more to say in the coming days, but I’m heartened to see that there is a commitment to preserving these key features, rather than to blow them up in the continued kneejerk allergy to partisanship that currently grips the imagination of would-be Senate reformers.
Roundup: Trudeau plays hardball
Yesterday was the day that Justin Trudeau decided to start playing hardball. Under the backdrop of the debate on ratification of the Paris Agreement on GHG emissions, he dropped the hammer on a minimum national carbon price, starting at $10 per tonne in 2018, rising to $50 per tonne by 2022, and provinces would keep the revenue with the intention that it be revenue neutral, so as not to ensure this is a federal “tax grab.” Any province that doesn’t comply will have the price imposed and the revenues returned to them. Stéphane Dion feels vindicated by this development, incidentally. Oh, and Trudeau probably isn’t going to meet with the premiers about their demands around the health transfer escalator either.
https://twitter.com/Geddes28/status/783000372730298370
Some of the provinces were immediately incensed. At the environment ministers’ meeting in Montreal, ministers from Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador walked out of the meeting, and true to his diva self, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall declared the “level of disrespect” to be “stunning” – never mind that Trudeau has been telegraphing this move ever since the Vancouver premier’s meeting. Alberta, incidentally, whose own plans surpass Trudeau’s, say that they won’t support it unless there’s a commitment for more pipelines, while Manitoba is non-committal for the moment. (Other provincial positions here).
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/783133654050541569
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/783134550151065600
Brad Wall, for his part, is threatening to take the government to court over carbon pricing, but it’s not likely to get anywhere.
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/783058718438981632
In terms of analysis, economist Trevor Tombe reminds us why pricing carbon is the most effective market mechanism to deal with climate change, while John Ivison says that Trudeau may have outsmarted his opponents, and Andrew Coyne notes the one-sidedness of any federal-provincial negotiations.
Roundup: Productivity has context
Parliament resumes today, and it’s going to be the start of a heavy legislative agenda, as the government’s months of consultations start wrapping up and decisions get to start being made. And if you needed a reminder about everything on everyone’s plates, here’s a handy piece about the priorities and challenges for the three main parties this autumn, and Kady O’Malley’s list here too. That said, a Huffington Post article was circulating over the weekend that set my teeth on edge, “proving” that the spring session was the least-productive in decades.
Why this is a problematic measure is that it’s focusing solely on the number of bills passed over those ten months (really, only about five of which was when Parliament was sitting). It’s a purely quantitative analysis that says absolutely nothing about the context of what happened, or about the bigger picture of what the government accomplished. And really, I will be the first person to say that the decision to pull the plug on the Friday they did was about forcing the Senate to pass the assisted dying bill, when they were actually scheduled to sit for a couple of more days, during which time they could have passed two more bills that were ready to go, but they didn’t, and that does deserve mention, but that’s not in there at all. What we get are Conservatives cherry-picking trips and “photo ops” – because who needs multilateral engagement, am I right? – rather than on some of the additional hurdles that the session faced. One of the biggest hurdles was around that assisted dying bill, and the fact that the opposition parties demanded far more hours of debate at second reading than the bill deserved (remember, second reading is about the principle of the bill, not the specifics), and they got huffy when the government tried to push those additional (useless) hours of debate into late nights to keep the agenda going, and when they tried to bring in a procedural hammer to move bills through, the Opposition blew their tops and we wound up with The Elbowing and the subsequent fallout from that. Let me remind you that the Conservatives fully participated in the days of psychodrama that followed, and now they have the gall to say that the government didn’t get enough done? Seriously? They were equal participants in determining the Commons’ schedule of what took place (especially the demands for more second reading debate on that assisted dying bill), and I shouldn’t have to remind anyone that when they were in government, they sat on that bill and didn’t move it despite its deadline. So yes, I find this whole accusation to be the height of cheek, and the analysis should have included far more context around the events of the spring.