Wednesday, May 9 saw the first Committee of the Whole discussion of the Cons' budget bill - with the opportunity for hours of direct questions about military spending giving rise to little more than even more tedious repetition of F-35s talking points in place of responses.
The Big Issue
Jack Harris opened the committee of the whole by asking a simple question as to which other planes had been considered aside from F-35s as specifically referenced in the Auditor General's report. And Julian Fantino set the tone for the discussion to come by refusing to offer even those basic facts in response to direct questions.
What followed was a continued recitation of F-35-related talking points in response to all kinds of different issues - ranging from the maintenance and operating costs of our current F-18s, to the source of any requirement for first strike capability. The NDP was able to get the Cons to admit that they were "aware" of a number for possible industrial contracts (though they immediately disclaimed any interest in discussing its accuracy), and (with some effort) to confirm the number of staff members assigned to a joint strike fighter office in Washington which had been producing costing reports since 2001. And perhaps unintentionally, Peter MacKay stuck his neck out more than we're used to seeing in volunteering that the only reason the Cons favour the F-35 is stealth capability.
Meanwhile, Matthew Kellway fleshed out some of the Auditor General's more scathing comments which the Cons effectively conceded to be accurate. But the Cons wouldn't even admit that their own F-35 photo op actually happened. Bob Rae then followed suit with a few choice passages from the Auditor General. And Christine Moore wondered whether the Cons were slashing the jobs of epidemiologists working largely on veterans' mental health, only to be told that Peter MacKay has no clue who (if anybody) might be cut.
In Brief
Fin Donnelly highlighted Food Banks Canada's challenge to parliamentarians to experience just a day of hunger, while Marie-Claude Morin invited MPs to join the international campaign to stop the use of rape as a weapon in war. Rodger Cuzner and Peter Stoffer commemorated the Westray mine disaster by calling for action to protect worker safety, while Scott Armstrong and Lisa Raitt made clear that the Cons have no interest in responding with anything more than platitudes. Megan Leslie criticized the Cons' short-sightedness when it comes to the environment, as well as their refusal to allow the environment commissioner to do his job by talking about contaminated sites. Peter Julian contrasted the Cons' own Code of Silence award for secrecy against the national transparency and good governance honours won by Tides Canada. Marc Garneau questioned cuts to the Canadian Space Agency, while Libby Davies followed up on the complete lack of funding to match the Cons' supposed interest in mental health. Ralph Goodale wondered whether Glencore's sketchy international operations would be taken into account as part of the Cons' assessment of the Viterra takeover. Donnelly and Yvon Godin spoke to a report from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, only to have the Cons who apparently had no problem with the report as written end the debate since the committee's call for responsible fishery practices had been trumped by the Cons' anti-environment budget. Rejean Genest's housing motion passed unanimously, while Patrick Brown's breast screening awareness bill won the support of everybody but the Bloc. Hedy Fry and Anne-Marie Day slammed the vindictiveness of the Cons' bill to deny EI benefits to incarcerated workers. And Rosane Dore Lefebvre raised questions about the conditions in immigration holding centres which the Cons are so eager to stuff with more immigrants, while Carol Hughes questioned why the Cons are cutting health services for First Nations rather than doing anything to address drug addiction as a public health issue.
Showing posts with label parliament in review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parliament in review. Show all posts
Monday, June 11, 2012
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Parliament in Review - May 7, 2012
Monday, May 7 saw another day largely dominated by debate on the Cons' omnibus budget bill.
The Big Issue
Plenty of MPs rightly focused on the Cons' move to combine so many disparate types of legislation into a single behemoth of a bill. Don Davies remembered his first instruction as an MP and wondered just when it was that Parliament ceased to have the job of scrutinizing legislation, while Nathan Cullen reminded Stephen Harper that he once professed to agree with that role for the House of Commons as well. A number of MPs expressed their mild relief at being among the few to get to speak about C-38 (while lamenting that more people wouldn't have some say).
Meanwhile, Scott Simms pointed out that businesses like the Port Union fish plant in his riding stood to suffer from the Cons' attacks on repeat EI recipients. Laurin Liu asked why the Cons didn't have any interest in green research. Ruth-Ellen Brosseau criticized the cuts and privatization that figure to make CFIA far less useful as a means of protecting Canadian consumers. Scott Brison mentioned that even the Cons' Senate caucus was willing to break up C-38 to ensure each part was discussed by an appropriate committee, and wondered how they could justify a lesser level of review in the House of Commons. Elizabeth May questioned whether large parts of C-38 were actually validly before the House given that they weren't mentioned in the associated budget - a particularly important point when the Cons are pointing to debate conducted before the bill was ever public as part of the review they claim has taken place. Davies pointed out how the Cons' past tax slashing created the deficit they now use as an excuse for attacking social programs. Ted Hsu wondered whether the Cons disagree with Milton Friedman's take on the importance of accounting for negative externalities; Robert Sopuck affirmed his agreement by pointing to the type of Mulroney-era environmental regulations that are being shredded by his party. Isabelle Morin reminded James Lunney of the different rules that his government has applied to funding in opposition-held ridings as opposed to that which gets approved under the "patronage" heading, while also highlighting the Cons' woeful record in managing public finances and the broader economy alike. Wayne Easter made the point that corporate Canada isn't lacking for money to invest, but has simply chosen not to invest it. Christine Moore noted that the Cons' OAS changes will significantly harm some Canadians aged 50+ who reasonably expected it to form part of their retirement income a decade down the road, while Ted Hsu took up the cause of lower-income workers who will face a later retirement age despite having not enjoyed any recent increase in lifespan. Kennedy Stewart lamented the anticipated expropriation and destruction of homes, schools and other buildings as the Cons force pipeline construction on an unwilling British Columbia public.
On the Cons' side, the theme of the day was an apparent desire by many MPs to serve as part of a provincial opposition rather than a federal government. Merv Tweed, Terence Young and Joy Smith all spent substantial parts of the time that could have been used explaining and justifying their party's actions attacking municipal and provincial governments who haven't served as puppets for the Harper Cons. But Andrew Cash responded that the Cons may be going past merely forgetting what jurisdiction they represent , and instead living in a different world:
In response to Hedy Fry's question, Denis Lebel acknowledged that there's currently no permitting process whatsoever for oil tankers operating out of facilities in Burnaby (except to the extent an export license is required). It doesn't appear much has been done on the obvious follow-up question: how in the world can it be possible to completely neglect the need for a full regulatory system - including a licensing system - for the handling and transportation of oil products by tanker?
