Tag Archives: Peter MacKay

Roundup: Appointment board terms

Posted on by

The Order in Council relating to the new Senate appointment board was made public yesterday, and some of the details were tweeted out (as below, with commentary). Of note for me when you read the terms was that this interim process for the first five appointments will be done by engaging with civil society groups of various distinctions. The permanent process going forward will be the one that invites people to nominate others (or themselves) as vacancies come open.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/690289470709563392

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/690289727677829121

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/690290163809959937

Continue reading →

Roundup: Out goes an oddly pivotal figure

Posted on by

In a sense, there’s a closing of a particular chapter of Canadian politics with the announcement yesterday that Peter MacKay was done with politics, and would not be running again. He’ll stay on until the election, and Harper has opted to keep him in the justice portfolio for the dying days of the 41st parliament, but MacKay has made his mind up, and is going to slowly start packing up his office. In many ways, MacKay is a central figure to the modern era of Canadian politics. His decision to begin the process of merging with the Canadian Alliance – betraying an explicit written promise not to, made to secure the leadership of the old Progressive Conservative party – formed the juggernaut by which Stephen Harper was able to form the government that is entering its tenth year in power. While many are saying that this departure marks the end of the “progressive” side of the Conservative party, it bears reminding that MacKay was not a terribly Red Tory, and that there are far more progressive voices in the caucus and cabinet than he was. Where it may have an impact is with the continued attempt by the old Reform Party wing to amend the constitution of the party to sweep away the vestiges of the old PC wing, particularly predominant in the Maritimes and parts of Ontario, and with MacKay no longer there to use his weight among the membership, that final transformation may take place in a year or two. MacKay is also being remembered not only for his political controversies, but also for his romantic misadventures, now behind him as he leaves to spend more time with his family. John Geddes looks back at MacKay’s career, while Paul Wells writes about MacKay’s role in the political merger that changed Canadian politics, and Hugh Segal writes about MacKay’s importance to Canadian politics. Not long after John Baird’s departure, MacKay was spotted meeting with Brian Mulroney in Toronto, which fuelled resignation rumours, which he denied at the time. The Halifax Chronicle Herald’s editorial cartoonist Bruce MacKinnon recalls some of his best work with MacKay’s caricatures, and Global has some archived footage of MacKay’s break-up with Belinda Stronach when she crossed the floor to the Liberals. And BuzzFeed Canada has a listicle about MacKay’s career.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Of gaffes and grandchildren

Posted on by

I think by this point we can pretty much acknowledge that Joe Oliver is not anyone’s best choice to communicate a message – he wasn’t as Natural Resources minister, with his “foreign-funded radicals” warnings about environmentalists, and certainly not as finance minister given his Tuesday night gaffe with CBC’s Amanda Lang. There, he said that any problems with raising the TFSA limit might not happen until 2080, and that he’d leave it for “Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s granddaughter to solve that problem.” Not only did he admit that there was a problem with it, but he decided it’s best to leave it to the next generation – not to mention his prediction that the Harper family will become some kind of dynastic rules of Canada – because we’ve seen so many of those. When opposition parties made hay of it, Harper came out to defend Oliver’s comments, but we have heard this warning before, from the PBO who drafted a report looking at the hole in future budgets that this kind of measure would create, and it’s not inconsiderable, so no, the question being put to Oliver by Lang was more than reasonable, and it would have been irresponsible for her not to ask it. In other post-budget news, here are the opposition positions on many of the pieces therein. There was mention in the budget about “expanding and modernising” the Honours system, but there are almost no details about what that means other than a new website. Pierre Poilievre said the money being given to the Ottawa police is for “fighting jihadis” – except it’s not, but rather for things like demonstrations or visits by foreign dignitaries. Oops. Mike Moffatt looks at the very optimistic budget projections on the price of oil. The budget nearly doubles what it gives to SIRC, but we’ll see if they’ll be expected to do more with it, given that they are already under-resourced. Paul Wells puts absolutely everybody to shame and writes about the budget as political document, and it’s so on point I want to weep.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The self-evidence of residency requirements

