Tag Archives: Private Members’ Business

Roundup: Going around the rules

Posted on by

So there were shenanigans in the Senate yesterday, the result of a confluence of a number of factors. Some of them are longer term – the terrible manner in which Harper has made his appointments has left a large cadre of Conservative senators who feel beholden to him and his largely imaginary whip. There are exceptions to the rule, but there are a lot of Senators right now who still feel they need to follow the PM’s rule because he appointed them, and that’s simply not the case. It was just a sensibility encouraged by the Senate leadership on the Conservative side who had far too many newbie senators in place at once. Then there’s the problem of the bill itself. The PMO has ruled they want to see this go through – never mind that it would create a giant bureaucracy at CRA, and that it could have “staggering” compliance costs for mutual funds and other organisations beyond the unions it’s targeting. It’s also a constitutional overreach because labour relations are a provincial jurisdiction, but the government wants this through because they see unions as a big threat to them. It never should have been a private members’ bill, but that was how they introduced it, and got it past the worst of the scrutiny on the Commons side because of automatic time limits. The Senate recognised it as unconstitutional and a threat to labour relations in this country, and even a number of Conservative senators opposed it. Led by Hugh Segal, they voted to amend the bill to near uselessness and sent it back to the Commons – but then prorogation happened, and the amendments were undone when the bill reset (thanks to Senate rules). In the interim, Hugh Segal retired, and Marjory LeBreton stepped down as government leader, almost certainly because of the caucus revolt over the bill. The Conservative senators sat on the bill for months before the PMO decided it wanted them to try and pass the bill. The Liberals, as is their right, filibustered. And they have the provinces on their side – seven provinces representing more than 80 percent of the population are opposed to the bill, and the Senate has a regional representation role. Things came to a head yesterday when the Conservatives tried to break the filibuster by trying to time allocate the bill – something they can’t do under Senate rules, and when the Speaker said no, the Conservatives challenged the ruling – something they can actually do under Senate rules. Kady O’Malley explains some of it here, and I responded with a Twitter essay.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recycled economic planks

Posted on by

Thomas Mulcair spent the noon hour yesterday laying out three of his party’s economic planks for the coming election. (A reminder: it’s still nine months away). To that end, Mulcair promised a cut to small business taxes, an extension of the capital gains cost allowances for companies buying new equipment, and an innovation tax credit for businesses. The first of those is not new – the NDP have been going in this direction since the previous election, and the second is current government policy that is set to expire, but one wonders how much it has been taken up as the government already extended it, and we still hear that Canadian companies didn’t spend the high dollar years investing in this equipment to boost productivity at a time when it was advantageous for them to do so, and now the dollar is much lower and it’s more costly for these businesses to buy this new equipment. The third, geared toward research and development, again sounds suspiciously like what the current government has been trying to do as they retooled the National Research Council to help with commercialisation of technologies. There is, of course, debate on some of the utility of these points as well, with certain experts saying that those small businesses that would benefit from this kind of tax cut are already well off. (Also, small businesses are not the biggest job creators in the country – sorry, but that doesn’t make any mathematical sense). The final point is geared toward revitalising the manufacturing sector, but it’s pocket change in terms of dollars, and the sector has much more entrenched structural problems. Of course, there is no mention of how this is costed, on top of promises for their childcare spaces, restoring the much higher healthcare transfer escalator, and returning OAS eligibility to 65 – and no, raising corporate income taxes won’t get you that much, nor will going after offshore tax havens. Mulcair also added that the NDP would move to protect pensions from bankruptcy proceedings, which again is not new policy, for what it’s worth.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Raising the spectre of domestic terror

Posted on by

It was an odd event yesterday – a Conservative MP asking the PM during Question Period to respond to “unconfirmed reports” to a domestic terrorism link to a hit-and-run case in Quebec involving two members of the Canadian Forces, where the suspect was shot and later died. It was only hours later that the RCMP released a brief statement that the suspect was known to them, and that he may have been radicalised. It’s still early days in the investigation, but one wonders if it’s perhaps too soon to suddenly believe we have ISIS cells operating in Canada, and that this wasn’t an isolated incident where one individual who, by all accounts, was a recent convert for whatever reason, and decided to act on the vague ISIS threats that were made public in media reports. I guess time will tell, but expect the government to start using this incident as justification for greater counter-terror legislation. At the same time as this story was breaking, the Director of Operations of CSIS was at a Senate committee, saying that they do the best they can with prioritizing their investigations, but can’t cover every base because of budget limitations. Duly noted.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Excuses for exit controls

Posted on by

Public Safety minister Stephen Blaney talked about how exit controls at Canada’s borders can help to prevent homegrown terrorists from leaving the country, or at last tracking them as they go. And great – except that this is just the latest in a series of justifications for exit controls. Previously it was for immigrants who were spending too much time out of the country to qualify for their permanent status, or refugee claimants who returned to their home countries for one reason or another, and before that it was for people on EI who end up going on holiday which means they must be frauds and this is how we crack down on them. It does seem to be reminiscent of the way that the government suddenly started using the need to combat cyberbullying as a way of justifying lawful access laws to get access to Canadians’ IP addresses and metadata.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An emergency debate, such as it was