In Brief
Gordon Brown's bill to rename the St. Lawrence Islands National Park didn't spark much disagreement on its face. But at least a few noteworthy points did emerge from the debate: Rathika Sitsabaiesan wondered what price tag would be attached to the name change, with Brown providing a far more clear answer than we've come to expect when it comes to actual government legislation. And when Royal Galipeau tried to defend the bill by pointing to the value of tourism and parks generally, only to be met with Francois Choquette's proper response questioning why the Cons are cutting funding in exactly those areas elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Stewart made a statement comparing a recent report in which Con MPs agreed that any environmental assessment changes should not "reduce the current public access to the review process" to a budget bill that does just that to the greatest extent possible. Christine Moore, Matthew Kellway and Jack Harris all expressed amazement that the Cons' plan to spend tens of billions of dollars on F-35s is being justified by a 160-word, marketing-heavy letter. Brosseau wondered why the Cons are wilfully blind to food insecurity in Canada. Pierre Nantel contrasted the millions of dollars being put into War of 1812 pageantry against the real losses in archives and historical information resulting from cuts to museums. Andrew Scheer issued his ruling concluding that government ministers could lie to the House of Commons with impunity as long as nobody could read their minds to prove they intended to do so. Helene Leblanc presented the NDP's supplementary recommendations to a report on e-commerce. Jean Crowder introduced a bill arising out of the "Create Your Canada" contest to limit nitrate levels to protect fish and other water-dwelling animals. Finally, in adjournment proceedings Cash questioned whether the Cons would ever both to develop a national transit strategy, Rodger Cuzner wondered just how much worse service EI recipients can expect as the Cons simultaneously slash the civil service and promise instant responses to corporate requests for foreign workers, and Ted Hsu asked why the Cons won't let federal scientists talk about their own research.
The Big Issue
Plenty of MPs rightly focused on the Cons' move to combine so many disparate types of legislation into a single behemoth of a bill. Don Davies remembered his first instruction as an MP and wondered just when it was that Parliament ceased to have the job of scrutinizing legislation, while Nathan Cullen reminded Stephen Harper that he once professed to agree with that role for the House of Commons as well. A number of MPs expressed their mild relief at being among the few to get to speak about C-38 (while lamenting that more people wouldn't have some say).
Meanwhile, Scott Simms pointed out that businesses like the Port Union fish plant in his riding stood to suffer from the Cons' attacks on repeat EI recipients. Laurin Liu asked why the Cons didn't have any interest in green research. Ruth-Ellen Brosseau criticized the cuts and privatization that figure to make CFIA far less useful as a means of protecting Canadian consumers. Scott Brison mentioned that even the Cons' Senate caucus was willing to break up C-38 to ensure each part was discussed by an appropriate committee, and wondered how they could justify a lesser level of review in the House of Commons. Elizabeth May questioned whether large parts of C-38 were actually validly before the House given that they weren't mentioned in the associated budget - a particularly important point when the Cons are pointing to debate conducted before the bill was ever public as part of the review they claim has taken place. Davies pointed out how the Cons' past tax slashing created the deficit they now use as an excuse for attacking social programs. Ted Hsu wondered whether the Cons disagree with Milton Friedman's take on the importance of accounting for negative externalities; Robert Sopuck affirmed his agreement by pointing to the type of Mulroney-era environmental regulations that are being shredded by his party. Isabelle Morin reminded James Lunney of the different rules that his government has applied to funding in opposition-held ridings as opposed to that which gets approved under the "patronage" heading, while also highlighting the Cons' woeful record in managing public finances and the broader economy alike. Wayne Easter made the point that corporate Canada isn't lacking for money to invest, but has simply chosen not to invest it. Christine Moore noted that the Cons' OAS changes will significantly harm some Canadians aged 50+ who reasonably expected it to form part of their retirement income a decade down the road, while Ted Hsu took up the cause of lower-income workers who will face a later retirement age despite having not enjoyed any recent increase in lifespan. Kennedy Stewart lamented the anticipated expropriation and destruction of homes, schools and other buildings as the Cons force pipeline construction on an unwilling British Columbia public.
On the Cons' side, the theme of the day was an apparent desire by many MPs to serve as part of a provincial opposition rather than a federal government. Merv Tweed, Terence Young and Joy Smith all spent substantial parts of the time that could have been used explaining and justifying their party's actions attacking municipal and provincial governments who haven't served as puppets for the Harper Cons. But Andrew Cash responded that the Cons may be going past merely forgetting what jurisdiction they represent , and instead living in a different world:
Some days one imagines that all members on the government side come from Pleasantville. In their world no senior has a problem paying rent. In their world seniors have a choice of putting their excess money in a tax free savings account or buying a retirement home? That is the kind of conversation those members have.But the line of the day went to Simms in response to a question from May:
I find (May's) situation in the House very similar to the Conservative party, and this is the only comparison I draw between the Green Party and the Conservative Party in the House; they are both a party of one.On Regulatory Gaps
In response to Hedy Fry's question, Denis Lebel acknowledged that there's currently no permitting process whatsoever for oil tankers operating out of facilities in Burnaby (except to the extent an export license is required). It doesn't appear much has been done on the obvious follow-up question: how in the world can it be possible to completely neglect the need for a full regulatory system - including a licensing system - for the handling and transportation of oil products by tanker?
In Brief
Gordon Brown's bill to rename the St. Lawrence Islands National Park didn't spark much disagreement on its face. But at least a few noteworthy points did emerge from the debate: Rathika Sitsabaiesan wondered what price tag would be attached to the name change, with Brown providing a far more clear answer than we've come to expect when it comes to actual government legislation. And when Royal Galipeau tried to defend the bill by pointing to the value of tourism and parks generally, only to be met with Francois Choquette's proper response questioning why the Cons are cutting funding in exactly those areas elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Stewart made a statement comparing a recent report in which Con MPs agreed that any environmental assessment changes should not "reduce the current public access to the review process" to a budget bill that does just that to the greatest extent possible. Christine Moore, Matthew Kellway and Jack Harris all expressed amazement that the Cons' plan to spend tens of billions of dollars on F-35s is being justified by a 160-word, marketing-heavy letter. Brosseau wondered why the Cons are wilfully blind to food insecurity in Canada. Pierre Nantel contrasted the millions of dollars being put into War of 1812 pageantry against the real losses in archives and historical information resulting from cuts to museums. Andrew Scheer issued his ruling concluding that government ministers could lie to the House of Commons with impunity as long as nobody could read their minds to prove they intended to do so. Helene Leblanc presented the NDP's supplementary recommendations to a report on e-commerce. Jean Crowder introduced a bill arising out of the "Create Your Canada" contest to limit nitrate levels to protect fish and other water-dwelling animals. Finally, in adjournment proceedings Cash questioned whether the Cons would ever both to develop a national transit strategy, Rodger Cuzner wondered just how much worse service EI recipients can expect as the Cons simultaneously slash the civil service and promise instant responses to corporate requests for foreign workers, and Ted Hsu asked why the Cons won't let federal scientists talk about their own research.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Parliament in Review - May 4, 2012
Friday, May 4 saw a relatively short day of debate on the omnibus budget bill - but with a few twists on the discussion seen to date.
The Big Issue
Claude Gravelle noted that the range of major changes in C-38 goes far beyond the environment alone.
