Tag Archives: Mark Carney

Roundup: From a bad bill to a useless one

Posted on by

Rona Ambrose’s judicial training bill looks like it may have some life left in it, as Independent Senator Pierre Dalphond himself a former judge, has started making deals and compromises to see the bill go ahead in an amended form. Working both with the bill’s Senate sponsor and one of its critics, Dalphond has come up with an amended version of the bill which should address most of its critics, and apparently got a procedural deal passed in the Senate as a whole, which gave instruction for the legal and constitutional affairs committee to hold a special session next week to deal with the bill, outside of the normal process where it would be dealing with government business (which is the whole reason the bill hasn’t gone anywhere – the committee is loaded with government bills, which Senate rules state needs to take precedence).

The amendments would ensure that a judicial appointee must commit to sexual assault law training as designed by the Canadian Judicial Council, and administered by the National Judicial Institute – moves that address many of the concerns around judicial independence (which likely would have rendered the bill unconstitutional), and would have created conflicts of interest where the bill as it stands would demand that future judges need to be trained by sexual assault survivors groups – the same groups that would normally be called upon to be expert witnesses in trials. This help to address other concerns about the bill, such as access for lawyers who aren’t in urban centres, or that requiring training before application would tip off coworkers to those lawyers that they were applying for a position on the bench. I remain curious what other objections the Canadian Judicial Council still has about the bill, but I guess we’ll find out next week when they will likely appear at the committee.

This all having been said, we need to remember that the Canadian Judicial Council has been seized with this issue for a few years now and has been ensuring that there is better training for judges, which is as it should be – the system is already working. That means that Ambrose’s bill is really, if amended, just another bit of feel-good legislation that MPs keep burdening the Order Paper with. (Note that as it stands, the bill is likely unconstitutional and actually a very bad bill despite its good intentions). And as with so many feel-good bills, it takes up all of the space in the media for little actual benefit, but that’s politics these days, unfortunately.

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1132389428910088192

Continue reading →

Roundup: A few straw men and some rhetoric about immigration

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer gave another one of his “economic vision” speeches yesterday, this time on the subject of immigration policy. And while it was all “yay economic immigrants,” there were still a few questionable pronouncements throughout. It should be pointed out that off the top, he made a big deal about how they don’t want racists or xenophobes in the party (in apparently contradiction to the succour they gave avowed racists when they thought they could use them to paint the Liberals as the “real” intolerant party), and invoked his belief that we’re all God’s children so nobody is inferior regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation, and if they didn’t like that, the door was that way. So there’s that.

As for the policies, they were not only deficient when it comes to detail, but there was some of his usual problems of straw man arguments and hollow promises. For example, he repeated his usual argument that privately sponsored refugees do better than government-sponsored ones, but nobody is disputing that, and nobody is arguing against private sponsorship, but there is a place for government sponsorship which has to do with the most vulnerable who need more timely relocation and who may not have private sponsorship lined up. And yet, it’s part of his dichotomy about private groups being better than government. He also vowed to stop irregular border crossings, and good luck with that, because it’s always going to happen, and unless he can also stop Donald Trump from threatening immigrants and refugees in his own country, it’s not going to stem the flow coming into Canada irregularly – it’ll just push them to more dangerous crossings. He also didn’t stop the usual rhetoric that pits immigrants against asylum seekers that this kind of vow just exacerbates, so that’s not exactly turning over a new leaf. He also promised that economic migrants would get their credentials recognised in Canada faster, but good luck with that because credentials recognition is a provincial responsibility, and the federal government has precious few levers there, and successive federal governments have tried to deal with this situation in the past and not had much success, ensuring that his promise is empty. But what was perhaps most frustrating was his talk about intake levels – and while he took a dig at Maxime Bernier for calling on them to be reduced, he also said that the level should change every year based on “Canada’s best interests,” which is a giant loophole for that same kind of talk about reducing levels for bogus reasons.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1133506929442131971

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1133508491438624769

Meanwhile, the IRB says they need more funding if they’re going to tackle the asylum claimant backlog (which again, they inherited from the Conservative government) rather than just stabilize growth, which is what they’re projecting currently – but the real kicker here is that they’re still relying on faxes and paper copies rather than emails or electronic files, because they can’t share information effectively with CBSA, which should boggle the mind. And this problem was identified a decade ago (as was pointed out by Liberal MP Alexandra Mendès at Public Accounts), and it’s still a problem. I’ve talked to immigration and refugee lawyers who say that it’s a huge frustration for them that until recently, they couldn’t even schedule hearings by email. The IRB say they’re seized with the issue, but cripes, this should be embarrassing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A dramatic exit for Dimitri

Posted on by

In a bit of drama, late Sunday evening saw the departure of Dimitri Soudas from the post of executive director of the Conservative Party, following the nomination drama in the Oakville–North Burlington with Soudas’ fiancée, MP Eve Adams. Soudas had pledged to stay out of the nomination fight, but word has it that a doorknocking campaign for Adams was being run out of Soudas’ office, and that simply couldn’t do, especially with the allegations that he was being seen to interfere in the race already. Soudas had only been in the post four months, and already people are making the Helena Guergis comparisons with Adams. Apparently there was already some discontent in the party with Soudas when he was appointed to the position, as other members of the national council had other preferred candidates. Paul Wells looks back on those four short months, and how Soudas was supposed to be the adult supervision in the post-Nigel Wright era, only to become one more person through the revolving door of the PMO.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre’s questionable moves

