Tag Archives: TPP

Roundup: Salaries are not cement

Posted on by

As the debate over the proposed changes to the Parliament of Canada Act continues to roll along, some of us are struck by the fact that the whole framing of the debate continues to be utterly wrong – that the wrong headline on the Canadian Press piece about prime minister Justin Trudeau looking to “cement” the changes in order to make it harder for a future prime minister to roll them back is completely wrong, given that the PCA has nothing to do with the appointment process. And yet, here we are, once again debating the independent appointments commission, when the actual changes to the Act involve salaries for caucus leaders and some organisational issues. Virtually all of these have been extended to the Independent Senators Group, from committee chairs and assignments, to a role on the Internal Economy Committee, budget allocations for their leadership’s office (aka the “secretariat”), and so on. The only thing they can’t get currently, which they need changes to the PCA for is a higher salary for their leadership team. Fair enough, one might say, but considering that they eschew the label of a caucus, and the roles of both government and opposition, preferring to be neither fish nor fowl, it does make it a bit harder to justify that they should be on equal footing to them. In practice, they are very much a caucus, but this is what the changes they are asking for boil down to – it has nothing to do with “cementing” the changes to the institution, and it would be great if the pundits and journalists talking about this issue could grasp that basic fact.

With that in mind, Colby Cosh penned a fairly (deservedly) harsh piece about the changes to the Upper Chamber, and the fact that Trudeau is creating a Frankenstein’s monster that has more to do with his trying to absolve himself of his responsibility for the Chamber than anything. And Cosh is absolutely right – this has been about Trudeau washing his hands of any whiff of scandal in the Upper Chamber since he became leader, consequences be damned. And there have been real consequences – Trudeau centralised power within his caucus because he got rid of the voices with the most experience who could push back against him without consequences (it’s not like he can threaten not to sign their nomination papers), and got rid of the bulk of his party’s institutional memory in one fell swoop. He’s also losing his ability to get his legislation through the Chamber because he named someone inept as his “representative” (who should be a full-fledged Cabinet minister in order to ensure proper lines of accountability) who refuses to negotiate timelines on bills in the manner in which the Senate operates.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1074845188210622465

This having been said, I will again reiterate that what we should strive for is for the ISG to become like the crossbenchers in the Lords, but that depends on a strong enough Liberal and Conservative contingent to provide balance, and this prime minister has no interest in that, preferring to continue with this experiment in Frankenstein’s Monster until he gets burned by it. And while I’m sure that there will come a reckoning, that the ISG will fracture, and eventually some of its members will drift to an established caucus, it may be some time before that happens and sanity starts to prevail in the Chamber. I just wouldn’t count on this prime minister to provide any of it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau’s year-end musings

Posted on by

It’s that time of year, when the prime minister is starting his rounds of year-end interviews, and thus far, with CTV and The Canadian Press having been done so far. Some of the newsworthy moments have been that he is saying that he is looking for a way to get out of the weapons deal with Saudi Arabia. He also says he’s not planning on an early election (to which I would say of course, because he’s going to have too hard of a time getting everything he needs to get done before the fall, so why would he want to go early?) There was also some very careful language around Energy East, both in that there is not a current proposal on the table so any talk of it is hypothetical, but also that under the current approach, there is no support for the project in Quebec, which could mean that under a different environmental assessment regime (like the one they’re planning in Bill C-69) they may have better luck. Maybe. But I did find the qualifier very interesting. He also pushed back against some of the simplistic notions around the deficit in some of his clearest responses to date (though he still used much of the same pabulum language), so that’s maybe a sign he’s improving on that file. Maybe. He also warned about using populist anger over issues like immigration, which immediately made the Conservatives get huffy and say that he was launching personal attacks, and so on.