Posted on by

The Duffy trial took on a couple of different avenues yesterday – the courtroom drama itself, and journalists off-site poring over the reams of evidentiary data, most especially his calendar pages which held a trove of normally secret caucus information, and some like The Canadian Press, even started to match up expenses to diary dates. If nothing else, the trial is providing that glimpse into the caucus room that we are generally shut out of. As for the courtroom itself, where the star witness was the former Senate law clerk, and the fairly existential question of just what the requirements for a senator’s residency are was the topic of discussion. Duffy’s appears to be a prima facia case of not really being eligible to sit as a senator from PEI – particularly because Duffy himself could not keep up his own end of that bargain. But the point his lawyer was trying to make is that there are no real rules around those requirements, or what “primary” and “secondary” residences are. The problem with Duffy’s defence, yet again, is that these rules should have been self-evident. If you’re appointed to represent a certain region, you maintain your main residence in that region and you have the documentation to prove it, and your residence in Ottawa should reflect the nature of it being secondary, and for work purposes. That there were no rules spelled out in any foundational constitutional documents are a reflection that this was self-evident. (Granted, it also reflects that Parliament only sat a few months of the year then as well, but that’s not really the point). The point is that in the absence of rules, is there a licence to abuse them? Or should there be the presumption that if one has been appointed to the Senate of Canada, that they should have enough intelligence and good character to understand what it means to represent a region and maintain your primary residence there – after all, they will be reviewing legislation from this point hence. One has to wonder if the court can even answer this kind of a question, but in the absence of that kind of power, it should remind us yet again that there is one person responsible for appointing someone who can’t figure out this most basic of questions, and that person is Stephen Harper. Nicholas Köhler looks at how the defence is portraying Duffy as a naïf in light of these lax rules. And of course, the Ottawa Citizen has your behind the scenes look at the day’s events.

Continue reading →

Roundup: About those federal minimum wage claims

Posted on by

I got a householder from my MP, Paul Dewar, the other day, and the figure he cited on it bothered me – that raising minimum wage for federally-regulated workers would benefit “tens of thousands.”

I remember this being fact-checked when the NDP first announced this policy, and shortly after I tweeted the photo of the mailer, one of my followers found the reference – that there are currently 416 federally-regulated workers earning minimum wage.

And let’s also be clear – federally-regulated workers are paid the prevailing provincial minimum wage, which keeps them in line with their local counterparts, and is in line with other jurisprudence regarding federally-regulated workplaces and provincial workers compensation regimes – jurisprudence that has been upheld at the Supreme Court level. It was later pointed out to me that the number of federally-regulated workers who earn between the local minimum wage and $15 may indeed be in the thousands.

https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568985974824267776

https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568986289363484673

https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568986575398252545

https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568986883247640576

https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568987594337296384

https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568987927687995392

Fair enough. It may well be that the intent of the NDP policy is to encourage the provinces to raise their own provincial minimum wage rates, but no province with an NDP government has bothered to make such a move, so that may be a telling sign. The bigger issue, however, is that this $15/hour minimum wage issue is a gimmicky policy that will actually do nothing to raise anyone out of poverty, and in fact seems to be yet another case of a political party lifting talking points from American sources without bothering to check the Canadian data or context, and if you talk to any credible Canadian economist, they will tell you that you may as well advocate raising the minimum wage to $20 even $20,000/hour, because raising the minimum wage is terrible policy for poverty reduction. What does work, however, are cash transfers to the poor by means of things like the GST rebate mechanisms that are already in place. But it’s populist to say that people “deserve a raise,” even if it’s terrible policy, and it deserves to be pointed out. Context is as important to journalism as repeating facts in isolation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chris Alexander’s niqab nonsense

Posted on by

In a mind-boggling moment of specious logic and dog-whistle politics as its worst, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander asserted that people who defend women wearing the niqab are inherently defending violence against women. No, seriously. I’m not even sure where to begin, from the patriarchal assertions that deny women agency to make their own choices about what they wear, to the completely false moral equivalence between the two, all while trying to score political points on the xenophobic attitudes of a portion of the population that feels uncomfortable by the Other that confronts them (or as in the case of the vast majority of the country, something that doesn’t actually confront them but they’ve seen on television and are weirded out by). More than anything, it’s exceedingly odd that this is a government that likes to get up on any high horse it finds and trumpets the fact that it champions freedom of religion around the globe. Look, we even created a special ambassador for the post, and pretty much overturned the doctrine that there shouldn’t be a hierarchy of rights, and yet here we are privileging religion above other rights in our foreign policy. And yet, the moment these women choose to demonstrate their religious observance by wearing the niqab, this government freaks out and says no, that’s terribly, you can’t do it at these times and places. And yes, I know that the niqab is really more of a cultural observance than a religious one, but many of these women believe it to be religious, so unless we want to go full colonial on them, perhaps the government – and Alexander in particular – needs to rethink the logic of their position before they make any more boneheaded pronouncements.