Posted on by

The Commons had their “emergency debate” on the situation in Iraq last night, using debate loosely, of course. After all, “debate” these days tends to largely mean reading monotonous speeches into the record that were all pre-written and don’t actually debate what has already been said. The NDP hammered away at demanding a vote on deployment, never mind that military deployment is a Crown prerogative and thus not subject to a vote, and in fact, shouldn’t be because it launders the prerogative and the accountability. But if Mulcair wants to give Harper political cover so that he can, in the future, say that the Commons decided on the matter and that they are culpable when things go wrong because there was a vote, well, it makes it kind of awkward for the opposition, no? It’s part of Responsible Government – the Commons has given the government the authority to govern, and if they don’t like it, then they can withdraw confidence. Voting to “make decisions” is not actually their role – accountability is. The NDP were also childishly mocking the Liberals for largely not being there for the debate – except that they only got two speaking slots the whole night, which they used near the beginning, and as we’ve established that it’s not a real debate, it does seem fairly pointless to have a bunch of people there to simply endure repetitive prepared speeches – and make no mistake, they are repetitive – with no real ability to respond or add to what’s been said. But this is the state of our parliament these days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Four new workers!

Posted on by

It’s a special kind of desperation for a good news story when the government holds a press conference to announce four new jobs being filled. Specifically, four jobs on the Irving shipyard refurbishment in Halifax, which will be filled by Aboriginals. I’m still not sure the point of the announcement other than Peter MacKay saying “Look, we’re being diverse!” only they’re not even government positions (though they are getting a lot of government money). Sure, it’s nice that Irving has an Aboriginal employment strategy as part of its contracting procedures, but this was worthy of a government press conference? Sorry, but the news cycle isn’t that slow.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Harper’s silence on Fahmy

Posted on by

There were reverberations around the world as an Egyptian court sentenced three journalists to lengthy prison sentences, including Canadian Mohamed Fahmy for his work with Al Jazeera. While other world governments had their leaders or foreign ministers express condemnations or set up calls to the new Egyptian president, Canada’s response was kind of tepid, with Minster of State for consular affairs, Lynne Yelich, putting out a press release to express “disappointment.” Apparently we didn’t want to be too harsh so as to offend them. Fahmy’s brother tweeted out that he holds the government responsible for his brother rotting in jail because Harper couldn’t be bothered to make a public statement. It does make one wonder about why Harper couldn’t be bothered, considering the number of condemnation press releases that we already get in our inboxes. Is it because Harper has his own difficult relationship with the media? Who can say?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cyberbullying not lawful access

Posted on by

It has to sting when witnesses the government expects to back their bills unflinchingly don’t do what is expected. This happened yesterday as parents of teens who committed suicide because of cyberbullying (or criminal harassment being called cyberbullying even though it’s not really) gave their reservations about the government’s “cyberbullying” bill to the Commons committee studying it. The general consensus – though not universal – was that the bill should be split up, and the aspects dealing with non-consensual distribution of intimate images be dealt with separately from the lawful access provisions that are stuffed in the bill. Amanda Todd’s mother said that she doesn’t want other children victimised by having their privacy rights violated using her daughter’s name. It also should be said that those parents who were fine with the privacy violation provisions are also coming from a place of profound grief and loss, and it colours their perceptions of the issues around civil liberties. Suffice to say, it’s fascinating to see the government losing their own narrative over such a contentious bill.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A new hope for leadership debts

Posted on by

One of the aspects of the new electoral reform bill that I was always wondering about – leadership fundraising – is being changed. Once it comes into force, contributions to leadership campaigns can be annual instead of lifetime, so that means that some of those former leadership candidates can start to fundraise from the same donors again. The bill doesn’t change the enforcement of those old debts, which was basically unenforceable. Meanwhile, Jason Kenney has said that the government would consider amending the bill at committee to include a ban on veiled voting, after a question by the Bloc about this. While David Christopherson may warn that it’s a dangerous game to find a wedge issue like this, he seems to forget that his party was also in favour of banning veiled voting when it was an issue in the Commons a couple of years ago. Stephen Maher points to the various flaws in the bill that require correcting – and all party support to make the whole endeavour legitimate. Andrew Coyne wonders just what problems the bill was intending to solve, because the provisions in the bill seem to be reflecting problems that aren’t actually there.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Charges laid against Brazeau and Harb

Posted on by

It has finally happened – charges laid against errant senators. In this case, one count each of fraud and breach of trust against retired senator Mac Harb and suspended senator Patrick Brazeau. (The RCMP said that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Harb with mortgage fraud, for what it’s worth). Both will appear in court at a later date, and each professes their innocence. And yes, the RCMP are continuing their investigations into the dealings of Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, so we may yet hear about future charges being laid.

Continue reading →