Ted Hsu wondered why the Cons slashed the home retrofit tax credit, then noted that the budget included the elimination of capital investment in research and development; Costas Menegakis responded to the latter point by cheerleading for general corporate tax slashing. Laurin Liu pointed out a poll in her riding suggesting that the EI system already fails unemployed workers - making it all the more appalling that the Cons are working on making it less accessible. Anne-Marie Day described the Cons' economic philosophy as being "to lower both salaries and purchasing power". Mathieu Ravignat highlighted how the bill serves to make the federal government less accountable. And Romeo Saganash pointed out the appalling efforts of Taseko Mines to cut First Nations out of project assessment processes, while wondering why the Cons would be so eager to facilitate that type of corporate-dictated change.
False Assumptions
In the previous day's question period, the Cons tried to evade accountability for their frivolous use of taxpayer money on limos and unused five-star hotel rooms with a "they do it too!" attack. Just one problem: Paul Dewar and Ravignat came prepared with facts in response, with Dewar noting thatManitoba has a single assistant whose duties include driving while Ravignat pointed out that Darrell Dexter's Nova Scotia government actually did away with the driver service previously enjoyed by Cons and Libs alike.
Needless to say, we shouldn't expect the Cons to apologize anytime soon for their utterly baseless smears. But just in case there was any doubt that reality is not a friend to the Cons...
In Brief
Rosane Dore Lefebvre slammed the Cons' laxity on crime committed for their own purposes or by their media friends. David Christopherson noted in the wake of the news that the Cons' F-35 cost projections had been exposed as lies that their benefit estimates now looked to be similarly dubious. Romeo Saganash wondered why on earth the Cons would be cutting funding to fight tuberculosis. In a sure sign of the NDP's lack of interest in Alberta, Nathan Cullen questioned whether the federal government would put some resources into twinning Highway 63 around Fort McMurray in light of recent deaths. Jean-Francois Fortin contrasted the Cons' austerity on actual public services against their lavish spending on pointless symbolism. And Rejean Genest closed debate on his rental housing motion.
The Big Issue
Claude Gravelle noted that the range of major changes in C-38 goes far beyond the environment alone.
Ted Hsu wondered why the Cons slashed the home retrofit tax credit, then noted that the budget included the elimination of capital investment in research and development; Costas Menegakis responded to the latter point by cheerleading for general corporate tax slashing. Laurin Liu pointed out a poll in her riding suggesting that the EI system already fails unemployed workers - making it all the more appalling that the Cons are working on making it less accessible. Anne-Marie Day described the Cons' economic philosophy as being "to lower both salaries and purchasing power". Mathieu Ravignat highlighted how the bill serves to make the federal government less accountable. And Romeo Saganash pointed out the appalling efforts of Taseko Mines to cut First Nations out of project assessment processes, while wondering why the Cons would be so eager to facilitate that type of corporate-dictated change.
False Assumptions
In the previous day's question period, the Cons tried to evade accountability for their frivolous use of taxpayer money on limos and unused five-star hotel rooms with a "they do it too!" attack. Just one problem: Paul Dewar and Ravignat came prepared with facts in response, with Dewar noting thatManitoba has a single assistant whose duties include driving while Ravignat pointed out that Darrell Dexter's Nova Scotia government actually did away with the driver service previously enjoyed by Cons and Libs alike.
Needless to say, we shouldn't expect the Cons to apologize anytime soon for their utterly baseless smears. But just in case there was any doubt that reality is not a friend to the Cons...
In Brief
Rosane Dore Lefebvre slammed the Cons' laxity on crime committed for their own purposes or by their media friends. David Christopherson noted in the wake of the news that the Cons' F-35 cost projections had been exposed as lies that their benefit estimates now looked to be similarly dubious. Romeo Saganash wondered why on earth the Cons would be cutting funding to fight tuberculosis. In a sure sign of the NDP's lack of interest in Alberta, Nathan Cullen questioned whether the federal government would put some resources into twinning Highway 63 around Fort McMurray in light of recent deaths. Jean-Francois Fortin contrasted the Cons' austerity on actual public services against their lavish spending on pointless symbolism. And Rejean Genest closed debate on his rental housing motion.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Parliament in Review: May 3, 2012
Thursday, May 3 saw yet another debate over the Cons' use of time allocation - this time respecting the omnibus budget bill which features so many radical changes that demand serious discussion. And not surprisingly, the opposition parties raised plenty of entirely valid concerns, while the Cons obfuscated and ran out the clock.
The Big Issue
The Cons' talking-point-dispenser for the day was Ted Menzies. And Menzies highlighted the absurdity of the Cons' constant deflection tactics by answering the simple question of what path the bill would follow with the answer that he didn't bear any responsibility for the choice.
Meanwhile, Nathan Cullen properly reminded the Cons of their disgust toward omnibus legislation back when they were on the opposite side of the House. Denis Blanchette questioned how stifling debate would do anything to help economic growth. Andre Bellavance pointed out the fact that the bill is loaded with poison pills that should properly be removed, while Philip Toone noted the importance of allowing the MPs with expertise on each of the issues to properly scrutinize the legislation. Mike Sullivan noted that it would be difficult to thoroughly read - let alone debate - the 425-page monstrosity in the time allocated for discussion. And Brian Masse noted that the OECD's best practices include three months' notice before the new fiscal year begins - not a belated six-week sprint to ram through budget legislation and scores of unrelated measures through a single bill before anybody outside the government can fully assess the consequences.
Once debate started on the bill itself, Linda Duncan pointed out that some of the Cons' environmental gutting might breach international commitments not to downgrade environmental laws, while Kirsty Duncan wondered whether the Cons would report on greenhouse gas emissions at all after eliminating both the leading national research body and any responsibility under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. Dennis Bevington made several noteworthy contributions, contrasting the wealthy MPs who would benefit disproportionately from the Cons' inequality-boosting policies against the vast majority of his constituents who stand to lose out from attacks on social programs, questioning how the Cons can take credit for adding park space while cutting the staff available to maintain Canada's national parks, and speaking to the frustration of the Northwest Territories who were denied a request to exercise greater power over their own budget. Randall Garrison highlighted the absurdity of the omnibus bill by noting that the most controversial provisions which take up upwards of a third of the legislation didn't even rate a mention in Eve Adams' speech. Ted Hsu wondered whether the Cons were capable of recognizing that tax slashing can't solve social concerns like a lack of access to eduction - with Wai Young offering an emphatic "no" in response. Irwin Cotler noted that the Cons aren't even willing to countenance non-controversial amendments to other legislation, making it a virtual certainty that serious problems with a complex omnibus bill will be ignored. Duncan highlighted the fact that Canada's environmental performance under the Cons has been among the worst in the world even before the latest round of cuts and legislative attacks. Romeo Saganash asked what the Cons meant by a willingness to "consult" with First Nations, with Kerry-Lynne Findlay limiting that involvement to tolerating "input" on "development programs". And Elizabeth May delved into some of the details of the bill which don't match the Cons' rhetoric.
Meanwhile, Brian Jean introduced a rather interesting strategy on behalf of his oil industry sponsors, trying to play oil magnates against one another by claiming that his party's real concern about environmental funding is that some might come from oil producers based elsewhere. But Malcolm Allen met that conspiracy theory with due mockery, pointing out that the corporations pointed to by Jean are in fact major tar-sands investors.
