Tag Archives: Transfer Payments

Roundup: More dubious Senate suggestions

Posted on by

Over the weekend, there was a piece on Policy Options from University of Manitoba professor emeritus Paul Thomas about the “new” and improved Senate. While most of the piece was a recounting of what brought us to the current set of circumstances in the Upper Chamber, it ended with a series of recommendations of what Thomas thought the Senate should adopt going forward as it enters into this uncharted territory. But I’m not entirely convinced by his particular reasoning. To wit:

  1. The Senate should only engage in “judicious combativeness” by rarely seeking to defeat or fundamentally alter legislation, but use more subtle means of altering policy over the medium and long term. Which is fine on the surface, but legislation is contextual, and the Senate has long engaged in long-term policy development through committee studies that are usually of some of the top caliber in the country, doing more than Royal Commissions could on a more cost-effective basis. This suggestion is not much of a change from the status quo.
  2. More pre-study of regular legislation. I’m a bit dubious of this because while pre-study makes sense with some bills that are more complex or time-sensitive, it defeats part of the purpose of the Senate to do the work after the Commons has in order to look for things that the Commons missed and addressing it then, rather than trying to run committee processes in parallel. Meanwhile, there was a time when the Senate did a lot more pre-study of bills, and were subsequently accused of just rubber-stamping legislation when it made its way to the Senate, and bitter feelings erupted.
  3. Including timetables with legislation. Nope. Nooooope. This is the kind of nonsense that Senator Peter Harder is trying to bring in with his business committee nonsense, and it goes a long way to defeating the purpose of the Senate. Sometimes sober second thought takes time. Sometimes it takes a while for senators who see problems with legislation to convince the rest of the chamber, and including timetables from the start not only create a largely unnecessary sense of haste (and the Senate generally passes legislation more swiftly than the Commons, with few exceptions already) means that you’re applying unnecessary pressure that gives the message that you would rather a rubber stamp than sober second thought. And like I said – legislation is contextual, and no two bills are the same, so to have someone come in from the start and start assigning timetables lacks any sense.

I get that there’s a mood to pre-emptively start reining in a more activist upper chamber, and I have my own concerns with some of the newer appointees and their sense of self, which is all well and good. But to start demanding rule or process changes is foolhardy, and will almost certainly result in unintended consequences. The “new and improved” Senate is working, and they’re responding to the signals that the government is sending them when it comes to their willingness to accepted amended bills. There’s no problem to fix, and I wish that people would leave well enough alone.

Continue reading →

QP: Scourge of the middle class

Posted on by

His third day as opposition leader, and Mulcair still had no Harper to battle in the House. While his delivery was a little bit less wooden, he was still reading from a script on a miniature lectern, asking about provincial transfers coming in the upcoming budget. In Harper’s place it was John Baird’s turn to be designated back-up PM, and he asserted that their government has given more to the provinces than any other government before them. Libby Davies followed up, accusing the government of abandoning healthcare with the rather dubious claim that they’re “slashing” $31 billion in health transfers (it wasn’t really a cut, people), to which Leona Aglukkaq reminded her that the Conservatives have funded healthcare to “historic levels” and they’re trying to make the system more sustainable. Bob Rae then got up to ask about the lack of a government policy on addictions and mental health, and John Baird took it on a tangent about the Liberals wanting to legalise marijuana, and that they were fighting that for the safety of middle-class families. No, seriously. Rae immediately picked up on that – every evidence shows that alcohol is the most dangerous substance out there, and why is the government announcing proudly that they’re joining in the failed war on drugs in Central America? (You see, you can pick up on questions like that when you’re able to deliver them off-the-cuff. Just saying). Baird continued to beat his chest about how proud they were to stand against the scourge of drugs, ignoring the evidence of course. For his final question, Rae asked about Harper’s former complaints about minister staying with people who do business with their departments (back when it was Don Boudria and Harper was the leader of the opposition), but Baird wasn’t going to take that bait.

Round two kicked off with Peter Julian asking a series of questions on jobs in the budget and the Aveos workers, to which Denis Lebel assured him that this was a private sector issue, and Ted Menzies assured him that they would continue on the path of job creation from the ongoing Economic Action Plan™. Wayne Marston and Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe asked about OAS changes (Leitch: OAS is unsustainable for “future Canadians,” not specifying if she meant Canadians in the future or those who are not yet Canadian), and Nycole Turmel and Paul Dewar asked about some unions not being allowed into the budget lock-up as stakeholders (Menzies: The budget is being delivered in the House where everyone can hear it). Judy Foote asked whether the government was asking the Conservative Party – as they’re actually separate entities remember – about its cooperation with Elections Canada considering that RackNine had an exclusive contract with the party for phone services and “Pierre Poutine” had access because of party connections (Del Mastro: You made your own illegal calls!), Denis Coderre asked about Aveos declining to appear at Transport Committee (Lebel: This is an issue between two private companies), and Judy Sgro asked about OAS changes (Leitch: Unsustainable!). Guy Caron and Charlie Angus closed off the round with questions on Paradis’ ethical latest ethical lapse (Paradis: I used my own means, and nobody lobbied me).