Out of all of this, I was most interested in what he had to say about the Senate, and how he plans to make changes to the Parliament of Canada Act, though the headline says this is about trying to make it harder for a future PM to make changes to reverse his reforms – though the Act wouldn’t do that at all, nor does he actually say that in the interview quotes, so I’m not sure where they got that notion from. I am on the record as saying that I think they should hold off on these changes for now, because the Senate has made sessional orders to do everything that they need them to do around the additional caucus funds and so on, and because it’s simply too early to make these kinds of permanent changes to the legislative authority given that the “reforms” have been ham-fisted and ill-considered, and we could very well be creating even more problems for ourselves down the road. But they want to ram this through before the election, and there is going to be a fight on their hands to do it, so we’ll see how that plays out in the New Year.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sorry for the service interruption

Posted on by

Hey everyone – sorry for the service interruption! Malware sucks. Fortunately, it’s been taken care of and I have new preventative measures to ensure that it won’t happen again in the future, but that also costs me a lot more money to run this site than it used to, so if you can, please consider becoming a patron (and you get some exclusive content to go along with your support). Thanks again for your patience with this.

Good reads:

  • This week’s first ministers’ meeting is expected to get testy, and lo, the oil and gas sector is not explicitly on the agenda (to which Trudeau insists it’ll get discussed).
  • Oh, look! Data on rural work camps and violence against women! It’s something that does happen, despite the Conservatives deriding the association made.
  • Dairy producers are the beneficiaries of import quotas under TPP rules (and lo, I wrote about this being likely two months ago based on the CETA experience).
  • Federal lawyers are objecting to the UCP trying to join the Saskatchewan court challenge on carbon taxes. (It is unusual for opposition parties to be party to a case).
  • A lot of doubt is being raised as to whether the government will actually end arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
  • Apparently Canada’s “feminist” foreign aid policy is too unfocused and spread too thin to have a meaningful effect (not to mention is underfunded).
  • The Commons foreign affairs committee was supposed to have an in-camera meeting with Chinese officials, but that has been cancelled.
  • The Privacy Commissioner is calling for tougher digital privacy laws.
  • Environment Canada is an outlier in that it generally doesn’t track the e-waste of its weather balloons (in part because it’s too costly as we’re a vast country).
  • The CFO of Hwawei was arrested in Vancouver for extradition to the United States, and that could trigger backlash from China.
  • Raj Grewal’s lawyer says that all of Grewal’s gambling loans were from friends and family, and are entirely traceable.
  • Ontario’s chief controller resigned after she refused to sign the Ford government’s attempt to sell the “true” size of the deficit as $15 billion.
  • The New Brunswick premier wants Energy East to be revived, but TransCanada isn’t interested. It’s like there are economics at play!
  • Kevin Carmichael looks at the Bank of Canada’s sudden caution on raising interest rates, in large part because of the oil price shock.
  • Colby Cosh looks into Statistics Canada’s programme of testing municipal wastewater for signs of cannabis consumption.
  • Chantal Hébert looks at the federal-provincial  battles over pipelines, that will play out well after the next election.
  • Chris Selley disputes that there’s a crisis around the French language in Ontario.
  • Andrew Coyne looks at how far Andrew Scheer is willing to go to get the far right vote on the immigration issue as he rails against the UN global migration compact.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

QP: “Soviet” StatsCan

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau off to Churchill and Vancouver, Andrew Scheer also decided to be elsewhere. That left Gérard Deltell to lead off, and he immediately launched into an attack on the Statistics Canada plan to use financial transaction data. François-Philippe Champagne responded with a script about how StatsCan already deals with Canadians’ personal data appropriately, that the Privacy Commissioner was working with them, and that the Conservatives were fear-mongering. Deltell tried again, got the same answer, and when Mark Strahl took over in English, Champagne repeated his spiel in English. Strahl railed about how often there have been personal data beaches by the government, and Champagne responded by reading his points with more vigour. Strahl angrily made a point about consent, and Champagne angrily repeated his own points. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and demanded a GHG reduction plan. Dominic LeBlanc responded that hot air about climate change wasn’t coming from his side of the chamber, that they did have a plan that they were implementing. Caron repeated the question in French, and LeBlanc reiterated that they took the issue seriously, unlike the Conservatives. Linda Duncan trolled for support for her motion about tougher GHG targets, but LeBlanc wouldn’t indicate support, but pumped up his own party’s plan instead. Alexandre Boulerice returned Caron’s first question and Quebeckers threatening to take the government to court over climate change, and LeBlanc responded that Quebec has been a leader on climate change.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On MPs’ sanctimony

