Tag Archives: John Baird

Roundup: Ironic elections observers?

Posted on by

Jason Kenney announced that Canada will be sending 500 elections observes to Ukraine – including Ted Opitz. You know, the guy whose election the Supreme Court may very well be overturning within days. Does this count as irony?

Meanwhile, in the court case where the Council of Canadians is challenging seven other election results, the Conservative lawyers have asked for a $250,000 deposit on costs in case the challengers lose. The Council charges that the Conservatives are trying to drive up costs with obstruction and delay. As for that affidavit about voter suppression calls coming from that one call centre in Thunder Bay, the Conservatives produced an affidavit refuting it, saying that they only called supporters and in the ridings were there were actual polling station changes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unveiling the proposed regulations

Posted on by

Diane Finley has unveiled her proposed EI reform regulations, and it seems to be a lot about twice-daily emails about “appropriate” jobs in the local area to EI recipients. Which is great – provided you have a computer and Internet access, and aren’t one of those poor schmucks who has to rely on their local library for the Internet, especially seeing as the federal funding for those library computers is now at an end. The changes will also track how often one claims EI, and start taking away benefits the more you claim it. Rona Ambrose likens it to E-Harmony for jobseekers. No, seriously. Meanwhile, here is some more reaction, plus Scott Brison relays concerns from the agricultural sector in his riding with regards to these reforms’ limits on temporary foreign workers, who they say the use of actually creates more jobs for local residents. Steve Murray casts his satirical eye on the situation here.

To say nothing about him personally, John Baird has been pretty vocal about promoting GBLT rights around the world in his capacity as foreign affairs minister. With that in mind, it’s awfully curious that he was speaking at an event sponsored by an anti-gay church on the topic of religious freedom. His speech, however, was pretty bland, and offered no real clues about the still undefined Office of Religious Freedoms.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Omnibudget off to committee

Posted on by

The omnibus budget bill has passed Second Reading without any procedural trickery, and is off to committee for study, while it also begins pre-study in a number of different Senate committees. The NDP, however, are promising “novel” ways to engage the public on the issue. My question is why it’s taken them two weeks to start engaging the public.

The reaction to John Baird’s outburst in QP yesterday that they were shutting down the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy because they didn’t like their recommendations has largely been “told you so.” (Said outburst included a slip where he said a carbon tax would “kill Canadians” when he obviously meant “kill jobs.”) While some people say that everything Baird says is calculated, I’m not so sure – this had a bit more of a tone of mocking and an attempt to goad the Liberals that may have backfired, and I suspect that he may have been given a stern talking to by PMO, and will be reading his responses during his next turn as back-up PM.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cutting legislative corners

Posted on by

Concerns have been raised that private members’ bills are creating laws with less rigorous scrutiny, and that the government is using this to cut corners. Which is pretty much a big “well, yeah – obviously.” Private members’ bills are not drafted with the assistance of the Department of Justice, but rather by some underpaid clerks in the Library of Parliament, and the time allotted for debate is really limited – two hours per stage in the Commons, and maybe two committee meetings. And yes, the government has been taking advantage of this fact, but for a number of reasons. Sometimes that advantage is tactical – if it’s a PMB and not a government bill, it’s open for a free vote so you can get some opposition MPs onside as they (normally) won’t be whipped on it. If those free votes can sow some division, as with the long-gun registry bill in the previous parliament, so much the better. Sometimes it is genuinely an idea from the backbenches that the government likes, which I suspect the masked rioter bill was after it tapped into some good old-fashioned populist outrage after incidents like the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver. But this having been said, I doubt that it’s often being done for the sake of less oversight and debate considering the speed with which these bills proceed, and no, not every bill or motion from a government backbencher is a backdoor attempt by the government to do something (like the Woodworth abortion motion, so stop insisting that it is. Seriously – just stop). A large part of the problem, however, stems from the fact that MPs are conflating their own roles, and they like to think of themselves as American-style lawmakers, and certain opposition parties – like the NDP in particular – like to use their private members’ business to advance party goals rather than the personal policy hobbyhorses of their MPs, like PMBs are intended to do. We need to be mindful that MPs are not there make laws, but are rather to hold those who do to account, and that has been eroded. PMBs are supposed to be limited in scope and effect because it’s not an MP’s job to make laws.  When this role becomes conflated, problems like this one start creeping into the system.

Continue reading →