Tag Archives: Mexico

QP: Pink shirts against Trump

Posted on by

With it being caucus day, most of the desks were filled in the Commons, and MPs were ready to go. Rona Ambrose led off, asking about the sale of some BC retirement homes to a Chinese firm with murky ownership. Justin Trudeau reminded her that we are a trading nation, and that means allowing foreign investment in our interests. Ambrose pressed about the Chinese’s firm’s murky ownership, and Trudeau took the rare move of pulling out a note to read off some of the provisions of the deal including provincial oversight and job guarantees. Ambrose turned to the issue of consecutive sentences and demanded that they remain in place. Trudeau reiterated his previous day’s response about supporting judges while doing the broad-based Criminal Code review. Ambrose asked again, and got the same answer, before she turned again to the lack of full-time job growth, and Trudeau retreated to his well-worn talking points about tax cuts and the Canada Child Benefits. Jenny Kwan led off for the NDP, railing about a massive immigration crackdown in the United States and and asked if the PM still thought the US was a safe country for refugees. Trudeau noted that the expectation of this government is to work well with the Americans. Matthew Dubé pressed about refugees heading for our border, and Trudeau noted that he was surprised that the NDP, who are concerned about the rights of workers, would look to jeopardize our economic relationship with the States. Dubé then asked about Canadians turned back from the US border and worried that the pre-clearance bill would make it worse. Trudeau reminded him that pre-clearance means that they still get Charter protections that they wouldn’t have on US soil. Jenny Kwan demanded that Trudeau stand up to the bully Trump on Pink Shirt Day, but Trudeau repeated his answer.

Continue reading →

QP: These are not the fundraisers you’re looking for

Posted on by

The PM was present for a second day in a row, the benches were starting to empty out, with stacks of holiday cards on the desks of the other MPs present. Rona Ambrose led off, noting the visit of Joe Biden later in the day, but worried that with Trump about to slash taxes, and that Trudeau was too busy with photo ops and fundraisers. Trudeau responded by listing off the various things that this government has done to lower taxes and help families. Ambrose demanded a “real” low-tax plan, and Trudeau noted more things his government did like getting pipelines to tidewater approved. Ambrose switched to French to ask again, and Trudeau listed the many investments that he has attracted to the country. Ambrose changed back to English to pivot to the fundraising question, and Trudeau fell back to the rules talking points. For her last question, Ambrose accused him of breaking conflict of interest laws, and Trudeau assured her that he followed the rules. Thomas Mulcair was up next, accusing the PM of having become what he accused the Conservatives were doing, and Trudeau returned to his talking points on the rules. Mulcair wondered where the PM was last night, and when Trudeau only answered with his points about the rules, Mulcair prefaced his next question by saying that Trudeau was at a “cash-for-access” event. Mulcair moved onto the electoral reform file and worried that the government would unilaterally impose a system that would benefit their party. Trudeau responded with a plug for for MyDemocracy. Mulcair asked about the banking provisions in C-29, but Trudeau deflected with talks about tax cuts and benefits.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving the PMO too much credit

Posted on by

Over the past day-and-a-half, everyone and their dog has had an opinion about just what Maryam Monsef was thinking when she stood up in Question Period and said that the electoral reform committee hadn’t done their job in bringing forward a recommendation and then tried to use the Gallagher Index equation as a way of ridiculing their work. And when she stood up in QP to apologise yesterday no less than five times, the opinions got more and more “sure” that everyone knew just what was going on.

And while I am always happy for a Thick of It reference where I can get it, I’ve seen a lot of tweets over the day that have basically posited that Monsef is this vacuous cipher for the PMO, and that she’s just reading the lines assigned to her, and it bothers me. Why? Because Monsef isn’t vacuous. Quite the opposite in fact, and while she may stick to her lines in QP and have all the sweetness of saccharine, she’s very deliberate in the way she responds (as she articulated to John Geddes here). So yes, she prepared for Thursday’s QP and had some lines prepared, including the one about the Gallagher Index, but she also knew that she was going to be bombarded with a bunch of ridiculous questions from the opposition parties who overread the conclusions of the report. Did she go too far? Yes, absolutely, and I think she recognised that. But she’s also been handed a really shit file to manage, and she’s got a tonne of work to do in stick-handling it.

