Tag Archives: Public Service

Roundup: Hurt feelings and punitive lessons

Posted on by

There is a vote coming up on Monday, when Parliament returns from the constituency week, which is on the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to allot the opposition an additional three Supply Days, which the Conservatives are trying to spin as a “lesson” for the Liberals, because they apparently haven’t gotten the memo that it’s a hung Parliament. Also, the Conservatives’ feelings are hurt that their previous Supply Day was moved from a Thursday to a Friday, and they feel like it was being done as “punishment.” Never mind that the rules allow the government to allot a certain number of Supply Days to Wednesdays and Fridays (which are half days), and every government has monkeyed around with Supply Days in the past – most especially the Conservatives.

To that end, I find it particularly galling that Candice Bergen thinks that the Liberals need to take some lessons in humility because it’s a hung parliament, considering how the Conservatives behaved during the minority years. Humility? Conciliatory note? Nope. It was daring the opposition, declaring non-money bills (some of them in the Senate) to be confidence measures, screwing over the other parties by changing the federal rules governing spending limits on leadership campaigns while the Liberals were in the middle of theirs, and it culminated in a finding that the government was in contempt of parliament because of how they were withholding information that parliamentarians had a right to see.

Meanwhile, I would also issue the warning that this kind of stunt, which will further limit the government’s available calendar, will inevitably wind up with the government needing to use time allocation or other similar measures in order to pass time-sensitive legislation. Bergan may think she’s being clever by using these kinds of tactics, but this kind of thing always blows up in someone’s face, and nobody wins in the end.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rights, title, and ratification

Posted on by

We got a few more details yesterday about the agreement reached with the Wet’sutwet’en hereditary chiefs on Sunday, despite a few TV hosts somewhat obtusely demanding to know what it meant for the Coastal GasLink pipeline – despite the fact that it was stated over and over again that this agreement did not have anything to do with that, and that the matter was unresolved. The crux of the agreement was an agreement on how rights and title would be extended for the Wet’suwet’en going forward, meaning that with any future projects, there would be clarity as to who would need to be consulted – which means the hereditary chiefs – and given the new impact assessment process that the Liberals instituted (under the infamous Bill C-69), those consultations begin at the earliest possible moment for these project proposals so that affected First Nations can be brought in from the get-go. What I found especially interesting was that Carolyn Bennett said that this was in accordance with UNDRIP principles, as free, prior and informed consent (which again she stressed was not a veto). And one imagines that this kind of agreement would be a template for others when it comes to unceded territory across the country.

As for Coastal GasLink, work apparently resumed on aspects of the project, but given that some of their permits were pulled by the province’s environmental assessment agency with a demand for more consultations, one supposes that the work is on areas that are outside of Wet’suwet’en territory. Meanwhile, one of the elected chiefs who is in favour of the project was doing the media rounds in Ottawa yesterday, and he said that while his people were discussing the ratification of the new agreement, he said that he was also willing to give up the economic benefits of the pipeline is that was what his people decided that they wanted as part of those discussions. We do know that matriarchs who were in support of the project were also in the meeting between Bennett, her BC counterpart and those hereditary chiefs, so the discussion within the community is very much alive, and we’ll see in a couple of weeks when the ratification process is supposed to be concluded, what the future holds for the pipeline.

Continue reading →

QP: Asking for psychic predictions

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town, he opted to take a pass on Question Period today, as did a couple of other leaders. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he led off by praising overinflated praise for Teck Frontier, and he wanted to know how the PM personally felt about the “cancellation,” which was actually a withdrawal. Chrystia Freeland responded by stating that it was a difficult decision for the company, before listing the projects they support and have been getting built. Scheer accused the prime minister of not having the strength to stare down radical activists, to which Freeland that reconciling climate action and resource projects is challenging and not helped by extreme rhetoric. Scheer breathily accused the government of sitting on Teck’s approval since July, to which Freeland took exception to the rhetoric, and stated that the country needed to find a path forward on getting projects built while combatting climate change, and it was a complex task. Alain Rayes took over in French to decry Trudeau’s lack of leadership, and demanded the rail blockades be ended, to which Freeland read that Trudeau showed leadership when he said that the injunctions needed to upheld before mentioning that Carolyn Bennett was on the ground meeting with the hereditary chiefs. Rayes demanded a date for all of the blockades would be down, to which Freeland reiterated her response. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and accused the lack of leadership from the PM for creating the rail blockades in Quebec, for which Freeland underscored that they were all working together to combat the challenges, and thanked the Bloc for their constructive suggestions on the New NAFTA. Therrien tried to “I told you so” on the meetings with the Wet’suwet’en, to which Freeland repeated that Trudeau showed significant leadership and That Bennett was on the ground. Jagmeet Singh was up for the Bloc, and demanded that the prime minister personally meet with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, to which Freeland somewhat didactically stated that this was a BC problem, and the government was working closely with them. Singh listed dates Trudeau met with corporate lobbyists but not the hereditary chiefs, to which Freeland stated that the PM has worked harder and more sincerely toward reconciliation than any prime minister in history, before touting Bennett’s meeting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Urging calm, patience, and police action