Out of Order
Ralph Goodale questioned whether the Cons had used their politically-controlled CIMS database for government purposes. Pierre Poilievre's response that the question was out of order might have had some merit - if he hadn't then made clear exactly how committed he is to recognizing the proper role of government and opposition by turning around and trying to ask Goodale a question about Frank Valeriote's campaign.
In Brief
Marc Garneau introduced a bill to establish a federal Commissioner for Children and Young Persons. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe commemorated World Press Freedom Day, while Andrew Cash wondered whether such a thing still applies in Canada given the Cons' decision to make cronyism an essential part of the job description of the CBC's board chair. Jack Harris questioned the Cons about their failure to provide mental health support for members of the Canadian Forces. Stephane Dion and Yvon Godin asked the Cons to clarify some thoroughly conflicting answers to the NDP's bill on bilingual officers of Parliament. Hoang Mai suggested that the Cons crack down on actual tax fraud, rather than using the CRA for a witch hunt against environmental groups. Francis Scarpaleggia's question about food inspection was met with Pierre Lemieux's answer that Canadians "should be able to trust labels" - which is certainly true as an ideal standard, but couldn't be much further from reflecting the Cons' reality. Ruth Ellen Brosseau, Laurin Liu, Christine Moore, Anne-Marie Day and Mylene Freeman all spoke in favour of Alexandre Boulerice's bill to extend parental benefits into the federal sector. And in adjournment questions Dan Harris asked about a national transit plan, while Jonathan Genest-Jourdain questioned attempted funding cuts to First Nations education.
The Big Issue
The Cons' talking-point-dispenser for the day was Ted Menzies. And Menzies highlighted the absurdity of the Cons' constant deflection tactics by answering the simple question of what path the bill would follow with the answer that he didn't bear any responsibility for the choice.
Meanwhile, Nathan Cullen properly reminded the Cons of their disgust toward omnibus legislation back when they were on the opposite side of the House. Denis Blanchette questioned how stifling debate would do anything to help economic growth. Andre Bellavance pointed out the fact that the bill is loaded with poison pills that should properly be removed, while Philip Toone noted the importance of allowing the MPs with expertise on each of the issues to properly scrutinize the legislation. Mike Sullivan noted that it would be difficult to thoroughly read - let alone debate - the 425-page monstrosity in the time allocated for discussion. And Brian Masse noted that the OECD's best practices include three months' notice before the new fiscal year begins - not a belated six-week sprint to ram through budget legislation and scores of unrelated measures through a single bill before anybody outside the government can fully assess the consequences.
Once debate started on the bill itself, Linda Duncan pointed out that some of the Cons' environmental gutting might breach international commitments not to downgrade environmental laws, while Kirsty Duncan wondered whether the Cons would report on greenhouse gas emissions at all after eliminating both the leading national research body and any responsibility under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. Dennis Bevington made several noteworthy contributions, contrasting the wealthy MPs who would benefit disproportionately from the Cons' inequality-boosting policies against the vast majority of his constituents who stand to lose out from attacks on social programs, questioning how the Cons can take credit for adding park space while cutting the staff available to maintain Canada's national parks, and speaking to the frustration of the Northwest Territories who were denied a request to exercise greater power over their own budget. Randall Garrison highlighted the absurdity of the omnibus bill by noting that the most controversial provisions which take up upwards of a third of the legislation didn't even rate a mention in Eve Adams' speech. Ted Hsu wondered whether the Cons were capable of recognizing that tax slashing can't solve social concerns like a lack of access to eduction - with Wai Young offering an emphatic "no" in response. Irwin Cotler noted that the Cons aren't even willing to countenance non-controversial amendments to other legislation, making it a virtual certainty that serious problems with a complex omnibus bill will be ignored. Duncan highlighted the fact that Canada's environmental performance under the Cons has been among the worst in the world even before the latest round of cuts and legislative attacks. Romeo Saganash asked what the Cons meant by a willingness to "consult" with First Nations, with Kerry-Lynne Findlay limiting that involvement to tolerating "input" on "development programs". And Elizabeth May delved into some of the details of the bill which don't match the Cons' rhetoric.
Meanwhile, Brian Jean introduced a rather interesting strategy on behalf of his oil industry sponsors, trying to play oil magnates against one another by claiming that his party's real concern about environmental funding is that some might come from oil producers based elsewhere. But Malcolm Allen met that conspiracy theory with due mockery, pointing out that the corporations pointed to by Jean are in fact major tar-sands investors.
Out of Order
Ralph Goodale questioned whether the Cons had used their politically-controlled CIMS database for government purposes. Pierre Poilievre's response that the question was out of order might have had some merit - if he hadn't then made clear exactly how committed he is to recognizing the proper role of government and opposition by turning around and trying to ask Goodale a question about Frank Valeriote's campaign.
In Brief
Marc Garneau introduced a bill to establish a federal Commissioner for Children and Young Persons. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe commemorated World Press Freedom Day, while Andrew Cash wondered whether such a thing still applies in Canada given the Cons' decision to make cronyism an essential part of the job description of the CBC's board chair. Jack Harris questioned the Cons about their failure to provide mental health support for members of the Canadian Forces. Stephane Dion and Yvon Godin asked the Cons to clarify some thoroughly conflicting answers to the NDP's bill on bilingual officers of Parliament. Hoang Mai suggested that the Cons crack down on actual tax fraud, rather than using the CRA for a witch hunt against environmental groups. Francis Scarpaleggia's question about food inspection was met with Pierre Lemieux's answer that Canadians "should be able to trust labels" - which is certainly true as an ideal standard, but couldn't be much further from reflecting the Cons' reality. Ruth Ellen Brosseau, Laurin Liu, Christine Moore, Anne-Marie Day and Mylene Freeman all spoke in favour of Alexandre Boulerice's bill to extend parental benefits into the federal sector. And in adjournment questions Dan Harris asked about a national transit plan, while Jonathan Genest-Jourdain questioned attempted funding cuts to First Nations education.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Parliament in Review: May 2, 2012
A combination of the one-year anniversary of Canada's 2011 federal election and a relatively short day in Parliament left little room for a lot of debate on Wednesday, May 2. But the day did see some serious questions raised about the Cons' rush to pass their budget without debate.
The Big Issue
Before debate actually started on Bill C-38, Scott Brison pointed out that a couple of different drafts of the bill had been circulated - making it unclear whether the bill introduced in Parliament was even the same one provided to the opposition parties. Nathan Cullen echoed that concern, only to be met with repeated declarations of "just trust us!" from a government that's gone out of its way to make sure nobody paying the slightest bit of attention feels safe taking its word for anything. And so it took confirmation from the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to clarify just what was being debated in the first place.
Of course, it's probably fair to say that few MPs were going to be reading the bill as they went in order to debate it. But that only highlights the fact that the omnibus bill is designed to cram more content into a single piece of legislation than can possibly be scrutinized properly. Which made it particularly galling that before the end of the first shortened day of discussion about a bill whose contents hadn't even been confirmed, Peter Van Loan moved to close down debate.