Essentially, the Liberals made a foolish promise that they probably knew they couldn’t keep, but they also managed the expectations around it somewhat with promises for consultation that gives them an out. It was also just one item in a comprehensive reform package, most of the rest of which is well on the way of being implemented, but they went and oversold this one item and now they need to figure out how to break it without looking like they’re breaking it for self-interested reasons. And no, I don’t think they want to break it just because the current system worked out for them – rather, they realised that the alternatives are not actually better for our system in general. Part of how they can hope to break it is to show that the other parties are unreasonable and no consensus can be reached, and to a great extent, the electoral reform committee report demonstrated that, but Monsef went and overshot and her own party members got hit with friendly fire as a result. And now they need to keep up the charade a while longer, but this is something that they need to smother, but they can’t look like that’s their plan, and Monsef has a hell of a job trying to manage that.

Oh, and for everyone who asserts that this is just the PMO pulling the strings instead of the minister, I’m less convinced. I’ve had conversations with people who’ve worked in Queen’s Park who now work here, and their assessment is that this actually is government by cabinet – the centre is not stickhandling everything, and I’m not convinced that Monsef, as junior as she may be, is just a puppet like so many Harper ministers were. The evidence just isn’t there for me.

Meanwhile, Colby Cosh offers some more context for that whole Gallagher Index nonsense, while Paul Wells manages to better interpret Monsef’s reaction and the real reason why the committee failed, which has to do with the referendum question. Andrew Coyne mystifyingly tries to equate the issue with free trade, while again insisting that Monsef is just a cipher for the PM.

Continue reading →

QP: Monsef gets her elbows up

Posted on by

After a busy morning swallowed whole by the electoral reform committee report, it would be understandable for there to be some exasperation among all MPs. Rona Ambrose was the only major leader present, and she led off QP by demanding that the recommendation for a referendum be respected. Maryam Monsef said that she has received the report and would be reviewing it, and noted that there was no consensus and that it showed it was a huge challenge. Ambrose repeated the question in French, and this time Monsef praised the need for a values-based conversation. Ambrose hammered on the referendum issue, overplaying the strength of the referendum recommendation, and Monsef said that the committee didn’t give them an answer on the question they asked them. Ambrose claimed that it was because the PM didn’t think that people were smart enough, and Monsef said that the only recommendation of the committee was to have a referendum on the Gallagher Index. Ambrose switched to World AIDS Day for her final question and the need for stable funding. Carolyn Bennett responded that they recognised the need for stable funds, and the extended transitional funding to groups while they worked to reform the funding system. Alexandre Boulerice demanded a proportional voting system, and Monsef said that the answer of “choose your own adventure” was not an answer. When Boulerice cast aspersions on the planned national online consultation, Monsef retorted that he didn’t know the questions on it, so he was prejudging it. Nathan Cullen took over and returned to demands for proportionality, and Monsef returned to the Gallagher Index burn. Cullen groused further, and Monsef touted the new online digital engagement tool.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A blistering condemnation of Peter Harder

Posted on by

I’ve long held suspicions about the work that Senator Peter Harder, the “government representative” in the Senate, has been doing, and I will say that I was completely alarmed by some of the things brought to light by Liberal Senator James Cowan yesterday in his speech about Senate modernization. It’s a blistering speech, and I suggest you take the 25 minutes to listen to it all, but some highlights: Harder is engaging in revisionist history to claim that the Senate was never meant to be partisan (which is false), and he is trying to do away with the roles of government and opposition (which are integral to the Westminster system) in order to create a bureaucratic-like structure. In a chamber full of independents, there will be fewer checks on the government, and Harder will amass power by acting like the leader of the Senate as a whole, further weakening the chamber’s role as a check on the power of the executive. Harder has gone so far as to start offering to set up meetings with senators and the premiers of the provinces they represent – meeting he would be present at – which is completely improper and something a government representative should have no role in doing. It’s disturbing to listen to how his plans to reorganise the Chamber would take shape, and Cowan’s speech is blistering in its condemnation.