Posted on by

Yesterday was a long and very busy day, as everyone scrambled to get their say on the ongoing protest and blockade situation across the country, with a mounting economic cost to them. First thing in the morning, the AFN National Chief, Perry Bellegarde, and several First Nations leaders held a press conference to ask the Mohawk protesters to dismantle the barricades – not as surrender, but as compassion for those who would soon be affected by shortages – but one of those Mohawk leaders also noted that his band office has been locked out and protesters among his own people say they want him out. A short while later, Justin Trudeau gave a speech in the House of Commons to counsel patience and to reiterate that dialogue remained the best way to resolve the situation – something Andrew Scheer denounced as weak, and he continued to insist that the police end the protests, insisting that this was but a group of “professional protesters” and “radicals” and that the “real” position of the Wet’suwet’en people was for jobs and resource development (even though he later said he hadn’t actually spoken to any of them) – something that both Peter MacKay and Erin O’Toole also echoed, because police action has never gone badly before. Oh, wait. (Marilyn Gladu, for the record, wants the military to step in). Shortly after Trudeau’s speech, he had a meeting with Yves-François Blanchet, Jagmeet Singh, and Elizabeth May, and made a pointed remark that Scheer had not been invited because his remarks were “disqualifying” – which led to Scheer’s agitated breathy and high-pitched performance during QP. Oh, and while all of this was going on, some activists in Victoria tried to perform a “citizen’s arrest” on BC premier John Horgan (and they got arrested instead).

By the time the five o’clock politics shows rolled around, Carolyn Bennett had concluded a meeting with some of the hereditary chiefs – who stated on one of the shows that they wouldn’t actually negotiate until the RCMP were off of their territory – and Marc Miller refused to discuss whether that was on or off the table when asked, leading the pundits to make hay of that. (“He didn’t say no!” is the worst impulse in journalism, guys). Oh, and hilariously, Jody Wilson-Raybould offered her services as a mediator, as though anyone in the government would be willing to trust her. As the day wound down, Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe said he was holding a meeting of premiers today because Trudeau “refused to act” – though I’m not sure what exactly he proposes, unless it’s to try to direct provincial police forces to start cracking skulls, both violating the rule of law and making the situation worse. And that’s where we are.

Meanwhile, here is a good primer written by a lawyer and a law professor about what “rule of law” means and why it’s important – as Scheer and company keep misusing the term. Heather Scoffield sees the business impacts of the blockades and deduces that it will be impossible to resolve them both quickly and peacefully – it would have to be one or the other. Andrew Coyne counsels patience in threating the needle that the protests can both be illegal while still noting that using force will only create martyrs. Matt Gurney worries that if the blockades go on much longer, they could fuel populist anger and damage the cause of reconciliation. Paul Wells attempts to make sense of the day that was, and the Liberals’ high-wire act in the middle of it all.

Continue reading →

QP: Fictional legislation and crass quips

Posted on by

Wednesday, caucus day, and MPs were riled up in the aftermath. Andrew Scheer led off, and he recited some concern about the state of the Trans Mountain pipeline, to which Justin Trudeau expressed his satisfaction with the Federal Court of Appeal and that the previous government couldn’t get it done without boosterism. Scheer then tried to hand-wave about fictional “emergency legislation” around court challenges and worried about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a “new threshold” to prevent development, to which Trudeau called out the whole question as a reflection of how the Conservatives don’t understand how things work. Scheer tried again, and Trudeau called out the misinformation. Scheer switched to French to worry about the supposed “plan” to license media, to which Trudeau picked up a script to read that they would not impose licensing on news. Scheer changed to English and lied about what was in the report, as well as the media “bailout” fund, and Trudeau slowly enunciated that they would not impose licenses on news organisations or regulate news content. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he rambled about they English School Board of Montreal getting money to challenge the “secularism” bill, to which Trudeau started that the Court Challenges Programme awards aid to groups in an arm’s length way from government. Blanchet tried to make this an issue of provincial jurisdiction, to which Trudeau repeated that programme was independent of government. Jagmeet Singh was then up for the NDP, and complained about the backlogs for women regaining First Nations status after the law changed to broaden the criteria. Trudeau started that they have spent record amounts to Indigenous communities, and it takes longer because the delivery needs to be done in partnership with those communities. Singh then moved onto the Coast Gas Link pipeline dispute, demanding that the prime minister meet with the hereditary chiefs, to which Trudeau stated that the issue was entirely under provincial jurisdiction, which they respect.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1225141168683606017

Continue reading →

QP: What about infrastructure?