Continue reading →

Roundup: MacKay’s turn to blunder

Posted on by

Another day, another minister who appears tone-deaf to the issues of their files – in this case it was Peter MacKay on questions of gun control as we reach the anniversary of the École Polytechnique shootings. It shouldn’t have been a surprise – these kind of questions get raised every year, and the Conservatives have fairly consistently made some kind of gaffe, but normally it’s the Status of Women minister who gets into hot water. This time, MacKay made a couple of nonsense answers during Question Period about the gun control aspect of the anniversary, when he fell back on his bog standard “respect for victims, punish offenders” talking points rather than addressing the issue at hand. The government could sell a case for their bill, C-42, if they would actually bother to do so rather than just accuse the Liberals of trying to resurrect the long-gun registry (which, for the record, Trudeau has said that they would not do), or bringing up the supposed plight of the law-abiding duck hunter. Instead, MacKay put his foot in things again, tried to claim the reason for the shooting was mysterious, tried to backtrack when he got called out on it, and again the government looks worse for wear.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Shrugging off other harassment allegations

Posted on by

A suit was filed in Ontario Superior Court yesterday alleging harassment by an NDP MP Sylvain Chicoine, according to a former staffer – but it’s not quite the same as the other allegations that have gripped the Hill this week. Instead, it was another staffer in that office that harassed the female staffer who filed the suit, while she alleged that nothing was done because Chicoine acted in a sexist and misogynist manner by doing nothing about it, until he eventually fired her. The party closed ranks around Chicoine by saying that the staffer’s union had investigated and found nothing to be amiss, but were silent about the fact that they offered her a lesser data-entry job in the leader’s office if she agreed to drop her suit. Mulcair tried to claim that it had nothing to do with Chicoine but was simply a dispute between staffers – not true, according to the suit – and even went so far as to opine that as a lawyer, he thought her case was without merit – a rather unusual move for someone who was so concerned about re-victimization of other complainants just a day before. The change in tone between the two incidents is quite something.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Oversight versus good enough

Posted on by

Divisions are forming in the Commons about what happened with last week’s attack, with the Liberals now accepting that the shooter was a terrorist as that is what the RCMP have concluded, while the NDP are steadfastly refusing that label, saying that there’s not enough evidence to use it (contrary to what the RCMP Commissioner has said). But before anyone thinks that this is a signal that the Liberals are going to simply follow any anti-terror legislation that the government brings down, it’s important to note that they have also been the sharpest critics on the lack of civilian oversight mechanisms and the need for parliamentary oversight for national security agencies, as have long been recommended by a number of sources. Harper dismissed those calls and said the current oversight is enough (never mind that his government reduced oversight already by eliminating the post of Inspector General at CSIS a couple of years ago), while privacy commissioners around the country sounded the alarm. Of course, in the debate over whether the shooter was a terrorist or mentally ill, there are probably elements of both present, as the Ottawa Citizen editorial points out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Return of the fiscal imbalance

Posted on by

Well, the premiers have met and have spoken and they think the federal government should pony up some more money – try to act surprised, everyone! Not only that, but they’re trying to revive the term “fiscal imbalance,” because it seemed to work the last time. In particular, they want more money for health to deal with an aging population (despite being guaranteed increases for the next decade) and reliable infrastructure funding (which is a bit more of a legitimate gripe considering the way the government back-loaded the Building Canada Fund). There was some talk about trade and labour mobility agreements, but nothing earth shattering on the interprovincial trade barrier file. Christy Clark noted that the topic of the constitution was not up for discussion – not even to bring Quebec into the fold at long last. Getting in his two cents, New Brunswick premier David Alward (who may not be premier for much longer, as his province is in an election) took the opportunity to lash out at Justin Trudeau for his saying that they should put a hold on more fracking until more studies of its impacts can be done. Alward says that New Brunswick can’t wait because it needs the jobs now.

Continue reading →