Things were late in getting started thanks to a lengthy “hybrid” vote, and they skipped members’ statements in order to make up time (though Peter Julian made a valiant attempt to go through with them anyway). Candice Bergen once again led off, and she lamented that the government was “disinterested” in helping small businesses. Justin Trudeau listed assistance programmes that they had to help them, and did note that the commercial rent subsidy was not federal jurisdiction so it wasn’t working as well as they had hoped. Bergen then (correctly) railed that the government was ramming through emergency legislation without adequate consultation, to which Trudeau praised the collaboration between parties to get things right, before accusing the Conservatives of playing politics. Bergen lamented the government hiding from their scandals, to which Trudeau lashed out that the Conservatives wanted to deal with WE Charity while they government was dealing with the second wave. Gérard Deltell was up next, to quote a tweet from Andrew Leslie about the government limiting debate when it didn’t happen during the two world wars. Trudeau offered some bland reassurances about working together. Deltell lamented that debate was being limited again for C-4, for which Trudeau repeated the line about working together instead of playing petty politics, and gave a shoutout to Canadians to avoid the COVID Alert app. Alain Therrien was up for the Bloc, and he lamented that Quebec City and Montreal were back in the the “red zone” before he demanded higher health transfers, to which Trudeau pointed out that they did increase transfers and just sent them $19 billion in the Safe Restart Agreement. Therrien got shouty in his demand for transfers, and Trudeau reiterated that they did transfer billions already. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and in French, he lamented that the deficit was so high because he was afraid the government would lead to cuts, before demanding a wealth tax. Trudeau reminded him that the first thing that his government did was raise taxes on the top one percent, and that the NDP voted against it. Singh repeated the question in English, and Trudeau repeated his answer in English.
Tag Archives: Telecom
QP: The importance of independent regulators
The first Monday of the new session, the Prime Minister was elsewhere, leaving his deputy in his place. Candice Bergen led off for the Conservatives, worrying about people who can’t get rapid at-home COVID tests. Chrystia Freeland said that they too want rapid tests, but it’s important that we have independent regulators, because lives depend on it. Bergen said this was an example of this being too little, too late, but Freeland insisted that the government would do whatever it takes to help Canadians. Bergen raised the spectre of the WE Imbroglio, and lost time in helping people, to which Freeland chided that they were hard at work the whole time, and listed measures. Gérard Deltell was up next to accuse the government of attacking Quebec in the face of the pandemic, and Freeland insisted that there was no dispute and that they we working together with the government of Quebec. Deltell got huffy in his response, insisting that Trudeau insulted the premier, and Freeland soared to new rhetorical heights about the importance of working together. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, accusing the government of “withholding Quebeckers’ money” and demanded new health transfers, to which Freeland assured him that they did increase transfers, on top of the $19 billion Safe Restart plan. Therrien was not amused, and demanded higher transfers, to which Freeland insisted that they were all working together. Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, and in French, he demanded a commitment to introducing a wealth tax, to which Freeland said that they did mention in the Throne Speech, they did mention new taxes. Singh repeated the question in English, and Freeland was more specific in talk of taxing web giants and stock options.
Roundup: Questions on a dubious nomination
For the second time in what could very well be the start of a series of media events that look suspiciously like campaign stops, prime minister Justin Trudeau was at a café and bistro in Chelsea, Quebec, near Ottawa, to tout the wage subsidy – a programme whose uptake has been hampered by the poor timing of its rollout by the government. He made a minor announcement about $15.8 million for youth green jobs in the natural resources sector, recounted his call with the premiers the night before during which his offer of $14 billion remained on the table for their safe reopening plans, and then capped it off with a plea for people to follow public health guidelines for Father’s Day.
It was during the Q&A that he expressed his “disappointment” with China over the decision to lay espionage charges against the Two Michaels being held as virtual hostages in retaliation for the arrest of Meng Wanzhou on an extradition warrant. Trudeau insisted that he continued to advocate for their release and that stuff was happening behind the scenes, but he didn’t elaborate further. He also was badgered repeatedly about the revelation that his former MP, Marwan Tabbara, was the subject of at least one sexual harassment investigation where claims were substantiated. Trudeau would only say that he was aware of the investigations and that they have a rigorous process in place where outside professionals are brought in to deal with situations when they arise, but that he couldn’t say anything more because said process was also deeply confidential by nature.
