Tag Archives: Public Service

Roundup: Cheques doing double duty

Posted on by

While former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page says that if we go into a technically recession, it should be contained as there is still growth in other sectors beyond oil and gas, Pierre Poilievre has been out spinning yet another tale over the weekend. Not content to show that the universal childcare benefit cheques due in the mail this month are nakedly partisan attempts at vote buying (and those of us of a certain age will remember when Ralph Klein would send out cheques to help Albertans pay for the cost of natural gas conveniently as elections were around the corner), Poilievre has ensured that the cheques get a second political purpose – they are now to also count as economic stimulus. Which of course they would be – but not very much, according to Don Drummond. As well, the government keeps saying they’re making all of these infrastructure investments, but the vast majority of them are still years down the road, and their Canada 150 infrastructure programme is going to be very small-time, and is also unlikely to have much in the way of lasting economic benefit. So we can expect these kinds of talking points to be repeated ad nauseum for the next few weeks as the campaign heats up, and until we get the numbers from StatsCan on September 1st as to whether we’re in a recession or not.

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/620328712375025668

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/620331491910881285

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/620331708169195520

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/620332221707235329

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making the AFN pitch

Posted on by

The Assembly of First Nations has been holding their General Assembly in Montreal, and both of the two main opposition leaders addressed them yesterday. As First Nations leaders try to convince their people to start flexing their political muscles, with some 51 ridings they say that they can influence, both Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau made their pitches to the assembled chiefs. For Mulcair, it was largely a recapping of pledges he had made previously, while Trudeau unveiled a much more comprehensive policy plank for the party’s election platform. The fact that the parties are making this kind of a pitch – probably the most high-profile of such pitches in recent electoral memory – is a sign to the seriousness to which Canadians are taking these issues now, where they would have been considered far more niche in elections past.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Disappointed or not, the Senate did its job

Posted on by

With Bill C-377 now passed thanks to procedural strong-arming that sets terrible precedent, the Senate has now adjourned for the summer. In the wake of the bill passing, there we are yet again being bombarded by the howls that the Senate didn’t do its job because it didn’t defeat a bill that clearly has some questionable constitutional merits. Never mind that if the Senate had voted to defeat the bill, they would have equally been lambasted for not having the democratic legitimacy to do so. As an institution, they are forever damned if they do and damned if they don’t. But even though the bill has passed, the Senate did its job. Agree with it or not, former Supreme Court justice Michel Bastarache did testify at committee that he thought the bill was constitutional, and that’s not meaningless. As well, the fact that the bill got far more debate and scrutiny than it got in the Commons means something. Remember that in the Commons, private members’ bills are limited to a mere two hours of debate at each stage, and rarely get more than that at committee. Because the Senate took far longer with this bill, all of the problems are on the record. That will mean a whole lot when this goes to the courts, and it will – several unions are already promising immediate challenges. The courts will go over the records of debate at the Senate and see all of the problems laid out for them, and it will inform the decision. The courts will be well within their power to strike the statute down if they continue to believe that it’s unconstitutional, or they may strike down certain parts of it if they feel that only part of it is problematic. None of this means that the Senate was asleep on the job. They gave it thorough debate and scrutiny. While many will be disappointed that the bill ultimately passed (because the PMO was using this bill as a government bill in sheep’s clothing), they did their jobs. And hey, a bunch of other terrible PMBs died on the Order Paper, so it’s not all bad news.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fobbing off your work to the Senate

Posted on by

With MPs having gone home for the summer to start the campaign in earnest (well, not including the one in six who aren’t running again), the Senate is still hard at work to get through the last of the government’s agenda before they rise. Included in this are three bills that were passed at all stages in the dying days. Now, none of these are controversial so far as we can see, but the fact that they were all rammed through on a voice vote with zero debate is not exactly an encouraging trend. More to the point, it forces the actual due diligence onto the Senate, which is their job, but once again, it seems that they’re doing the work that MPs can’t be bothered to do because they’re too busy doing things like holding concurrence debates on nine-month old Health committee reports on the dangers of marijuana (never mind that said report was a sham rammed through the committee thanks to the government’s majority, and that it ignored the bulk of witness testimony) in order to try and hammer the Liberals on their pot policy. Because that’s an effective use of time. It’s also extremely ironic that the NDP insists the Senate does no valuable work ad should be abolished – and yet they once again fobbed off their work to the Senate to deal with because they couldn’t be bothered. There is no such thing as unflawed legislation, and it’s the job of MPs to scrutinise it in order to hold the government to account. But for a party who believes so strongly in the infallibility of the House of Commons that they don’t want an upper chamber, they gave bills a free pass with zero debate. Wow. Way to go there, guys. Really showing that you’re taking your jobs seriously, and that you’re doing the job of accountability like the official opposition is supposed to. Kind of like how they’ve taken to fobbing off their homework to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It’s behaviour like that that undermines the NDP’s whole argument for Senate abolition – not that I mind. But MPs should be embarrassed when they pass any legislation with zero scrutiny. You’re just making the case for your own growing irrelevance, which serves nobody’s interests.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hyperbolic abolition nonsense