Posted on by

My patience for self-aggrandising bullshit is at an all-time low, so you can image just how hard my eyes rolled when I heard that Justin Trudeau was telling a school group that was touring Parliament that his side is “serious and respectful” and the other guys like to shout, and how it was because when a there isn’t a lot that they can go after the government on, they make noise instead. Trudeau’s capacity for sanctimony is practically legendary, but this was gilding the lily more than a little. Now, I will grant you that since he’s been in charge, the Liberals have been far better behaved in QP than they used to be, and the clapping ban has lowered the level of din in the chamber by a great deal (though said ban is not always honoured). And yes, the Conservatives do yell and heckle a lot, but some of it is deserved when you have ministers or parliamentary secretaries who read non sequitur talking points rather than doing something that resembles answering a question. (They also yell and heckle to be childish and disruptive as well, but it bears pointing out that it’s not entirely undeserved). It’s also cheap theatre, and there is a time and a place for that in politics, and if we didn’t have it during QP, then I daresay that there might be an outbreak of narcolepsy on the Hill. But as with anything, it should be done judiciously and cleverly, and that’s not something that these guys are any good at, and so we return to the sounds of jeering, hooting baboons no more days than not, but that’s no excuse for sanctimony. There are no saints in that chamber.

With that in mind, my tolerance for the whinging and crying foul over the removal of Leona Alleslev as chair of the NATO Parliamentary Association is also mighty thin, for the sheer fact that when she crossed the floor, she wouldn’t be able to chair a parliamentary association. The way these things work is that a government MP chairs, and an opposition MP vice-chairs, and lo, the Conservatives already had a vice-chair on said association. Her removal was not retaliation, but it is a consequence. Now, there are definite questions that can be asked about the timing of said removal – two weeks before a NATO meeting that she has worked toward, and weeks after she crossed the floor (but I don’t know how often this association meets, so this may have been the first opportunity) – but that is far different from the caterwauling from the Conservatives about how the “supposedly feminist” prime minister was being mean to a woman and a veteran. (As an aside, could we please stop with this policing of the PM’s feminism? 99 percent of attacks attached to said policing have nothing to do with feminism). This attempt to claim the moral high ground is exasperating.

To add to all of this, the meeting where the removal happened was met with a bunch of disruptive, juvenile behaviour by Conservative MPs and staffers that included butchered singing, and *gasp!* drinking! Oh noes! Nobody behaved admirably in this situation, and nobody has any high ground to claim, so maybe we should all behave like adults around this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Debating the future shape of the Commons

Posted on by

In a piece for Policy Options, Jennifer Ditchburn worries that there hasn’t been enough public discussion about the forthcoming renovations to the Centre Block, and what it means for our democracy. Part of the problem is the structure by which these decisions are being taken, and much of the decision-making is being put off until after the building is closed and the workers have a better sense as to the deterioration and what needs to be done as part of the renovation and restoration, which seems problematic. That said, it’s not like there hasn’t been any debate over the whole project, lest anyone forget the weeks of cheap outrage stories over the price tag of the “crystal palace” that has been created in the courtyard of the West Block to house the House of Commons on a temporary basis.