While everyone one social media spent the whole day going “I guess zero tolerance doesn’t mean zero tolerance,” ignoring the fact that it’s actually a poor idea to turf everyone at the first sign of trouble (seriously – this recent practice of kicking people out of caucus is inherently destructive and also prevents future use of social controls to keep these MPs and senators in line). I suspect that Trudeau realized that a performative “zero tolerance” policy was more trouble than it was worth and he ensured there was some nuance in how the policy was applied, and this was a case thereof, but now he also has to endure the taunts of “hypocrite!” as his explanations for the apparent change of position remain non-existent in the face of repeated questions. That said, the fact that it appears that Tabbara’s nomination took some six months to be decided upon by the green-light committee is pretty suspicious, and I would suspect they were weighing considerations, such as how much of a fundraiser he is for the party in addition to his being an incumbent. (Remember that protected nominations are antithetical to how our system is supposed to work, and that it’s proven that parties have been manipulating their nomination processes to the detriment of democracy). It would be great if Trudeau could be more frank or candid about things like Tabbara’s nomination and why he was green-lit again when the party clearly had no problem ousting other sitting MPs with little explanation (though in the case of Eva Nassif, it sounds like she was trying to meddle in other nominations for her own ends, if The Hill Times’ sources were to be believed). Then again, the party also somehow managed to be behind on getting all of their nominations in place in advance of the election when they had four gods damned years to do so, so I’m not sure what to suggest other than perhaps Trudeau’s decision to centralize yet more of his party’s power in his office as leader is going to come around bite him in the ass.
Roundup: Brown’s creepy town hall
A story out of Brockville yesterday is a bit disconcerting, where local Conservative MP Gord Brown held a town hall in the community about the Omar Khadr settlement, saying that he wanted to get people’s views because everywhere he went, it was all people would ask about. He also claimed that it “wasn’t a partisan issue,” but I would be willing to bet actual money that the way in which Brown presented the case was through a deeply partisan lens, regurgitating the party’s disingenuous talking points and legal prevarications that distort the crux of the matter. And what disturbs me the most is that listening to the reactions in the write-up of the event, it starts sounding an awful lot like a Two Mintues Hate than anything, where people recited the completely wrong tropes about Khadr’s situation and situation as it regards the rule of law. It was at least heartening that a local lawyer turned up at the event, brandishing a copy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and laying down the law about why there was a settlement, and it’s quite the photo that ran with the piece – but I doubt that it would change very many minds, considering the distortions that are continually spread by the partisans (on all sides, to be completely fair, given that many a Liberal partisan conveniently forgets the roles that Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin played in this). Nevertheless, the fact remains that holding a town hall on this issue is deeply creepy.
I can't help wondering if this was precisely the headline/photo combo that Gord Brown had hoped would ensue (c/o @wordford & @RecorderTimes pic.twitter.com/f3Sq9s6OsW
— kady o'malley (@kady) July 28, 2017
Roundup: Welcome, parliamentary secretaries
Justin Trudeau named his parliamentary secretaries yesterday – 35 of them, with three for his office alone, each representing particular portfolio issues. Those appointments aren’t at full gender parity, but then again, they’re not cabinet ministers either. The question now is what becomes of them – will they have useful and meaningful roles while still respecting the letter and spirit of Responsible Government in our system, or will they be used as human shields and ministerial proxies as they were in the last parliament? According to the Open and Accountable Government document that the PMO put out, the role of a parliamentary secretary is not to be a replacement cabinet minister, but to attend Question Period; help shepherd their minister’s legislation through the process in the Commons and in committee (but not voting in committee); supporting their minister’s position on Private Members’ Business; supporting their minister on committee issues and appearing before committees; and carrying out other House duties, such as leading government responses to Opposition Day motions and participating in the Late Show (aka Adjournment Proceedings). All of these are important, but let me make a couple of cautions. First of all, parliamentary secretaries should not – and I cannot emphasise this enough – sit on committees. This practice has been banned in the past, but when repealed, we saw what happened in the last parliament what became of it, which is that the committees were (in the words of Scott Brison) turned into “branch plants of ministers’ offices.” With their special PMO staffer behind them at committee meetings, it allowed the PMO to basically control the committee agendas, robbing them of any semblance of independence like they are supposed to have. This cannot be allowed to continue in the new parliament. We should also discontinue the practice of allowing parliamentary secretaries to field questions in QP. They are not members of the Ministry, and don’t have access Cabinet briefing materials, so they can’t answer. Under Responsible Government, the government is being held to account, so government needs to answer – not their proxies. Having them do so shields the minister from answering, and if the minister is not present, then they need to have a designated deputy in Cabinet to field those questions (and yes, there is a list of the deputies). Let’s keep the roles separate, and keep government accountable to parliament, the way it should be.
QP: Demands that Fantino resign
The second-last Monday of the sitting year, and there were a large number of empty seats in the Chamber, which sadly is not too much of a surprise. Thomas Mulcair was present, and led off by asking about the AG report on mental health in veterans affairs, and the funding announcement being led over 50 years, and then accused the minister of fleeing the country. Fantino stood up and robotically insisted that he asked for the AG review and that he accepted his recommendations, before insisting that he was on a trip with veterans in Italy. Mulcair lashed out, calling him a coward, for which the Speaker cautioned him, before they went for another round. Mulcair demanded his resignation, but Fantino simply uttered robotic talking points. Mulcair changed topics to the final dismantling of the Wheat Board, to which Gerry Ritz insisted that they were still accepting bids. Mulcair then launched into Aglukkaq, but because he used “dishonesty” in his salvo, the Speaker shut him down. Ralph Goodale led for the Liberals, and calmly demanded the resignation of Fantino. Fantino simply returned to his talking points about making improvements to veterans benefits. After a second round, Fantino hit back a little more, and for the final round, Marc Garneau repeated the resignation demand in French, Fantino restored to his script about making significant improvements for those benefits.