Continue reading →

QP: Tax hikes and pipelines

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau headed off for official visits to Cuba, Argentina and Peru, all other leaders were present for QP. Rona Ambrose led off, asking about preventing violence against women and funding to combat it. Patty Hajdu assured her that they are working on a federal gender-based violence strategy to be rolled out in 2017. Ambrose then shifted to the new American administration and railed about tax hikes in Canada. Scott Brison reminded her that they inherited a slow-growth economy and it was why they cut taxes to the middle class. Ambrose wanted the government to personally endorse the Keystone XL pipeline, and Jim Carr reminded her that the government did support it, and the approvals on the Canadian side were still valid. Ambrose switched to French to ask about the proposed Infrastructure Bank and if the Champlain Bridge would have tolls on it, and Marc Garneau praised infrastructure spending. Ambrose repeated the premise in English, demanding to know what safeguards were in place to keep the government from backstopping billionaires. Garneau again praised the government’s infrastructure investment strategy. Thomas Mulcair asked about a provision in the CPP bill that penalizes women for taking time off work to raise children, and Jean-Yves Duclos praised measures they’ve taken to help senior women in poverty. Mulcair asked again in French, got the same answer, then turned to the pipeline review process, saying that the review process members are all industry insiders. Carr reminded him about the distinguished Canadians, including Grand Chiefs, of being corporate hacks. Mulcair asked again in English, and Carr doubled down on his condemning Mulcair’s characterization of the panel.

Continue reading →

QP: The coming Trumpocalypse

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau and much of the cabinet off at an investor summit in Toronto, the front bench was full of seat warmers, but there were still 17 ministers present, which is okay for a Monday. Rona Ambrose led off, warning that the new Trump era will mean a carbon tax sets Canada up for failure. Dominic LeBlanc responded, saying they were looking to transition to a low-carbon future, and that the government looked forward to working with the new administration. Ambrose warned that while the Americans are our closest allies, they’re also our biggest competitors. LeBlanc noted the COP22 conference taking place right now, and that pricing pollution was good for our economy. Ambrose wondered about the future of the Keystone XL pipeline, at which LeBlanc said that it was the company that needed to reapply for a US permit, not the Canadian government. Ambrose demanded public support for the pipeline,  but LeBlanc stuck to fairly anodyne talking points about working with the incoming administration. Ambrose then moved onto NAFTA and the uncertainty the PM created by saying he would renegotiate it. Stéphane Dion said they looked forward to working with the US administration on a number of issues, including trade. While Thomas Mulcair was present, it was actually Jenny Kwan who led off for the NDP, demanding that mothers not be punished with CPP benefits changes. Jean-Yves Duclos said that the CPP changes were important, and that he was glad to see that they had other points of view to further improve the CPP. Brigitte Sansoucy asked the same in French, got the same answer, before Tracey Ramsay asked about the TPP, softwood lumber, and NAFTA renegotiation. Dion said that they were still consulting on the TPP, and when Karine Trudel asked the same in French, she got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pushing back against Leitch

Posted on by

In the wake of Wednesday’s Conservative leadership “debate” – and I use the term loosely because there was no actual debate, just presentations sans Power Point – the wedge that Kellie Leitch has been nursing in her campaign became all the more stark. While Michael Chong may have been first out of the gate with his condemnation, Deepak Obhrai has used it to crank his campaign up a notch yesterday, with both an appeal for support in order to oppose Leitch specifically, and also told tales about messages he’s received from Leitch supporters telling him to leave the country.

At one point during the presentations on Wednesday, Leitch held up a book Points of Entry from sociologist Victor Satzewich to justify her screening proposals. The problem? That Satzewich’s conclusions in the book were the opposite of hers, that the system was working, that demanding more face-to-face interviews for all visa applications would make the system grind to a halt, and that while he went into the research sceptical, his research convinced him that things were better than he had initially surmised. So that’s kind of embarrassing for Leitch (or would be if she had any demonstrated capacity for shame, which I’m not convinced is the case).

