Tag Archives: Labour

Roundup: A sudden dilemma for Singh

Posted on by

Liberal MP Raj Grewal made a surprise announcement last night, that he’s resigning his seat because of “personal and medical reasons,” which the PM later called “serious personal challenges” – a phrase that only raises the number of questions about what it could be. Aside from losing one of the best-dressed MPs on the Hill (Grewal is a frequent recipient of sartorial snaps on this blog), where this announcement gets very interesting is the bind that it places on NDP leader Jagmeet Singh.

Singh had initially stated that he wanted to run in Grewal’s riding during the next election, given that it was his riding provincially (note to non-Ontarians: in this province, the federal and provincial ridings are identical with a couple of exceptions in Northern Ontario), and for almost a year, he kept stating that he was “comfortable” not having a seat and waiting to run in that same Brampton riding in 2019. That is, until his party’s poll numbers started tanking and he realized that he needed to actually be present in Parliament if he hoped to regain any traction. (Also of note, his brother now holds the seat provincially.) But in August, Singh committed to run in Burnaby South, and has been spending some time there campaigning, and recently announced that he found a rental property there.

So this leads us to wonder – will Singh abandon Burnaby South, where he has already expended some effort and expense, or will he decide that since Brampton is now back on the map, that it’s the smarter decision to run in given his roots and history in the riding? This just as Singh learned that he’ll get the byelection in Burnaby South that he’s been (belatedly) demanding in February. So there’s a choice to make, and we’ll likely hear all about it in the coming days. (Also, expect the Conservatives to push conspiracy theories about just how “convenient” it was for Grewal to suddenly resign now, and how this must mean the Liberals really want him in the House because they think it’ll give them some kind of advantage; this line of baseless speculation was proffered on Power & Politics last night and I expect to hear it repeated in the coming days).

Continue reading →

QP: A bizarre question to Trump

Posted on by

The prime minister was present today, the third day this week, but Andrew Scheer was elsewhere. That left Gérard Deltell to lead off, asking about the announced job losses at Bombardier, and he worried about the federal loan extended to the company. Justin Trudeau took up a script to say that their thoughts were with those affected, before reading praise about the Canadian aerospace sector. Deltell moved onto Di Iorio’s planned resignation, and worried it would be too late for a by-election. Trudeau read that the member intended to resign. Deltell asked about Di Iorio’s “special mission,” and Trudeau read a similar script about how MPs are expected to work on behalf of there constituents. Mark Strahl got up next to rail about Tori Stafford’s killer, and demanded an apology to Stafford’s family for forcing them to fight the government. Trudeau read that they reviewed the medium security transfer policies and they made improvements. Strahl railed about how that was an admission that they had the power to transfer her beforehand, and Trudeau didn’t use a script this time to reiterate the same response, with added empathy to the family. Guy Caron was up next, returning to the topic of Bombardier, but was particularly concerned about its executive bonuses. Trudeau picked his script back up to read about their thoughts with the workers and yay aerospace. Caron switched to English to Rae the question again, and Trudeau responded by reading the English version of his own script. Tracey Ramsey was incredulous that the prime minister said he wouldn’t have his photo taken signing the new NAFTA so long as the steel and aluminium tariffs were in place. Trudeau quipped that Ramsey’s region was in favour of the agreement before reading about his support for the industries affected. Alexandre Boulerice got up to repeat the question in French, to which Trudeau read Boulerice’s praise for the agreement.

Continue reading →

QP: Performative carbon outrage

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was off in Toronto to sell his climate rebate plan, Andrew Scheer was back in Ottawa, leading the charge against the idea. And to lead off in QP, he disingenuously suggested that a carbon price would have no effect on the climate (not true), and would only raise costs for families. Dominic LeBlanc responded by touting that they have a plan and the Conservatives did not. Scheer forced a tortured trick-or-treat analogy to insist that large emitters were exempt from the plan — which is a lie — and LeBlanc reiterated his points without correcting the record. They went for another round of the same, and then Scheer reached into his bag of greatest hits to demand the true costs of the climate plan, and LeBlanc hit back that Scheer’s lack of plan wouldn’t be revealed until after the election. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he railed about the concessions in the New NAFTA. Marc Garneau praised the agreement and stated that they were continuing to fight the steel and aluminium tariffs. Caron railed about the exemptions on duties for private couriers but not Canada Post, and Garneau insisted that Canadians were satisfied with the agreement. Alexandre Boulerice heard scorn on the government’s climate targets, and LeBlanc assured him that they were living up to their commitments, and noted the Nobel prize for pricing pollution, which is what the government was doing. Boulerice groused about pipelines, and LeBlanc gave more assurances of their plan.