David Anderson had to let Aglukkaq know that the question was about her so that she put down her newspaper and listen. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 1, 2014
QP: Distance from tax evasion
As a Thursday before a break week, MPs were already starting to filter away from the Hill, all major leader already absent. While Harper is in China, Mulcair was in Whitby to campaign for the by-election there, Justin Trudeau to do the same in Yellowhead. That meant that Megan Leslie kicked off QP, asking about major layoff announcements, blaming the government for them. Peter Van Loan answered, praising the government’s job creation record. Leslie brought up tax evasion and the Public Service Pension Investment Board’s scheme, to which Tony Clement assured her that the board is arm’s length from the government. Leslie noted the depressed staffing levels at CRA as possible explanations for why they are not going after tax cheats. Clement assured her that some 8000 investigations for overseas tax evasion were undertaken. Nycole Turmel asked the same in French, got the same response in French, before Turmel brought up the harassment allegations and the Status of Women committee’s report on harassment in the workplace, asking the committee chair when they would meet. Hélène LeBlanc noted Turmel’s career in the public service and that they should make harassment a thing of the past — not answering the question. Ralph Goodale asked about the economy shrinking, to which Joe Oliver insisted that things were great, and even Standards & Poors reconfirmed the country’s AAA credit rating. Goodale then blasted the income splitting tax credit, to which Candice Bergen brought up the “beer and popcorn” talking point — again avoiding the issue of income splitting. Dominic LeBlanc noted the problems with income splitting in French, and Bergen again avoided the issue of income splitting.
Roundup: What to do about Dean?
The question of what to do about Dean Del Mastro has seized the Commons, and the government seems amenable to going along with the NDP motion to suspend him without pay immediately, and further send the matter to the Procedure and House Affairs committee for further study, particularly for what it means for his staff and his constituents. This is a bit of a change from the government’s original position of wanting the committee to rule before they did, but apparently they’re going with the flow of public opinion on the matter. (The NDP’s unwillingness to let debate collapse so that the vote can proceed on its own accord, however, means that the government will likely invoke closure to ensure a vote later today). There is also a battle raging over Del Mastro’s pension benefits, while the NDP used a committee hearing on John Williamson’s private member’s bill to try to lay a trap. The bill would see MPs lose their pension if convicted of an indictable offence, and the NDP moved an amendment to specifically include elections expenses, which the government defeated because it wasn’t necessary, and wouldn’t apply to the Del Mastro case anyway – not that it stopped Mulcair and the NDP of using Question Period to say the government was trying to protect Mulcair. Because apparently they’re not yet too clever for their own good.
QP: The morality of Del Mastro
With Harper off to China tomorrow, today is the only day that all of the leaders would be present this week, and it was hoped that they could make it count. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about an amendment put forward by the Conservatives at committee that would exclude those who had been convicted of elections expenses from a bill that would strip the pensions of MPs who had been convicted of a crime, and whether it was “moral.” Harper noted that the amendment had nothing to do with Del Mastro, and that the NDP opposed previous legislation to punish MPs for malfeasance. Mulcair noted that the question wasn’t answered and gave a vague accusation about voter fraud — not government business, to which Harper reminded him that the NDP has not repaid for their illegal mailings or satellite offices. Mulcair brought up Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, to which Harper repeated his answer. Mulcair brought up a statement Harper made up previously in Del Mastro’s defence, and Harper reminded him that Del Mastro had not been in caucus for some time. For his final question, Mulcair brought up job losses, but Harper replied by noting the million net new job figures. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and asked about the unfairness of the income splitting proposal. Harper said that he was wrong and the measures announced last week would help every family and accused the Liberals of wanting to take the measures away. While Trudeau focused on the income splitting portion only in both languages, Harper wrapped it in the larger package of tax credits.
Roundup: Passing knowingly flawed bills
The Senate, it turns out, passed a tough-on-crime private members’ bill that contained a gaping error in it, and they knew it had an error in it and passed it anyway – with observations attached about the errors. Why? Because said private member had become a parliamentary secretary, and sending it back to the House to fix the error would have basically killed it because its sponsor could no longer sponsor it. It seems to me that there should have been a fix for that – generally a unanimous vote in the Commons that someone else take it on, as has happened when an MP retires while their bill is in process – but more to the point, if the government was so enamoured with it, then they should have drawn up a government bill that fixed the errors and put it through the process, which likely would have been expedited since it had already had committee hearings in its previous form. But hey, let’s keep up this nonsense of backbenchers sucking up to the government with these nonsense bills, and let’s keep up this bawling that the Senate shouldn’t overturn flawed bills that passed the Commons because they’re not elected. It’s really helping our legislative process, clearly.