Meanwhile, Peggy Nash questioned why massive environmental deregulation was being pushed through in a budget bill, then put that concern in context alongside the Cons' general distaste for accountability and debate. Brison pointed out the fact that Joe Oliver's selection as the Cons' lead speaker just highlighted how clear it was that the bill wasn't really budget legislation, and slammed the Cons' laughable insistence that handing money to the corporate sector will somehow serve to alleviate inequality. And Oliver kept up the we-know-best line by confirming that the Cons want to give Peter Kent the sole authority to determine what review will be carried out for any project.
In Brief
Alexandre Boulerice criticized the Cons' "aristocracy" for keeping limo drivers on standby up to 360 days a year while calling for everybody else to put up with austerity. Niki Ashton pointed out that the Cons' budget will do direct damage to Canadian women. Sadie Groguhe contrasted the treatment of Code Pink activists who were refused entry into Canada against the open arms extended toward Conrad Black. Robert Chisholm invoked the words of former Conservative fisheries minister Tom Siddon to question the gutting of fisheries regulation, while Fin Donnelly noted that the Cons' omnibus attack on fisheries legislation is being rammed through Parliament just months before we receive a key report on B.C.'s wild salmon fishery. Peter Julian summed up the NDP's dissent from the Cons' tar-sands boosterism through the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. And in adjournment proceedings Carolyn Bennett asked the Cons to explain their characterization of First Nations as "adversaries" in contrast to their "allies" in the oil industry (with little success), while Carol Hughes challenged the Cons' planned cuts to OAS.
The Big Issue
Before debate actually started on Bill C-38, Scott Brison pointed out that a couple of different drafts of the bill had been circulated - making it unclear whether the bill introduced in Parliament was even the same one provided to the opposition parties. Nathan Cullen echoed that concern, only to be met with repeated declarations of "just trust us!" from a government that's gone out of its way to make sure nobody paying the slightest bit of attention feels safe taking its word for anything. And so it took confirmation from the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to clarify just what was being debated in the first place.
Of course, it's probably fair to say that few MPs were going to be reading the bill as they went in order to debate it. But that only highlights the fact that the omnibus bill is designed to cram more content into a single piece of legislation than can possibly be scrutinized properly. Which made it particularly galling that before the end of the first shortened day of discussion about a bill whose contents hadn't even been confirmed, Peter Van Loan moved to close down debate.
Meanwhile, Peggy Nash questioned why massive environmental deregulation was being pushed through in a budget bill, then put that concern in context alongside the Cons' general distaste for accountability and debate. Brison pointed out the fact that Joe Oliver's selection as the Cons' lead speaker just highlighted how clear it was that the bill wasn't really budget legislation, and slammed the Cons' laughable insistence that handing money to the corporate sector will somehow serve to alleviate inequality. And Oliver kept up the we-know-best line by confirming that the Cons want to give Peter Kent the sole authority to determine what review will be carried out for any project.
In Brief
Alexandre Boulerice criticized the Cons' "aristocracy" for keeping limo drivers on standby up to 360 days a year while calling for everybody else to put up with austerity. Niki Ashton pointed out that the Cons' budget will do direct damage to Canadian women. Sadie Groguhe contrasted the treatment of Code Pink activists who were refused entry into Canada against the open arms extended toward Conrad Black. Robert Chisholm invoked the words of former Conservative fisheries minister Tom Siddon to question the gutting of fisheries regulation, while Fin Donnelly noted that the Cons' omnibus attack on fisheries legislation is being rammed through Parliament just months before we receive a key report on B.C.'s wild salmon fishery. Peter Julian summed up the NDP's dissent from the Cons' tar-sands boosterism through the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. And in adjournment proceedings Carolyn Bennett asked the Cons to explain their characterization of First Nations as "adversaries" in contrast to their "allies" in the oil industry (with little success), while Carol Hughes challenged the Cons' planned cuts to OAS.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Parliament in Review: May 1, 2012
Tuesday, May 1 saw more debate on a couple of relatively non-contentious bills - along with a prime example of the Cons' blinkered focus on mandatory minimum sentences.
The Big Issue
In continued debate on the Lucky Moose self-defence bill, the NDP pointed out some of the ways the legislation could have been improved if the Cons had been willing to listen. Wayne Marston pointed out that some more recognition of battered spouse syndrome in particular would have been appropriate, while Guy Caron noted that in general some greater discretion in assessing the circumstances of a given event would be a plus.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth May criticized groupthink within parties - and Alex Atamanenko agreed as to the need to listen to voices outside one's own caucus. Linda Duncan highlighted the importance of not using the weight of the legal system to criminalize poverty. And Andre Bellavance confirmed the Bloc's support for the bill in advance of its passage.
Railroaded
Pierre Poilievre did his best to make debate on a railway safety bill into an ideological and partisan battle by using a tired trope about the "few legitimate roles of government" amidst a paean to the minister giving him orders about the bill - earning some well-deserved criticism from Pat Martin. But Olivia Chow and Mike Sullivan expressed support for the bill despite noting that it falls far short of dealing with the need for improved rail service - while Philip Toone highlighted the latter point.
Meanwhile, Duncan raised questions about environmental cleanup and reclamation of railroad beds. And Martin called for a specific project to deal with Winnipeg's rail yards, while also pointing out that railroad cost is just as big an issue as safety for prairie farmers.
In Brief
Alexandrine Latendresse introduced a bill to require that officers of Parliament be bilingual. Thomas Mulcair made a statement for International Workers' Day, while Alexandre Boulerice questioned how they could possibly justify forcing unemployed Canadians to desperately accept "any old job". Megan Leslie slammed the Cons' cuts to Parks Canada, Helene LeBlanc followed up questioning their attacks on research and data collection, and Randall Garrison pointed out that the loss of the Canadian Emergency Management College may prove disastrous for communities who count on it to train emergency workers. Parm Gill spoke to a private member's bill imposing new mandatory minimums for gang recruitment, with Pierre Jacob and Irwin Cotler signalling a willingness to study the bill further but wondering whether it actually figures to serve any useful purpose. Anne Minh-Thu Quach asked adjournment questions about the Cons' shameful asbestos boosterism, leading to Jacques Gourde's stunning response that his own government's refusal to apply international hazardous substance standards somehow served to justify continued promotion of the industry. And Andrew Cash called out the Cons for a particularly egregious non-response from Jim Flaherty on a question about housing which was met with what appears to have been a verbatim recitation from Rob Ford's campaign material.
[Edit: fixed introduction.]
The Big Issue
In continued debate on the Lucky Moose self-defence bill, the NDP pointed out some of the ways the legislation could have been improved if the Cons had been willing to listen. Wayne Marston pointed out that some more recognition of battered spouse syndrome in particular would have been appropriate, while Guy Caron noted that in general some greater discretion in assessing the circumstances of a given event would be a plus.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth May criticized groupthink within parties - and Alex Atamanenko agreed as to the need to listen to voices outside one's own caucus. Linda Duncan highlighted the importance of not using the weight of the legal system to criminalize poverty. And Andre Bellavance confirmed the Bloc's support for the bill in advance of its passage.