Continue reading →

QP: More Mark Norman insinuations

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in town but not in Question Period, Andrew Scheer was also away for reasons undisclosed. Candice Bergen led off on the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman issue again, demanding that the government turn over recordings of Cabinet meetings where shipbuilding contracts were discussed. Ralph Goodale got up to respond by reminding her that this is before the courts and they can’t discuss it. Bergen raised the spectre that the government was destroying records because of the Ontario Liberals did in relation to the gas plants scandal. Goodale reminded her of the Standing Orders that state that matters before the courts can’t be discussed. Bergen tried again on the same insinuations, and Goodale said that the government follows the law. Gérard Deltell got up to try again in French, and Goodale reminded him about the independence of the courts. Deltell reminded him that Paul Martin released records for the sponsorship scandal, and Goodale cautioned him that commentary like that was not permitted. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, demanding expungements instead of pardons for former simple possession convictions. Goodale reminded him that the old system didn’t work which was why they changed it, and that they were putting in a new expedited process for those pardons. Caron asked again in French, and Caron reminded him that the expungements for when the law itself was discriminatory such as when it criminalised people for being gay. Hélène Laverdière got up next, and asked the government to apply the Magnitsky Act on Saudi officials responsible for the disappearance and possible death of Jamal Khashoggi. Chrystia Freeland assured her that they were working with partners to call for answers, but when Laverdière asked again in English, bringing up our arms sales, and Freeland gave a more pointed response about the G7 foreign minister’s statement that she led.

Continue reading →

QP: No answers about “Jihadi Jack”

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau back in town, all of the leaders were present for QP, and most of the benches were pretty full. Andrew Scheer led off, concerned that “Jihadi Jack” was approached by Canadian officials to patriate him here. Trudeau took up a script to read that they they took terrorism seriously, and were collecting evidence to bring people to justice. Scheer asked again, more slowly, and Trudeau read the another script about travelling abroad for terrorist activity being a Criminal Code offence, but didn’t answer the question. Scheer tried a third time, and Trudeau put down the script this time to praise the work of intelligence agencies and security officials, and said they wouldn’t play politics with keeping Canadians safe. Scheer tried a fourth time, and this time Trudeau accused him of distorting events to create division. Scheer tried one last time, and Scheer accused him of grasping at straws to make Canadians feel unsafe. Guy Caron was up next, and he demanded more action on climate targets, and Trudeau read a script about all the good work they’ve done to date, taking a shot at the Conservatives and the NDP along the way. After another round of the same, Nathan Cullen took over in English, and cranked up the sanctimony as he repeated the question, and Trudeau said that while they have to do more, they are on track to meet their targets. Cullen railed again about Harper’s targets, and this time Trudeau noted that pricing pollution is part of the solution, as was investing in clean technology, citing the LNG agreement as an example of being good for both the environment and the economy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Notwithstanding Ford

Posted on by

It was a crazy day in the state of constitutional law yesterday, as an Ontario judge struck down Doug Ford’s bill to reduce the size of Toronto city council on some rather dubious grounds, and Doug Ford responded by insisting that he would invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to ensure it passed anyway, no matter that the issue by which he’s going to use the seldom-used provision on is of dubious merit, and has all of the appearances of enacting a political grudge (while all of the “reasonable” members of his Cabinet who were supposed to keep his worst impulses in check cheer him on). It’s a full-blown tire fire.