Posted on by

In the aftermath of the AG’s report on the Senate, we see a little more analysis of what it said – questions of residency issues, or about whether some board and charity work qualifies as Senate business – but mostly we’re seeing a bunch of hyberbolic bluster and nonsense from the pundit class about holding a referendum on Senate abolition (can’t be done during a general election, and won’t actually be binding or really democratic). No one has taken this kind of bluster to the next level quite like Thomas Mulcair, who has taken the talk to the level of being obtuse. Quebec premier Phillipe Couillard said he’s not interested in Senate abolition, end of story, but Mulcair kept insisting that he’ll get a “mandate” for abolition and he’ll work with the premiers on that issue alone, as though nobody would make other demands, or that minority provinces and territories would willingly give up what little representation they have so that they can be completely swamped by all of the Commons seats in Ontario – you know, one of the reasons why the Senate was designed the way it was, which was to act as a counterbalance. But then, Mulcair decided to not only stick with being obtuse, he doubled down on dickishness and declared that no Senator had ever done any work of any value – because apparently the Kirby report on mental health, or Romeo Dallaire’s work around child soldiers, or the study on the Canada-US price gap, or any number of examples of quality work the Senate has done – far better than anything the Commons has produced in recent memory – is nothing. With this having been said, let me add a couple of notes of my own, particularly for journalist colleagues – if you start talking about Senate “reform,” note that you had better have a specific reform proposal in mind, otherwise you’re actually talking about nothing. Senate reform is kind of like a unicorn in that it’s magical and fantastical and everyone wants it but can’t be grasped because reality soon sets in, and what reforms you’re proposing are almost certainly unworkable. Trudeau’s plan for a reformed appointment process is a start, and probably the best that can happen, but we don’t know what the outcome is going to be when those senators appointed by this new process start filtering into the system.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608645300207534080

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608645895211503618

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608647086427361281

Continue reading →

QP: Senate reform questions from the past

Posted on by

Even thought it was Thursday, half of the desks in the House of Commons were empty, and not one leader was present. Even the Speaker was absent, if that tells you anything. Peter Julian led off pointing to Brian Mulroney’s comments on Senate reform, apparently forgetting the years of drama that led up to the Supreme Court reference on the matter. Paul Calandra reminded him of said reference, and there was another round of the same in English, where Calandra more forcefully reminded him of a thing called the Consititution. Julian tried to wedge in a Duffy reference, at which point Paul Calandra brought up the NDP satellite offices. Niki Aston then got up to demand a national inquiry on missing and murdered Aboriginal women, and Kellie Leitch gave her standard reply of the action they are taking. Ashton demanded action by the government on First Nations files, to which Mark Strahl read a statement about action the government took with residential school survivors. Carolyn Bennett was up for the Liberals, and wanted a commitment to acting on all of the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, to which Strahl gave the talking points about thanking the TRC for their work. Emmanuel Dubourg asked the same in French, got the same answer in English. To close the round, Dubourg asked about the slow GDP growth, at which points Pierre Poilievre got up to decry supposed Liberal tax increases.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Truth and Reconciliation report due

Posted on by

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission makes its first report on Tuesday, wrapping up the commission itself, and after hosting a number of Reconciliation events around the country, the last of them here in Ottawa over the weekend. They found that at least 6,000 children died in residential schools as a result of a policy of “aggressive assimilation” or cultural genocide, a term that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made at a speech lat week (which may prove problematic, as Emmett Macfarlane explains). Part of the Reconciliation events in the past few weeks have been to try and bring an understanding on both sides of the cultural divide, so as to bring healing in symbolic ways. One such is the bentwood box that has collected some 1300 items since the Commission began, which created a sacred space to bring forward the promise of reconciliation. One hopes that the chapters will turn to something more positive, but I also have a sinking feeling that this will become politicised over the coming weeks, and possibly even over the course of the campaign in the fall.