Posted on by

Tuesday, and all of the leaders were back once again. Andrew Scheer was up first, and he claimed there were “sky high” deficits and taxes and no infrastructure spending to show for it — assertions that were all false. The deficits are actually tiny in comparison to the size of the federal budget, and the tax burden on Canadians is hovering near its lowest point in the post-war period, not to mention the fact that many of the promised infrastructure projects were held up by provinces trying to play politics in advance of the election, and that the hoped-for productivity gains were blunted when provinces didn’t keep up their planned infrastructure spending, and instead rolled it back as the federal government spent more. Justin Trudeau stood up and used a script to list projects that they were approving. Scheer then raised their Supply Day motion about calling in the Auditor General about the infrastructure programme. Trudeau reminded him that the Conservative record was spending on billboards, door knobs and gazebos, while their government was getting things done. Scheer asked again in French, got much the same answer, and Scheer raised the coronavirus and wanted support for Taiwan to get observer status at the WHO. Trudeau avoided the direct question and gave assurances about the coronavirus and collaboration with China. Scheer tried again, and Trudeau reminded them that they shouldn’t play politics with public health crises. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, and he once again raised the possibility of aluminium impacting the Quebec market under the New NAFTA, to which Trudeau reminded him there were guarantees in the new agreement that do not exist currently. Blanchet tried again, and Trudeau quoted the aluminium producer association as saying it was a good deal. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he railed about the Volkswagen settlement agreement, calling it a “sweetheart deal.” Trudeau, without script, stated that they are paying a penalty and it was great for the fight against climate change. Singh then railed about a supposed tripling of outsourcing of public service functions, and Trudeau spoke to the balance around procurement. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The hand that feeds the Senate?

Posted on by

Over at The Canadian Press, Joan Bryden wrote a wrap-up piece about the near-defeat of a few government bills in the Senate during the final days of the parliamentary sitting, but some of the piece has been rankling me, in part because of how it frames the state of play. So if you’ll indulge me, I’m going to pick it apart just a little, because I think it’s important to understand these things.

The lede is very awkward “In the final hours of Justin Trudeau’s four-year experiment with a less-partisan Senate, Independent senators came within a whisker of biting the hand that feeds them.” It’s a nonsense sentence that doesn’t make any sense – Trudeau’s experiment with a “less-partisan Senate” isn’t over by any stretch of the imagination, and there were no final hours to it – saying that it was the final hours of the parliamentary sitting or even session (since the chances of a prorogation and Speech from the Throne before the writs are drawn up in September are infinitesimal), or even the 42ndParliament would make sense, but not as written. I’m also really bothered by the notion of the “biting the hand that feeds them.” By feeding them, is it supposed to imply the person who appointed them, because that’s not the same thing. Is it supposed to imply that their posts continue at the beneficence of Trudeau, and that he could be rid of them at any point? Because that’s clearly not the case in the slightest (particularly constitutionally), but the phrasing implies the latter instead of the former, which is why it’s weird and misleading in all kinds of ways.

The rest of the piece is the usually bit of sniping between the leader of the Independent Senators Group, the Conservative whip, and the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, wherein Harder and the ISG insist that everything is fine, this is exactly what the Senate should be, and the Conservatives cry that the Independent senators are just Liberals by another name. The wrench in here is that Senator André Pratt calls the Conservatives out for supporting a government bill that more Independents opposed because they didn’t really want to set up a precedent for the Senate voting down government bills because when they form power next, there could be a real problem for them (though one has to say that the bill in question, C-83, was of very dubious constitutionality as it had court rulings against it before it was even law). As we approach the election, we can expect more of this sniping going on, particularly once the Independents start trying to agitate for continued independent Senate appointments to be an election issue – which is essentially an endorsement for Trudeau – and it could start to get very uncomfortable for all involved really quickly.