Meanwhile Leitch, whose other Trumpian note has been to rail against “elites” – as though she were not the epitome of one – has been holding fundraisers in Toronto with Bay Street lawyers for $500 a pop. You know, more of those elites which she’s totally not one of. Also, if she’s so convinced that she’s going to be Prime Minister by 2019, isn’t this some kind of ethical conflict for her to be holding these kinds of cash-for-access fundraisers?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Obama and his populist rant

Posted on by

So, that speech by Barack Obama was quite something. Canada tends not to be a country of lofty rhetoric or grand and eloquent speechmaking, so it’s nice when we get to borrow it for a bit, but it is a bit of novelty. For all of his complementary rhetoric about Canadians and our progressivity, it was interesting to note the places where people in the Commons weren’t all unanimous with the applause (mentions of climate change and LGBT rights certainly didn’t endear the Conservatives), and he was very clever in the way he couched his criticism of Canada needing to do more to pull its weight with NATO, by timing it so that the applause had already started with is line about the great job that the Canadian Forces do when he finished the thought that the world wants them to do more. Clever that.

What was perhaps even more interesting and less rehearsed was the rant that Obama went off at the conclusion of the Three Amigos summit press conference, where he pushed back against the use of “populism” when it comes to the likes of Trump, Sanders, and the Brexit vote. While Obama was quick to paint Trump in particular with the terms of nativism and xenophobia, I’m not sure that he really addressed the core of the issue with the rise in populist sentiment that gets hijacked by those nativist and xenophobic elements. Why? Because he was quick to try and associate populism with only the positive benefits of helping the working classes to better themselves, and on the face of it, “populism” is about appealing to ordinary people. The problem is that it has a dangerous flipside about making that appeal in contravention to expert opinion and evidence, which is painted as elitist – something that Obama steered clear of. Meanwhile, populism has already overtaken the political discourse in Canada, when our one-time ideological parties on both the left and the right have abandoned their ideologies in favour of left and right-flavoured populism, eschewing that evidence or clear-eyed policy in favour of selling it to ordinary people, never mind that it would actually disproportionately benefit the wealthy (and yes, that applies equally to Conservative and NDP policy in Canada). When that ethos of casting off evidence and expert opinion reaches dangerous levels, you get the kinds of rhetoric you heard in the Brexit campaign, and with Trump and his supporters, but it’s on the same populist road. So you will forgive me if I don’t subscribe to Obama’s embrace of populism as solely a force for good. It has a dark side that needs to be acknowledged, lest it get as out of control as it clearly has been doing of late.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Specious arguments about political bullying

Posted on by

As someone who writes a lot about our democratic system (true fact – I have a book about it coming out in March), I read a lot of really dumb things that people try to assert in order to make a point. The Citizen had an op-ed yesterday that pretty much takes the cake for specious reasoning when it comes to asserting that our electoral system somehow turns everyone into petty bullies. That’s right – it postulates that First-Past-the-Post is responsible for The Elbowing that happened a couple of months ago. No, seriously. It’s such a moronic argument that I. Can’t. Even.

Here’s the thing – trying to blame the electoral system is a losing proposition because trying to prove the counterfactual amounts to pixie dust and unicorns. Electoral politics can get nasty because that’s the nature of competition, and even in systems that are supposedly built upon consensus models (such as the legislatures in the NWT and Nunavut), there is just as much bullying among MLAs that takes place as in the oppositional system we have here. There is all manner of fractious and nasty politics in countries that have proportional or ranked ballot systems because it’s almost like we’re all human beings or something. Add to that, trying to put the blame on the logically fallacious notion about “false majority” governments (which don’t exist because the popular vote is not a real thing – elections are not single events but rather 338 separate and simultaneous events that you can’t simply mash into a single statistic and expect it to be meaningful) doesn’t automatically turn the victors into bullies because it posits that either “true” majorities or minority governments would not be the same. That’s of course false, as large majorities can turn triumphalist and run roughshod over opposition parties just as much, and minority parliaments can be petty and nasty as parties clamp down in order to ensure that the government isn’t toppled, as our own recent memory shows. None of this has anything to do with First-Past-the-Post, and pretending that another system would force parties to work together forgets that it simply means shifting from one model of horse-trading and bargaining to another model, where there tends to be more extreme elements jockeying for power instead. So, to be quite frank, if this is supposed to be “kicking off” a discussion on electoral reform, it might as well be a tale that includes a vampire or two because it’s just as fantastic.

Continue reading →