Ditchburn goes on to lament that we haven’t had any kind of public debate over how we want the House of Commons to look, and if we want to keep the current oppositional architecture (though she later tweeted that if forced to decide, she’s probably want to keep it). I will confess to my own reluctance to open up a debate around this because it has the likelihood that it will go very stupid very quickly, if the “debate” over electoral reform is any indication. We’re already bombarded by dumb ideas about how to reform the House of Commons, with ideas like randomized seating as a way to improve decorum, but that ignores both tradition and the fact that our system is built to be oppositional for good reason, as it forces accountability, and a certain amount of policy dynamism. I’m especially leery of the coming paeans to semi-circles, and people who think that the circular designs of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut legislatures as being at all replicable in Ottawa (which they aren’t).

If I had my druthers, I’d not only keep the current oppositional format, but would get rid of the desks and put in benches like they have in Westminster, thereby shrinking the chamber and doing away with means by which MPs have for not paying attention to debate as it is, where they can spend their time catching up on correspondence or signing Christmas cards, or playing on their iPads. Best of all, it does away with the mini-lecterns, which have become a plague in our Chamber as the scripting gets worse. The reasons for why they had desks have long-since vanished into history (as in, they all have offices now), and if we want better debates, then benches will help to force them (even if it means we’ll have to learn faces instead of relying solely on the seating chart to learn MPs’ names).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney and Scheer vow to repeat mistakes

Posted on by

There was a conference in Calgary yesterday called “Energy Relaunch,” during which both Jason Kenney and Andrew Scheer laid out plans for how they propose to get the province’s oil and gas industry “back on track” if they were to form government. The problem is that they seemed to have learned absolutely no lessons from the past few years about where the problems and bottlenecks in the process lie, and what to do about them. Their solutions tended to be to use bigger bulldozers and to gut more legislation, and Kenney more specifically included funding the legal challenges of resource-friendly First Nations communities and targeting “foreign-funded” organisations that opposed development (because it’s all one big conspiracy by the Tides Foundation, and however else makes a convenient scapegoat). But if anyone has paid any attention to the court decisions over the past number of years, especially over Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain, the theme that emerges is that they have been slapped down because successive governments have attempted to cut corners and weasel out of their obligations rather than doing the hard work of proper assessments and consultation with Indigenous communities that would get them the approval they were looking for. The current Liberal government seems to get this fact and is proceeding accordingly when it comes to Trans Mountain, while Scheer and Kenney wail and gnash their teeth about how they didn’t appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada (without articulating what the error in law was), or somehow legislating away the problems (never mind that retroactive legislation will lead to more litigation, and you can’t legislate away your Section 35 duty to consult obligations).

Kenney also promised that if made premier, he would launch a “war room” to counter any critics of the oil sands in real time. The problem is that hasn’t worked to day, and won’t work going forward, but Kenney refuses to grasp that reality.

Energy economist Andrew Leach was also presenting at the event, and has some thoughts as to what he heard as well:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting the TPP to the finish line

Posted on by

The bill to enact the Trans Pacific Partnership has passed the House of Commons and arrived in the Senate, and the race is on for its swift passage, as there is a desire for Canada to be among one of the first six countries to ratify the deal (currently three others have ratified). In the Commons, the NDP were the prime opponents to the deal, but they’re not a force in the Senate. The Conservatives in the Senate are just as keen on its swift passage as their Commons counterparts were – and they tried on more than one occasion to pass the bill at all stages without debate (because hey, who needs to do the job of scrutinising bills and holding government to account?)

While we can expect a bit more scrutiny in the Senate, I have to wonder where any delays will come from. When it comes to the Independents, one of their own are sponsoring the bill, so he will likely lead a push within that caucus in the way of organising briefings and trying to muster votes, so it would largely be an issue of whether any of them want some particular extended study on issues in the bill. The Senate Liberals tend to be free-traders, but they will want to insist on some scrutiny, as is their forte – they can often be counted on to do some of the heavy lifting that MPs are unwilling to do. So while I don’t expect them to hold up the bill, I would expect them to do their due diligence, which means it won’t sail right through, though I wouldn’t expect it to take long.