Railroaded
Pierre Poilievre did his best to make debate on a railway safety bill into an ideological and partisan battle by using a tired trope about the "few legitimate roles of government" amidst a paean to the minister giving him orders about the bill - earning some well-deserved criticism from Pat Martin. But Olivia Chow and Mike Sullivan expressed support for the bill despite noting that it falls far short of dealing with the need for improved rail service - while Philip Toone highlighted the latter point.
Meanwhile, Duncan raised questions about environmental cleanup and reclamation of railroad beds. And Martin called for a specific project to deal with Winnipeg's rail yards, while also pointing out that railroad cost is just as big an issue as safety for prairie farmers.
In Brief
Alexandrine Latendresse introduced a bill to require that officers of Parliament be bilingual. Thomas Mulcair made a statement for International Workers' Day, while Alexandre Boulerice questioned how they could possibly justify forcing unemployed Canadians to desperately accept "any old job". Megan Leslie slammed the Cons' cuts to Parks Canada, Helene LeBlanc followed up questioning their attacks on research and data collection, and Randall Garrison pointed out that the loss of the Canadian Emergency Management College may prove disastrous for communities who count on it to train emergency workers. Parm Gill spoke to a private member's bill imposing new mandatory minimums for gang recruitment, with Pierre Jacob and Irwin Cotler signalling a willingness to study the bill further but wondering whether it actually figures to serve any useful purpose. Anne Minh-Thu Quach asked adjournment questions about the Cons' shameful asbestos boosterism, leading to Jacques Gourde's stunning response that his own government's refusal to apply international hazardous substance standards somehow served to justify continued promotion of the industry. And Andrew Cash called out the Cons for a particularly egregious non-response from Jim Flaherty on a question about housing which was met with what appears to have been a verbatim recitation from Rob Ford's campaign material.
[Edit: fixed introduction.]
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Parliament in Review: April 30, 2012
Monday, April 30 featured discussion of two opposition motions dealing with the federal government's responsibility to ensure the safety of Canadians. And on both fronts, the Cons went out of their way to disclaim any such role for our public servants.
The Big Issue
Jack Harris started off the safety theme with a motion to the effect that Canada's search-and-rescue capability should meet an international standard of 30-minute readiness. But perhaps Harris' most important point (particularly in light of recent developments) came in response to a typical Con "why'd you vote against our budget? huh?" straw man:
What came next was Bob Rae's motion on food safety comparing the Cons' CFIA cuts to the reckless slashing that led to Ontario's Walkerton debacle - with Hedy Fry discussing the parallels in detail, while Andrew Cash expressed his amazement that the Harper Cons were defending the Harrisites' failures (when as Kirsty Duncan noted, even Harris himself apologized after the fact). And Guy Caron nicely summed up the Cons' own sorry history of regulatory demolition by reviewing their listeriosis outbreak.
But the discussion expanded to general regulatory issues - with the Cons looking even worse on those. Elizabeth May noted that the Cons see the federal role in environmental protection as being limited to fish and migratory birds, while Pierre Dionne Labelle highlighted the fact that a reduced set of criteria will inevitably lead to important points being missed. Pierre Nantel mused about the sheer naivete behind the Cons' belief that corporate self-regulation would address safety concerns. Peggy Nash pointed out the Cons' plan to simply adopt "industry regulations" without anybody looking at the public good. Ted Hsu met the Cons' attacks on research and data collection by pointing out that "what gets measured gets done". And on the Cons' side Pierre Lemieux nicely echoed the difference in schools of economic thought, suggesting that the real issue is whether the public has confidence in our food supply whether or not that confidence has any basis in fact, while claiming that eliminating services and forcing provinces to build up regulatory systems of their own isn't actually a "cut".
Us vs Them
The Cons have regularly made it clear that mere ordinary Canadians arrested abroad can expect as little legal assistance as they can get away with providing. But in response to Paul Dewar's question about corruption and fraud charges against key officials at SNC-Lavalin, Bob Dechert clarified that corporate criminals have his government's full support.
In Brief
Nathan Cullen gave notice of the NDP's intention to raise the standard of debate in the House of Commons, while Charlie Angus slammed the Cons for making Parliament subservient to the whims of a controlling executive. Hoang Mai questioned cuts from the Canada Revenue Agency when it has an obvious need for internal investigation to go with its responsibility in revenue collection. Romeo Saganash was dumbfounded at the Cons' cuts to aid for the world's poorest countries, while Bev Oda replied that her idea of productive aid is creating profits for businesses rather than saving lives. Robert Chisholm rightly pointed out that water systems are interconnected, making it entirely dishonest to claim (as the Cons do) that regulators can safely ignore everything other than major waterways. Libby Davies wondered why the Cons had chosen not to follow up on a campaign promise to help the parents of gravely ill children. Judy Foote noted that the community access program being slashed by the Cons is still a vital source of internet access. May wondered why a Prime Minister who once went ballistic over a single definition change in a past budget bill was now scrapping an entire regulatory regime among other parts of an omnibus attack on the environment. And in adjournment proceedings Philip Toone wondered if the Cons had bothered to figure out how many costs would be downloaded to the provinces in cutting the OAS (spoiler alert: "no"), while Andrew Cash criticized the complete neglect of housing in the Cons' budget.
The Big Issue
Jack Harris started off the safety theme with a motion to the effect that Canada's search-and-rescue capability should meet an international standard of 30-minute readiness. But perhaps Harris' most important point (particularly in light of recent developments) came in response to a typical Con "why'd you vote against our budget? huh?" straw man:
I hope all Canadians are listening to that kind of nonsense. We are getting a little sick and tired of hearing those kinds of remarks. We voted against our own salaries. We voted against your salary, Mr. Speaker. When we vote against the budget on a matter of confidence, which is what we do, it because we do not agree with the Conservatives' approach to the whole running of government. We vote against every item in that budget. It has nothing to do with picking out a particular thing and voting against it. The government and the member, I am sorry to say, have fallen into that same trap of illogic and disrepute, frankly, by trying to accuse the opposition of not supporting things that are good for Canadians, when people know full well that we want to see search and rescue given sufficient and better priority than it has been given. Nobody puts that on the floor for a vote, except we are doing it right now and we will see how that member votes when the time comes.Chris Alexander answered by claiming that the international standard pointed to by Harris doesn't exist, and suggesting that it's not the place of Parliamentarians to question whether our search and rescue system can be improved. And that debate - continued by Ryan Cleary and Mark Strahl - made for the less contentious of the two safety discussions.
What came next was Bob Rae's motion on food safety comparing the Cons' CFIA cuts to the reckless slashing that led to Ontario's Walkerton debacle - with Hedy Fry discussing the parallels in detail, while Andrew Cash expressed his amazement that the Harper Cons were defending the Harrisites' failures (when as Kirsty Duncan noted, even Harris himself apologized after the fact). And Guy Caron nicely summed up the Cons' own sorry history of regulatory demolition by reviewing their listeriosis outbreak.