For starters, here’s a bit of context about just what the Notwithstanding Clause actually is, and some history of its use. But what is perhaps more alarming are the number of voices who are calling on the federal government to invoke the defunct constitutional provisions around disallowance as a way of thwarting Ford – and some of that has been fuelled by Toronto mayor John Tory meeting with prime minister Justin Trudeau last night. I can pretty much guarantee you that Trudeau, however, won’t touch the disallowance powers with a bargepole, because a) the powers are defunct for a reason (in that the issues that disallowance was used on are better dealt with through the courts), and b) it would stir up such a shitstorm of epic proportions that it would be difficult to contain the political damage, and I’m not sure that Trudeau is willing to expend that much political capital for something that is really not his political ambit, and he’s likely to win most of Toronto’s seats again regardless. But if you also look at the message that Trudeau’s minister of intergovernmental affairs, Dominic LeBlanc sent out, the not unsubtle language in there is that this is a fight for the political arena, and Ontario voters will have to deal with the mess that they created, which is pretty much how it should be. It’s not going to be easy if we’re having these kinds of issues three months in, but people shouldn’t expect another order of government to swoop in and save them. That’s not how democracy works.

Meanwhile, Emmett Macfarlane walks through what’s constitutionally dubious about the court ruling, while Andrew Coyne invokes some high dudgeon about use of the Notwithstanding Clause and Ford’s thuggish populist tactics. Chris Selley reminds us that so much of this episode is because Ford is all about chaos, and he brings more of it with these tactics. Susan Delacourt, rather chillingly, wonders which will be the next premier to decide that the Charter is inconvenient for their populist proposals. And University of Ottawa vice-dean of law Carissima Mathen both writes about why Ford’s comments are so offensive to our system of laws and governance, plus offers some more context about the Notwithstanding Clause in this video segment that you should watch.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Effacing labour

Posted on by

Yesterday having been Labour Day, there were a couple of topical stories out there – that the government’s look at updating the Canada Labour Codemay look at more measures to help with work-life balance, and that there are ideas on the table to look at taxing robots who replace workers with automation (though this seems fraught with all manner of complications). There is even talk about how this government has given the labour movement a seat at the table with trade negotiations (though there is some talk about how it’s all for show, and that they have little actual impact). But all of this having been said, I found the statements by the leaders to be interesting.

https://twitter.com/MinWorkDev/status/1036629441517182984

Trudeau’s tweet was fairly standard, spoke about the labour movement, and the attached statement went into more detail about the achievements of the aforementioned labour movement. His minister of labour, Patty Hajdu, had a video message that talked about ways they are working on improving the current conditions, with a focus on harassment and coming pay equity legislation. Jagmeet Singh, true to NDP form, spoke about the focus on workers. But Andrew Scheer?

Nothing about the actual meaning of Labour Day. Nothing about the gains made by the labour movement, or the safety of workers, or the eight-hour work day, or weekends. Nope. It’s a holiday before getting “back to the grind.” Now, the previous government was no friend to labour, with vexatious legislation designed to make certification harder, impose onerous financial reporting requirements, the fight with public sector unions over sick days, and numerous back-to-work bills. But to not even mention the history of the movement and the gains made, whether it’s with occupational health and safety, weekends, pensions, anything? It smacks of pettiness, and of effacing history – you know, something he gets riled up when it’s a statue of Sir John A. Macdonald, but apparently not the Winnipeg General Strike.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trans Mountain tantrums

Posted on by

The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (temporarily, at least) – both because of an inadequately scoped NEB report around marine protection and because the government didn’t properly consult with Indigenous communities – caused no shortage of meltdowns and tantrums over all forms of media – with a dash of triumphalism from the environmentalists and some of those Indigenous communities. All of it, from both sides, is pretty much overreaction, but some of the reactions were ludicrous.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1035264446376108034

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1035267000610824192

The one reaction that was probably most ridiculous and unhelpful was that of Alberta premier Rachel Notley, who in a fit of pique, declared that she was pulling out of the federal climate framework until the pipeline was built, and made a list of nonsensical demands that will do absolutely nothing to get said pipeline built. Appealing it to the SCC? On what grounds (and delaying things another 18 months)? Recalling Parliament? To do what? Hold an angry take-note debate? Yes, this is the federal government’s mess, but none of this actually solves it. What will solve it is to follow the roadmap in the FCA judgment, which means reassessing the marine risks and doing proper consultations with those First Nations on their substantive issues. I get that Notley has to make a show of this, but none of this tantrum is constructive in the slightest, and worse yet, it likely undermines her own environmental agenda.