Continue reading →

QP: Condemning Kenney’s threats

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau was present for the first time in almost two weeks today, while Andrew Scheer was again absent. Lisa Raitt led off, worrying about the amendments to Bill C-69 from the Senate, and raising the letter from Jason Kenney and company threatening national unity if they don’t pass. Trudeau stated that they welcome the suggestions from the “independent” Senate, but said that a premier threatening national unity if he doesn’t get his own way needs to be condemned. Raitt said that Trudeau thought he was above the premiers, and Trudeau stated that he meets with premiers unlike Harper, but returned to his condemnation of the threats to national unity. Raitt worried that Trudeau was bringing on a constitutional crisis, and Trudeau reminded her that one of those amendments would make Indigenous consultations optional, which was not the way to move forward. Alain Rayes took over in French, and he demanded respect for premiers. Trudeau reiterated in French that he has worked with premiers, but Conservative premiers who threaten national unity needs to be condemned. Rayes claimed that the PM was attacking premiers at every opportunity, and Trudeau reiterated his response. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and he repeated his demand from yesterday to impose a price cap on cell phone companies, to which Trudeau picked up a script to list measures that the government has taken which means lower bills in regions where there is more competition. Singh repeated the demand in French, and Trudeau read the French version of his script in response. Singh then painted himself as brave enough to stand up to telecom companies, and repeated his demand, to which Trudeau extemporaneously assured him that the government was making investments to improve connectivity, including in rural areas. For his final question, Singh quoted a news story where a Liberal MP’s law firm may have been involved in a money laundering transaction, to which Trudeau read from a script about the task force they set up to deal with money laundering.

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1138511571515301888

Continue reading →

Roundup: An economic vision without an economic case

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer gave the second of his policy keynote speeches yesterday, this one on his economic vision, and as could be expected, it was full of hyperbolic declarations about the size of the deficit (it’s tiny in comparison to our GDP), and the state of Canadian household finances (which have been growing). He promised that any new spending programmes would have to be paid for out of government “savings,” and in his pledge to balance the budget in two years, that would mean cuts. Of course, Conservative mouthpieces say this is easily enough achieved because they did it before (forgetting of course that the previous government had a habit of booking savings that were never going to be achieved for the sake of getting to a paper balance, like Shared Services Canada, or the Phoenix Pay System). The Liberals, incidentally, were quick to put out Bill Morneau to put a price tag on those cuts and warn that they would come out of families, and with the spectre of seeing what Doug Ford is doing to those families in Ontario, well, it’ll make things harder for Scheer.

The part that everyone talked about, however, was his grand vision of an “energy corridor” across the country where pipeline projects would magically cross the country with buy-in from Indigenous communities and everyone would be happy and prosperous, and we would have energy security and would never had to import oil from Saudi Arabia ever again. The problem with this fantasy picture, however, is largely economics. Even if Energy East were to get built, by some miracle, it would not have an economic case given that it wouldn’t be used for domestic oil in the eastern provinces as it would be far more expensive than the oil they’re importing. In fact, Energy East did not make it off the drawing board because there was no economic case – it wasn’t because there was opposition in Quebec (which has already achieved some kind of mythical status), but because there was no economic rationale for the company given that Keystone XL was back on the table. Scheer’s promise (other than the fantasy of it even happening) is that Alberta will either have to take a huge discount per barrel of oil, or oil prices in the eastern provinces start taking a major jump because they’re paying a lot more for it, and upgrade it from heavy petroleum and refine it (in refineries that would have to have been refitted, likely with yet more taxpayer subsidies). But since when should logic or basic economics be part of an “economic vision”? That would be silly.

Chris Selley offers a critique of Scheer’s rhetoric, but finds it more astonishing that it’s the Liberals’ own self-inflicted damage that is putting Scheer in a position where he has a reasonable shot of winning.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A blow to the tanker ban bill

Posted on by

The Senate’s transport committee voted last night to not proceed with Bill C-48, which bans tankers on BC’s northwest coast, but before anyone gets too excited, I would caution that it’s not the bill’s end. We just saw the Senate’s national security committee recommend changes to the gun control bill that would gut it, and those got overturned by the Senate as a whole, and I suspect we’ll see a repeat performance of that with this bill – but the Conservatives will put up a fight, and because this was one of the bills that they did not offer a final vote timeline in their agreement with the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, they will dare him to invoke time allocation on this. (I plan to write more about this in column form later).

In the meantime, Independent Senator Paula Simons was one of the deciding votes on this, and she explains it all over Twitter.

Continue reading →