But the discussion expanded to general regulatory issues - with the Cons looking even worse on those. Elizabeth May noted that the Cons see the federal role in environmental protection as being limited to fish and migratory birds, while Pierre Dionne Labelle highlighted the fact that a reduced set of criteria will inevitably lead to important points being missed. Pierre Nantel mused about the sheer naivete behind the Cons' belief that corporate self-regulation would address safety concerns. Peggy Nash pointed out the Cons' plan to simply adopt "industry regulations" without anybody looking at the public good. Ted Hsu met the Cons' attacks on research and data collection by pointing out that "what gets measured gets done". And on the Cons' side Pierre Lemieux nicely echoed the difference in schools of economic thought, suggesting that the real issue is whether the public has confidence in our food supply whether or not that confidence has any basis in fact, while claiming that eliminating services and forcing provinces to build up regulatory systems of their own isn't actually a "cut".
Us vs Them
The Cons have regularly made it clear that mere ordinary Canadians arrested abroad can expect as little legal assistance as they can get away with providing. But in response to Paul Dewar's question about corruption and fraud charges against key officials at SNC-Lavalin, Bob Dechert clarified that corporate criminals have his government's full support.
In Brief
Nathan Cullen gave notice of the NDP's intention to raise the standard of debate in the House of Commons, while Charlie Angus slammed the Cons for making Parliament subservient to the whims of a controlling executive. Hoang Mai questioned cuts from the Canada Revenue Agency when it has an obvious need for internal investigation to go with its responsibility in revenue collection. Romeo Saganash was dumbfounded at the Cons' cuts to aid for the world's poorest countries, while Bev Oda replied that her idea of productive aid is creating profits for businesses rather than saving lives. Robert Chisholm rightly pointed out that water systems are interconnected, making it entirely dishonest to claim (as the Cons do) that regulators can safely ignore everything other than major waterways. Libby Davies wondered why the Cons had chosen not to follow up on a campaign promise to help the parents of gravely ill children. Judy Foote noted that the community access program being slashed by the Cons is still a vital source of internet access. May wondered why a Prime Minister who once went ballistic over a single definition change in a past budget bill was now scrapping an entire regulatory regime among other parts of an omnibus attack on the environment. And in adjournment proceedings Philip Toone wondered if the Cons had bothered to figure out how many costs would be downloaded to the provinces in cutting the OAS (spoiler alert: "no"), while Andrew Cash criticized the complete neglect of housing in the Cons' budget.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Parliament in Review - April 27, 2012
Friday, April 27 saw another day of relatively non-contentious debate on the main bill up for discussion in the House of Commons. But there was plenty of reason to question why the focus would be as narrow as it was.
The Big Issue
That main bill was the Cons' elder abuse legislation, intended to add a new factor in criminal sentencing where the victim was vulnerable due to age. And both of the opposition parties fully endorsed the bill in substance.
But once again, the Cons' focus on sentencing raised larger issues as to why they wouldn't put more effort into preventing crime in the first place. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet noted that the justice system itself may be intimidating for seniors, Laurin Liu highlighted the effects of poverty and social exclusion in making seniors vulnerable, Elizabeth May expressed her concerns about institutional abuse and Francois Lapointe discussed how telemarketing and pressure sales tactics could target seniors. Liu contrasted the Cons' criminal-based philosophy against her own bill to automatically enroll eligible seniors to receive the GIS. Judy Sgro criticized the Cons' focus on ad campaigns rather than community organizations.
Meanwhile, the debate also led naturally to talk of the Cons' efforts to slash OAS benefits. Alain Giguere rightly observed that exactly the same issues were raised during Brian Mulroney's stay in power with Mulroney claiming that the system we can afford today absolutely had to be slashed back at that time. And Robert Goguen provided a remarkable answer to Wayne Marston's question on that point:
Predictable
While the media paid plenty of due attention to the mocking response to Stephen Harper's "soft on Hitler!" gaffe, it largely missed an even more telling exchange in members' statements. After reading off some of the more hilarious #harperhistory Tweets, Dan Harris offered this suggestion to the Cons:
In Brief
Peggy Nash, Kirsty Duncan and Elizabeth May opened what's become a major debate about the elimination of environmental protection in the Cons' toxic budget, while Guy Caron pointed out the failure of the Cons' much-touted CCS projects in the oil sands. Rosane Dore Lefebvre questioned the Cons' decision to eliminate the CSIS inspector general, while Dennis Bevington wondered why funding for the aboriginal justice strategy had been allowed to expire. Francoise Boivin challenged the budget bill's attacks on employment equity. Alexandrine Latendresse pointed out how many municipalities had already expressed justified concerns about the secretive CETA negotiations. And Joy Smith's bill on trafficking in persons passed with all-party support.
The Big Issue
That main bill was the Cons' elder abuse legislation, intended to add a new factor in criminal sentencing where the victim was vulnerable due to age. And both of the opposition parties fully endorsed the bill in substance.
But once again, the Cons' focus on sentencing raised larger issues as to why they wouldn't put more effort into preventing crime in the first place. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet noted that the justice system itself may be intimidating for seniors, Laurin Liu highlighted the effects of poverty and social exclusion in making seniors vulnerable, Elizabeth May expressed her concerns about institutional abuse and Francois Lapointe discussed how telemarketing and pressure sales tactics could target seniors. Liu contrasted the Cons' criminal-based philosophy against her own bill to automatically enroll eligible seniors to receive the GIS. Judy Sgro criticized the Cons' focus on ad campaigns rather than community organizations.
Meanwhile, the debate also led naturally to talk of the Cons' efforts to slash OAS benefits. Alain Giguere rightly observed that exactly the same issues were raised during Brian Mulroney's stay in power with Mulroney claiming that the system we can afford today absolutely had to be slashed back at that time. And Robert Goguen provided a remarkable answer to Wayne Marston's question on that point:
Mr. Wayne Marston:So rather than relying on actual forecasts as to the costs of Canada's retirement system (which take into account exactly the costs that can be reasonably projected), Goguen's argument was based on two premises: first, that the future is constantly in doubt; and second, when in doubt, slash benefits. Which doesn't offer much reason for confidence that more needed programs won't be gratuitously attacked in the future.
Mr. Speaker, when the government gave its reasons for the changes to OAS, $36 billion a year is what it cost, escalating to $109 billion, there is no argument there. We agree with the government on that, but the assumptions the Conservatives are using do not take into account an average of 2% growth in the GDP, as projected by their own Minister of Finance over the next number of years. That would pay for it.
Mr. Robert Goguen:
That is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. According to the hon. member, this system is sustainable. The question I would ask him is, in the following 20 years, how many people will have dialysis? How many people will have cancer treatments? How many people will have medical treatments which will go well into the future because Canadians continue to live longer and health care goes up?
These two things run in tandem. We have no way of predicting exactly how much medical treatment will be needed. We know it will increase. We know the demography of the Canadian population is becoming significantly older. With age comes medicare. With age come health costs. We are taking steps to protect seniors in the future.