Meanwhile, Jason Markusoff notes that while the government owns this failure, it’s not as though the opposition has offered a solution that would have worked either. Trevor Tombe walks through the decision and what can be done to fix the problems identified therein, but notes there are costs to delays. Tyler Dawson looks at how the populist outrage over this move can start another round of Western alienation (in which, the actual facts of what’s going on won’t matter, because populism).

Continue reading →

Roundup: On track for a final cannabis vote

Posted on by

Over in the Senate, some of the drama around the cannabis bill has resolved itself and we can look forward to some structured, orderly report stage and third reading debate leading up to the June 7thfinal vote. And yes, before you say anything, the Conservative senators are playing along and have been swearing up and down that they will respect this date and not try to play any games and delay it further. (They also know that they’ve burned a hell of a lot of political capital on unnecessary fights lately and aren’t keen to burn any more).

To recap, part of the drama has been that the Conservatives still plan to move amendments at Third Reading, which is their right. But they wanted this as part of the structured plan, and the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, wasn’t playing ball, and wanted the Social Affairs Committee – which funnelled all of proposed amendments from the four other committees that studied the bill and voted on them there – to have a look at those amendments first. And the Conservatives, rightfully, refused. And then members of the Independent Senators Group started giving quotes to newspapers about how they were open to real amendments and not those that were “superficial, tactical, unenforceable, or would only serve to delay this bill.” That, and throwing more shade about how they believed the Conservatives were just playing games, because the modus operandi seems to be that anything the Conservatives do is partisan and therefore bad, but anything they do out of a shared belief is not partisan and just fine, which is a lot of bunk. And some of the Independent senators are getting downright condescending in trying to make that particular case. Suffice to say, peace has broken out after the ISG got over their issues about the amendments, and they now have a plan for debate that will carry them through to the vote on the 7th.

Meanwhile, there is talk about whether the amendments to C-46 – the impaired driving bill – will survive a full vote in the Senate after the likely unconstitutional provisions around random alcohol testing. ISG “facilitator” Senator Woo is hinting that they would vote to reinstate the provisions. I will add, however, that I am not absolutely not buying their supposition that senators were trying to simply embarrass the government by returning the omnibus transport bill to the Commons a second time because it was their own Independent senators who insisted on those amendments. Sometimes senators insist on amendments because they think they’re in the right – which is a novel concept, I’m sure.

Continue reading →

QP: Investing in assets

Posted on by

While the prime minister was away after this morning’s major announcement on the government decision to acquire the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, all other leaders were present — for a change. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he railed about the Trans Mountain announcement, before demanding to know that it wouldn’t cost more than the $4.5 billion. Bill Morneau responded with a bit more fire than we usually get from him, decrying the audacity of the Conservatives for demanding the pipeline get built and then complaining when they assured it would be. Scheer offered some revisionist history when it comes to governments paying for pipelines (there is in fact a long history of it), and Morneau reiterated that the project was in the national interest. Scheer played the economic nationalist card in that $4.5 billion going to “Texas” shareholders, and Morneau repeated the points about jobs and the economy. Alain Rayes took over in French, and demanded to know how much it would cost taxpayers, and Morneau repeated that it was important to invest in the project, that their investment ensured it would be completed. After another round of the same, Guy Caron got up to rail that this investment was a betrayal, rather than investing in the clean economy. Morneau said gave the usual line about the environment and the economy going hand-in-hand, and that while they invested in clean energy, this project was still necessary. After another round of the very same, Nathan Cullen got up to ramble sanctimoniously about what was in the public interest, and Morneau reminded him that they went through a robust process, and that people need to respect the rule of law. Caron piled on more sanctimony, and Morneau made points about stepping in between provincial squabbling.

Continue reading →