Posted on by

Being released today is the new election reform act brought forward by the government which promises to reshape Elections Canada. And yes, the opposition is nervous. Already there are questions as to why Pierre Poilievre was selective in his answers to the House yesterday during QP when he said that he had met with the Chief Electoral Officer about the bill. That meeting, however, was before it was drafted, and not about the actual provision or language of the bill, which is kind of a big deal. One of the big questions about the bill is the provision that the new Commissioner of Elections be appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than the Chief Electoral Officer, and how that will affect his or her independence. Oh, and the most egregious part? That Poilievre is having his press conference to announce the bill before the technical briefing for reporters takes place. You know, so they won’t have time to read it or understand it before asking questions. Because that’s not a cynical move designed to frustrate the media and keep things as opaque as possible.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Transparency behind closed doors

Posted on by

In the wake of the defeat of Justin Trudeau’s four transparency motions on Tuesday, where the NDP confirmed that they were the ones who denied consent, Nathan Cullen took to the microphones to accuse the Liberals of making it up on the fly, that the NDP weren’t informed about the motions (err, except for that public press conference in front of the Centennial Flame last Wednesday), and that it was all a big stunt so that take credit. Add to that, he went on to laud all the work they were doing behind closed doors to improve transparency. No, seriously. Cullen also says that they’re concerned that female MPs will be put in a position of jeopardy if their places of residence are disclosed under these new rules, which seems like pretty weak sauce because I’m sure it would be a pretty simple amendment that they didn’t need to include their address as part of the line item on housing or hospitality costs. Oh, and after QP yesterday, Elizabeth May moved a motion to investigate MPs using the travel points to participate in by-elections, and it was voted down, Gordon O’Connor in particular making motions to kill it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Meet the new Bank of Canada Governor

Posted on by

In a somewhat surprising move, the Bank of Canada has named Stephen Poloz as its new governor, and not Tiff Macklem, as had long been speculated. Poloz, who was most recently the head of Export Development Canada, has worked at the Bank of Canada in the past, but at the press conference yesterday, Mark Carney stressed that it’s a team effort at the Bank, so Macklem will still play a role, and so on. Maclean’s gives you the ten things you need to know about Poloz, John Geddes writes about what we’ll miss about Carney, and John Ivison writes about Poloz’s challenge of working with the government’s agenda.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Procurement and protectionism

Posted on by

A couple of different reports on military procurement came out yesterday. One of them, from the Commons public accounts committee, which looked into the F-35 procurement reports by the Auditor General and PBO, completely watered down the findings so as to tone down the criticism of the government’s handling of the file. So, good job there in holding the executive to account, government backbenchers! Meanwhile, an independent panel report recommended that Canadian companies take the lead with building from scratch or taking the major role with follow-on support contracts for the various military procurements being undertaken, though Rona Ambrose noted during QP that the government was better suited to be a customer of Canadian industries than a subsidizer, so take that for what you will.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brazeau and the pundit class

Posted on by

So, Senator Patrick Brazeau, arrested and held in police custody on suspicion of domestic violence, possibly sexual assault. Stephen Harper reacted immediately by expelling him from caucus – so far so good. But then came the immediate and not unexpected boneheaded comments from the commentariat with its ad homenim attacks and visceral hatred for the Senate, apparently based solely on the received wisdom of the ages, and not upon reality. For example, NDP MP Charlie Angus insisted that Stephen Harper remove Brazeau from the Senate entirely – err, except that he can’t do that. You see, there’s a reason why Prime Ministers can’t arbitrarily remove Senators – because it’s the job of the Senate to hold the executive in check. If a Prime Minister could remove Senators at will, then he would do so anytime they became a nuisance to him, and replace them with more compliant models. That kind of protection from arbitrary removal is actually a design feature – it allows them to speak truth to power without fearing for their jobs. And while yes, they can be removed through an internal process, it’s a pretty high bar that’s set in order to ensure that their jobs aren’t under threat when they oppose the government of the day. And yes, many Senators do take advantage of that, even when it’s inconvenient to the Prime Minister that appointed them, because that’s their job. While the received wisdom is that they are all hacks napping until their retirement, a lot of good work happens in the Senate that simply isn’t talked a lot about, mostly because there isn’t a lot of drama behind it. Add to that this concern-trolling about being “democratic” or “accountable” without actually understanding what those terms mean in their holistic contexts, and it’s when things start to spiral out of control.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Return of the Commons!

Posted on by

The Commons is back today! Hooray! Oh, my MPs, how I’ve missed (most of) you! Believe me, after weeks of instant constitutional “experts” lecturing me over the Twitter Machine about how we haven an absolute monarchy in this country, where the Queen and GG rule with iron fists and Responsible Government is but a figment of our imaginations, well, I’m ready for a change of pace. So bring on QP!

To prep you for the House’s return, here is Paul Wells’ take on how the three parties are positioning themselves as the sitting resumes. Mark Kennedy lists some questions that will likely need to be answered now. The Canadian Press looks at the fiscal situation, and how that will affect the conversation in the Commons. Michael Petrou shows you the five things that are most pressing on John Baird’s desk right now. Michael Den Tandt believes the energy file will be the one to watch this spring. An here is a look at some of the Private Members’ business coming up for debate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Thirteen new demands

Posted on by

The big news is that Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence will be ending her hunger action today, after it was reported that her own band council was issuing her an ultimatum to either end her hunger action or face removal as chief. But that wasn’t quite enough for Spence, who issued a thirteen-point resolution that needed to be met, and after speaking with Opposition leaders, got them to sign off on it – though I’m not exactly sure why. And so, there to be an “honouring ceremony” to end the hunger action held later today, plus a couple of press conferences – so I guess we’ll have to see what gets said. Meanwhile, the Manitoba chiefs have decided that they’ll stick with the AFN for now, but raise questions about the Assembly’s mandate – especially with regards to treaty negotiations. Jonathan Kay writes about how the AFN can no longer be all things to all First Nations in Canada.

Continue reading →