So where would I expect any delays to happen with this bill? With the Leader of the Government in the Senate’s office, given his reluctance to do any negotiation of timelines for bill passage. If there’s to be any delays, I personally would expect them to come from bottlenecks of other bills that are languishing because they can’t manage to get them passed at a reasonable pace because nobody wants to do the actual negotiation of timelines. Delays will come from incompetence, rather than malice. We’ll have to see how severe it will be, but that seems to be the state of things in the Senate these days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All about the New NAFTA

Posted on by

So, now that we have some more information about just what is in this renewed NAFTA agreement (no, I’m not going to call it by Trump’s preferred new title because it’s ridiculous), we can get some better analysis of what was agreed to. Here’s a good overview, along with some more analysis on the issues of BC wines, online shopping, intellectual property, Indigenous issues (though not the whole chapter they hoped for, and the gender chapter was also absent), and an oil and gas bottleneck issue whose resolution could now save our industry as much as $60 million. There is, naturally, compensation for those Supply Management-sector farmers who’ve had more access into the market granted (though that access is pretty gradual and will likely be implemented in a fairly protectionist manner, if CETA is anything to go by). There is, however, some particular consternation over a clause that gives the US some leverage over any trade we may do with a “non-market” country (read: China), though that could wind up being not a big deal after all and just some enhanced information sharing; and there is also the creation of a macro-economic committee that could mean the Bank of Canada may have to do more consultation with the US Federal Reserve on monetary policy (though I have yet to find more details about this change). But those steel and aluminium tariffs that Trump imposed for “national security” reasons remain, as they were always unrelated to NAFTA, and their removal will remain an ongoing process.

With the news of the deal also comes the behind-the-scenes tales of how it all went down, and we have three different versions, from Maclean’s John Geddes, the National Post’s Tom Blackwell, and CBC’s Katie Simpson.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1046750795461357568

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne posits that the damage in this agreement is slight but there was no hope for a broader trade agreement given that there were protectionists on both sides of the table. Likewise, Kevin Carmichael notes that the deal limited the potential harm that was looming, but didn’t really break any new ground. Andrew MacDougall says that the deal gives Trump the win he needed before the midterms, while it will also make it hard for Andrew Scheer to stick anything on Trudeau around the deal. Chantal Hébert agrees that if Trudeau loses the next election that it won’t be because of this trade deal. Paul Wells, meanwhile, takes note of how the Conservatives are playing this, trying to lead observers by the hand to show them that Trudeau “failed” in these talks, while glossing over all of the actual context around why these negotiations happened in the first place.

Continue reading →

QP: Not misleading, just misinformed

Posted on by

On a cooler and less humid day in the nation’s capital, things proceeded apace in the House of Commons, and there was far less drama to start off the day. Andrew Scheer led off, mini lectern on desk, demanding to know why the counter-tariffs the government collected haven’t been funnelled directly to business that have been affected by the US tariffs. Justin Trudeau responded that the government was supporting affected industries, but also things like innovation. Scheer then started on his “failure” talking points with regards to the Trans Mountain pipeline, to which Trudeau shot back about the ten years of failure from the previous government, particularly around respecting First Nations. Scheer switched to English to ask again, and Trudeau insisted that growing the economy and respecting both the environment and Indigenous communities went hand in hand. Scheer railed about pipelines line Energy East not getting built, and Trudeau stepped up his rhetoric about not respecting First Nations. Scheer then spun a bunch of nonsense about carbon taxes, and Trudeau didn’t correct Scheer’s mischaracterisation, but responded with some platitudes about paying for pollution. Guy Caron was up next to lead for the NDP, and concern trolled about the effect on Supply Management with TPP, to which Trudeau insisted they were keeping the system intact. After another round of the same, Tracey Ramsey repeated the questions in English, and got much the same response from Trudeau, who added that they got better a better deal than the Conservatives did. On another round of the same, Trudeau insisted that the NDP didn’t want any trade deals, and the Conservatives would sign anything, but he would only sign a good deal, and that included NAFTA.

Continue reading →