Round three saw questions on the F-35 Statement of Operational Requirements (one of those questions from Rae, as he tried to use logic to overload the duotronic circuits of the M-4 Unit – err, I mean Julian Fantino), environmental regulation changes to be “buried in the budget” (even though there is no indication this will be the case – broad outlines in the budget document doesn’t mean changes will be buried within implementation bills), the Northern Gateway pipeline, cuts to Katimavik (for which Justin Trudeau got a boxing joke in response), francophone immigration officers, the fleet separation policy for the East Coast fishery, rural post offices in Quebec, and the way the way the government handled the Air Canada strike versus the Aveos issue.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Michelle Rempel for her fuchsia belted dress, and to John McKay for his grey suit with a pink shirt and pale blue tie. Style citations go out to Carol Hughes for the jacket equivalent of a ball of elastic bands, and to LaVar Payne for his black shirt with a white collar worn with a white tie and a grey suit. Just…no. Dishonourable mentions to Romeo Saganash for a fluorescent blue shirt/grey suit violation, and to Maxime Bernier, who is normally a snappy dresser, for a black suit/lemon yellow shirt violation.

QP: Mulcair follows his script

Posted on by

With the NDP front bench once again being filled by its regular denizens, I’m sure that there were a few disappointed faces among backbenchers normally relegated to the nosebleeds who would no longer get to be on seat-filler duty, but it was all smiles and applause for new party leader Thomas Mulcair, and for the former leadership candidates who each made a Member’s Statement to congratulate Mulcair and to thank their campaigns for all of their hard work.

When Mulcair did rise to start off QP, he read off his questions from the papers on his desk, and asked about job losses, first from Electro-Motive in London and now Aveos, and just what did the government intend to do about it. In what is likely to be the pattern to come, he asked the first two in French, and the final in English. James Moore was the designated back-up PM for the day – as Harper is still in Asia – and he assured the House that their government had created over 600,000 net new jobs since they began the Economic Action Plan™. Libby Davies followed up – the choice of her order in the rotation fully symbolic of unity in the party – and she asked about the provinces being “short-changed” some $31 billion in health transfers. Leona Aglukkaq assured her that funding was at record levels, unlike how the Liberals gutted transfers. Bob Rae then got up for the Liberals and returned to the Aveos question, and unscripted and showing Mulcair’s wooden performance up, wondered why the laws around Air Canada’s maintenance obligations weren’t being followed if that’s what was important. Moore referred him to the transport minister’s previous statement, and tried for a few digs, not that Rae was biting.

Round two kicked off with Peter Julian decrying the attempt to download costs onto the provinces, and which both Flaherty and Leitch played down, Jean Crowder asked about EI services in amidst the Aveos layoffs (Leitch: We’ve added resources and delivered for Canadians!), Yvon Godin carefully read out a scripted question about Lisa Raitt and Air Canada employees (Raitt – whose body language was one of no tolerance – reminded Godin that the incident and statements ascribed to her were untrue and to kindly stop repeating them), Alexandre Boulerice and Charlie Angus asked about the “leaks” in the “Pierre Poutine” affaire (Poilievre: usual spin, Del Mastro referred to Angus as the “Member for 8 Mile,” and worried about the “bad rap” he as giving things), before Angus and then Guy Caron went after Christian Paradis for the Ethics breach he was found in (Paradis: No contract was awarded, I’ll take future precautions). Denis Coderre and Kevin Lamoureux asked again about the Aveos issue (Lebel: We’re waiting for Transport Committee to report), while Christine Moore and Matthew Kellway asked about the F-35s (Fantino: You don’t know what you’re talking about), and Malcolm Allen asked about the dismantling of the Wheat Board and the potential sale of Vitera (Anderson: Look at all the marketing freedom!).

Round three saw questions on fish habitats, muzzled scientists, the ethics ruling against Paradis and the tone of his response (Paradis in turn read his very same talking points word-for-word), the search-and-rescue failure in Labrador, payment regulations, the ongoing drug shortage (Aglukkaq: We opened up our stockpile and no province has made any requests), and the language of immigration officers.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to James Bezan, who continues to show how simple tailoring can make a black suit look great, and he wore that with a shirt of the palest purple with a black tie, and a white pocket square, and to Michelle Rempel, for a simple long-sleeved black dress with a tasteful chunky black chain necklace. Style citations go out to James Lunney for a fluorescent blue shirt and grey suit, and to Denise Savoie, for a rather swampy green and brown wave-patterned jacket with a collared white shirt.