Continue reading →

QP: CPP consultations and fictitious allegations

Posted on by

Even though the king and queen of the Netherlands were visiting, all of the leaders actually showed up for QP for a change. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking for the declaration of Mike Duffy’s residence. Stephen Harper responded that Duffy’s actions were before the courts. Mulcair threatened that if Harper didn’t answer now, he would at the debates, and then demanded that the full Duffy audit be released. Mulcair gave some vaguely coherent muttering about the PMO covering up the cover-up in the Senate, to which Harper reminded them that the NDP faces their own repayment problem for their satellite offices. Mulcair moved onto the retirement age, demanding it be lowered to 65 (not that it actually changed — just OAS), to which Harper listed off their other measures for seniors. Mulcair closed with a quote from Jim Flaherty regarding CPP, to which Harper insisted the NDP would raise taxes on seniors. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and wondered why the government made their CPP announcement with no consultation by the provinces. Harper said that their record of supporting voluntary options was clear, while the Liberals would raise taxes. Trudeau reminded Harper of his record of statements on breaking up the CPP. Harper said that was false, and touted the options they created to help Canadians save. When Trudeau insisted that experts agreed with them, Harper said that Trudeau’s experts were imaginary, and that Trudeau would show leadership in raising taxes.

Continue reading →

QP: Reiterating a commitment

Posted on by

Wednesday, caucus day, and the benches were mostly full for the second day in a row that all leaders were present. It shouldn’t be noteworthy to say so, but apparently this is the way of things now. Thomas Mulcair led off, wondering about the role of Ray Novak in the Duffy Audit conspiracy — because we’re still on about that. Stephen Harper said that Mulcair’s reading of the court documents was creative, and retreated to the shield of the courts. Mulcair then demanded the statement that Mike Duffy allegedly signed to indicate he was a resident of PEI before he was sworn in. Harper said it was Duffy’s actions who were on trial, and it was before the courts. Mulair then moved to the issue of the slow response to the Deschamps Report on military sexual harassment, but Harper stated that the quote came from a letter written two months before the report was issued. Mulcair demanded action on the items in the report, and Harper insisted that the Chief of Defence Staff was acting on the recommendations, including an independent centre for reporting assault. Mulcair pivoted again, and demanded amendments to the budget to end the tax on feminine hygiene products. Harper insisted that Mulcair’s true purpose was to offer that tiny tax cut while planning to raise the GST. Justin Trudeau was up next, and immediately started plugging his plan, and wondered why the government wasn’t investing in the middle class. Harper responded by misconstruing Trudeau’s “fairness” comment from yesterday, and insisting that the Liberal plan doesn’t balance. Trudeau indicated he looked forward to raising that in the debate, and Harper continued to insist the Linerals want to raise taxes. Trudeau responded by insisting that fairness was helping those who need it, and asked his same question again in French. Harper repeated his talking points about what he claimed the Liberals would take away.

Continue reading →

QP: Bringing back the Duffy questions yet again

Posted on by

Tuesday, and all of the leaders were finally present like they should be. If we’re lucky, we may see them for two days this week instead of just the one. Thomas Mulcair led off, once again returning to the issue of PMO interference in the Senate audit. Harper insisted that the premise was false and the matters were before the court. Mulcair tried to drag in Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen into the conspiracy, but Harper wouldn’t take the bait. Mulcair asked about Duffy’s residency prior to appointment and the statement he allegedly signed before being sworn in, and Harper again retreated behind the courts. Mulcair finally segued to layoffs at Alcan, to which Harper and praised his government’s low-tax agenda. Mulcair read the question in French, bringing up Jack Layton’s name in the process, but Harper’s answer didn’t change. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking the government to cancel tax breaks for the wealthy. Harper insisted that their lower taxes benefit everybody, and insisted the Liberals would take everything away. Trudeau asked again, and Harper insisted his plan would make life better for every Canadian. Another round in French, and more of the same answer.

Continue reading →