The premiers met in Toronto yesterday, and the Canada Jobs Grant programme was again up for discussion, and it should be no great surprise that the premiers are still united in their opposition. In fact, they said that they are looking for some clear alternatives from Jason Kenney, if he is serious about there being flexibility in the programme. The premiers also wanted some clarity around foreign investment rules, never mind that Harper has previously said that he doesn’t want too much clarity in order to have wiggle room in the event that they want to block any acquisitions they find to be undesirable.
Tag Archives: Robocon
Roundup: Taking aim before the by-elections
One almost suspects that the Conservatives are worried about the Trudeau phenomenon in the upcoming by-elections as they continue to mount increasing attacks against him, whose relevance to reality slips further and further away. Today it was Peter MacKay suggesting that Justin Trudeau told schoolchildren that recreational drug use was okay and hay for legalising pot. Um, except that’s not what happened, but rather that at a school event he was asked about it, and Trudeau said that not only should children not use pot because their brains are still developing, but that right now the government’s approach was ineffective. Well done Conservative attack machine operating under MacKay’s name. Meanwhile in Toronto Centre, the NDP put out releases that decried how awful it was that Chrystia Freeland laid off all those journalists when she was at Reuters, but conveniently omitted the line from the story where the Reuters spokesperson specifically said the layoffs were not Freeland’s decision. Added to that, the NDP somehow intimated that they would protect media jobs by rewarding job creation with tax breaks. Erm, corporate taxes are not the woe that is facing the haemorrhaging media industry, and unless they plan to shut down the Internet and start subsidizing newspaper subscriptions, I’m not sure how exactly they’ll protect media jobs.
Roundup: Appalling arguments about federalism
Day two of the Senate reference hearings at the Supreme Court saw submissions from the rest of the provinces and territories (minus the Yukon) – some of whom had appallingly bad arguments, which the Justices picked apart to their logical ends – as well as Francophone groups and a couple of senators. The Francophone groups, in particular those outside of Quebec, pointed out the Senate’s role in protecting linguistic minorities that wouldn’t stand up the same way during elections. Senator Serge Joyal, however, had the most eloquent of all submissions so far, and as someone who was in the room when they drafted the constitution in 1982 and who helped draft the amending formula to it, he provided some much needed perspective, as well as on the entrenchment of the system of constitutional monarchy and Responsible Government that included two chambers in 1982 (hence why there is no mechanism to abolish the Senate – because it was unthinkable). Paul Wells points out that regardless of the arguments made to date, there is pretty much no chance that the Senate could be abolished, and that the reforms couldn’t happen without a constitutional amendment. Senator Elaine McCoy weighs in after the first day’s submissions, and calls out the government’s reform plans as red herrings.
Roundup: No closure, new motions
There remains no resolution to the issue of the proposed suspensions in the Senate, as the Conservatives there found their attempt to impose closure to be out of order and they have pulled the motions in favour of a new one, which ties things up even further. Oh, but apparently their ham-fistedness is the Liberals’ fault, because they won’t stand aside and just pass it. Because yeah, that’s how things work in our parliamentary system. As it stands, those motions may not see a vote until Friday, but may stretch into next week. Glen McGregor checks Mike Duffy’s speech against his speaking notes, and where the deviations from Hansard were. Joe Clark doesn’t think too much of Harper’s handling of the whole Senate situation. Paul Wells dissects Harper’s role in the mounting problems facing him with the Wright/Duffy affair, and how his usual stubborn streak is playing out – in spades. Chantal Hébert wonders about Nigel Wright’s silence in the face of his demonization by Harper, and how he may be the one to bring Harper down. Andrew Coyne bemoans the way in which the Conservatives are chucking away the conventions that govern our parliamentary system.
Roundup: A record year for privacy breaches
The Privacy Commissioner tabled her annual report yesterday, including a separate audit of the Canada Revenue Agency, and it doesn’t have a lot of nice things to say – a record number of complaints, a record number of reported data breaches, and over at the CRA, lax controls allowed employees to access personal tax files for no appropriate reason.
Roundup: Special rules to punish Justin Trudeau
Because they are never short of such ideas, the NDP held yet another press conference yesterday to announced new proposals to make Parliament “more accountable.” What that really was code for was “let’s try to punish some Liberals, and in particular, Justin Trudeau.” You see, of their three proposals, the main one was to ban MPs and Senators from “double-dipping by banning payment for work that is part of their job as an MP or Senator.” Which is news to me because nowhere in any legal or constitutional text does it say that it’s part of a Parliamentarian’s job to be a motivational speaker. In fact, that’s the reason why certain MPs and Senators sign up to speaker’s bureaux – in order to do these kinds of gigs without having to expend their parliamentary resources on it, and because they’re not talking about matters that are related to their parliamentary duties, but usually their careers before they were in public life (Marc Garneau’s astronaut career, or Larry Smith’s football commissioner career for example), it makes sense not to treat it as part of their duties. Oh, but Justin Trudeau was able to make a successful living at this and still accepted speaking gigs after he got elected, therefore it must be awful and should be banned. Never mind that he almost always made money for the organisations that he was invited to speak at (with that one notable exception, where it was a case of organisational failure), or that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics commissioner cleared these gigs – this is strictly a case of cheap punitive politics. There can be cases made for the other two suggestions – banning parliamentarians from being on corporate boards (but family businesses are okay), and strengthening the powers of the aforementioned Commissioner – but they are less about scandals than perception. Parliamentarians have any corporate board work cleared by an ethics regime, and sure it could be strengthened, but there has yet to be a demonstrated case of any kind of influence peddling, and one suspects it’s simply a case of “corporations bad!” at work. And as for strengthening the role of the Commissioner, well, it seems to me that it’s the NDP who are in charge of the Commons Ethics committee and this has yet to make it onto the agenda when the review of her legislation is a year overdue. Perhaps if they made an effort to actually focus on that rather than play partisan silly buggers and constantly demanding investigations into the wrongdoing of individual MPs, then perhaps they might make progress on such a change.
Roundup: Another heavyweight for Trudeau
Justin Trudeau announced a new advisory council yesterday, co-chaired by MP Marc Garneau and retired General Andrew Leslie, former commander of the Canadian Land Forces Command, and later the author of a report on how to best transform the Canadian Forces in an era of fiscal restraint (most of which has yet to be implemented). Leslie noted that his decision to become a Liberal was cemented last week when Trudeau was the only leader to come out unequivocally against the Quebec Charter of Values, and he certainly puts a big dent in the Conservative claim that the Liberals are bad for the armed forces. Leslie is also considering a run for a seat in the next election, but his high-profile role at this point is a signal that Trudeau is gathering some heavy-weights to his team, which will bolster his credentials in advance of the next election.
Roundup: Visits to the Langevin Block
Yesterday in Senate-related news, the visitor logs of the Langevin Block – which houses the PMO – shows the dates of visits by Senators Mike Duffy, David Tkachuk and Irving Gerstein in the days around the news of Duffy’s audit, and leading up to the $90,000 cheque from Nigel Wright. It helps to further establish the timeline of who met with whom, as the investigation continues. Elsewhere, the Auditor General met with the Internal Economy committee and its audit subcommittee to discuss his forthcoming audit of the institution and its membership. The AG said that the audit will be “comprehensive,” but people shouldn’t think that it means “forensic,” because that’s not what his office does, and they don’t have the staff or expertise to do those kinds of audits. (That’s in large part why they get contracted out to Deloitte). The Internal Economy committee is also looking at an overhaul of the Senate communications office, which has shown itself to be unable to handle the increase in media requests given recent events, and their mandate is nebulous with too many masters. Fortunately, there seems to be an appetite to change this.
Roundup: We have a date
Word has been given – Parliament shall resume on October 16th. That means that about three-and-a-half weeks of sitting days will have been missed, as the week of the 14th was supposed to have been a constituency week owing to Thanksgiving. Also factor in that there is an APEC Summit in Indonesia the week before, so that also affected the timing of an October return. Mind you Harper could have simply prorogued and still returned on September 16th as planned, but what can you do? (Well, withdraw confidence in the government, if you really want to be technical about it).
Roundup: Outrage over the “Charter of Values”
The PQ government in Quebec unveiled the details of its proposed “Charter of Quebec Values,” to universal condemnation from the federal parties. It proposes to limit the religious accommodations made for public servants – in other words, you can wear a small cross or Star of David ring, but nothing larger or more obvious, and no, your boss doesn’t have to give you time off for religious holidays or a prayer space. Jason Kenney immediately promised that they would go to the courts to find the new law unconstitutional if Quebec presses ahead (though Quebec does have the option of using the Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter if they felt it necessary to do so). Oh, and because it shows you just how well they thought this through, they didn’t have an answer about whether people would still be swearing on Bibles in a court room. Oops. For a bit of history on how the party got to this point, it bears reminding that electing an urbane, metropolitan gay leader got them nowhere, so now they’re resorting to the more xenophobic end of the spectrum to try and make headway. John Geddes compares the way each of the federal parties reacted. Martin Patriquin looks at the history of backtracked proposals that Marois’ government has put forward to date, and predicts that this Charter won’t see the light of day in its current form.