Predictable
While the media paid plenty of due attention to the mocking response to Stephen Harper's "soft on Hitler!" gaffe, it largely missed an even more telling exchange in members' statements. After reading off some of the more hilarious #harperhistory Tweets, Dan Harris offered this suggestion to the Cons:
I hope the Conservatives take this humour in stride and do not respond with more of their humourless anger.Needless to say, Scott Armstrong followed with...about the most humourless and angry statement one could imagine, which deliberately repeated Harper's ludicrous message.
In Brief
Peggy Nash, Kirsty Duncan and Elizabeth May opened what's become a major debate about the elimination of environmental protection in the Cons' toxic budget, while Guy Caron pointed out the failure of the Cons' much-touted CCS projects in the oil sands. Rosane Dore Lefebvre questioned the Cons' decision to eliminate the CSIS inspector general, while Dennis Bevington wondered why funding for the aboriginal justice strategy had been allowed to expire. Francoise Boivin challenged the budget bill's attacks on employment equity. Alexandrine Latendresse pointed out how many municipalities had already expressed justified concerns about the secretive CETA negotiations. And Joy Smith's bill on trafficking in persons passed with all-party support.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Parliament in Review - April 26, 2012
Thursday, April 26 saw ample discussion of private members' business - and if the Cons are now cracking down on such debate, the results of the day's proceedings might give us some clues as to why.
The Big Issue
While it didn't receive as much media attention as another issue which was debated for substantially less time, Irene Mathyssen's motion to reverse the Cons' attacks on OAS produced plenty of noteworthy discussion. Mathyssen pointed out how the move would increase poverty rates among senior women in particular. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe noted that private pension plans might not be designed to account for OAS not being available at age 65, while Mike Sullivan pointed to a similar issue with provincial benefit plans. Linda Duncan asked who if anybody the Cons had consulted. Stephane Dion observed that the OAS is already fairly stingy compared to other countries' programs, while Eve Peclet mused that a fairer tax system would allow for far better income security and Don Davies highlighted the fact that the Cons' frequent and frivolous tax slashing had created the budget deficit they now claim to want to fix on the backs of retirees. Paulina Ayala observed that it's younger Canadians who will suffer from the change, while Mylene Freeman both worried about the fact younger Canadians don't have spare money to put aside to make up for a destroyed social safety net (a point echoed by Alexandre Boulerice) and recognized that lower- to middle-class seniors will suffer most from an income perspective. Dan Harris quipped that "ample notice about getting hosed does not change the fact that we are getting hosed", while Wayne Easter described the cuts as "grand theft" from workers under 54. And a number of speakers including Judy Foote, Fin Donnelly and Davies pointed to the Cons' campaign promise not to cut individual benefits which was broken by the attack on OAS.
Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre hearkened back to the good old days when the average senior would die before receiving a nickel in OAS. But perhaps the more interesting contribution from the Cons was Kellie Leitch's emphasis on the OAS changes not affecting CPP eligibility or benefits based on that program being "fully funded for the next 75 years at current contribution rates" - which might be worth filing away for future reference if that becomes the next form of retirement security to meet with the Cons' budgetary axe.
The Settled Issue
Meanwhile, Stephen Woodworth's abortion motion was the other main topic of discussion. But while Woodworth made a fool of himself by confirming that he wasn't prepared to accept the most likely outcome of exactly the study he claimed to want, plenty of speakers from all parties - including Francoise Boivin, Hedy Fry, Gordon O'Connor and Niki Ashton - made it clear that Woodworth's regressive stance wasn't going to get him anywhere. (Though contrary to what so many people said at the time, O'Connor's seems to have been one of the less impressive of the speeches.)
In Brief
In response to Malcolm Allen's order paper questions on a Crop Logistics Working Group, Gerry Ritz helpfully pointed out that the group hadn't accomplished anything and didn't plan to report back to anybody other than Ritz himself. Niki Ashton questioned the Cons' elimination of the Women's Health Contribution Program. Nathan Cullen's Thursday question included a request for an update on the Elections Canada motion the Cons reluctantly accepted a couple of months earlier. Guy Caron again asked for some explanation of the Cons' move to shift an EI processing site from Rimouski to Thetford Mines, and again received nothing approaching a meaningful answer. And Anne Minh-Thu Quach asked why the Cons are doing nothing about obesity as a public health issue.
The Big Issue
While it didn't receive as much media attention as another issue which was debated for substantially less time, Irene Mathyssen's motion to reverse the Cons' attacks on OAS produced plenty of noteworthy discussion. Mathyssen pointed out how the move would increase poverty rates among senior women in particular. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe noted that private pension plans might not be designed to account for OAS not being available at age 65, while Mike Sullivan pointed to a similar issue with provincial benefit plans. Linda Duncan asked who if anybody the Cons had consulted. Stephane Dion observed that the OAS is already fairly stingy compared to other countries' programs, while Eve Peclet mused that a fairer tax system would allow for far better income security and Don Davies highlighted the fact that the Cons' frequent and frivolous tax slashing had created the budget deficit they now claim to want to fix on the backs of retirees. Paulina Ayala observed that it's younger Canadians who will suffer from the change, while Mylene Freeman both worried about the fact younger Canadians don't have spare money to put aside to make up for a destroyed social safety net (a point echoed by Alexandre Boulerice) and recognized that lower- to middle-class seniors will suffer most from an income perspective. Dan Harris quipped that "ample notice about getting hosed does not change the fact that we are getting hosed", while Wayne Easter described the cuts as "grand theft" from workers under 54. And a number of speakers including Judy Foote, Fin Donnelly and Davies pointed to the Cons' campaign promise not to cut individual benefits which was broken by the attack on OAS.
Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre hearkened back to the good old days when the average senior would die before receiving a nickel in OAS. But perhaps the more interesting contribution from the Cons was Kellie Leitch's emphasis on the OAS changes not affecting CPP eligibility or benefits based on that program being "fully funded for the next 75 years at current contribution rates" - which might be worth filing away for future reference if that becomes the next form of retirement security to meet with the Cons' budgetary axe.
The Settled Issue
Meanwhile, Stephen Woodworth's abortion motion was the other main topic of discussion. But while Woodworth made a fool of himself by confirming that he wasn't prepared to accept the most likely outcome of exactly the study he claimed to want, plenty of speakers from all parties - including Francoise Boivin, Hedy Fry, Gordon O'Connor and Niki Ashton - made it clear that Woodworth's regressive stance wasn't going to get him anywhere. (Though contrary to what so many people said at the time, O'Connor's seems to have been one of the less impressive of the speeches.)
In Brief
In response to Malcolm Allen's order paper questions on a Crop Logistics Working Group, Gerry Ritz helpfully pointed out that the group hadn't accomplished anything and didn't plan to report back to anybody other than Ritz himself. Niki Ashton questioned the Cons' elimination of the Women's Health Contribution Program. Nathan Cullen's Thursday question included a request for an update on the Elections Canada motion the Cons reluctantly accepted a couple of months earlier. Guy Caron again asked for some explanation of the Cons' move to shift an EI processing site from Rimouski to Thetford Mines, and again received nothing approaching a meaningful answer. And Anne Minh-Thu Quach asked why the Cons are doing nothing about obesity as a public health issue.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Parliament in Review - April 25, 2012
Wednesday, April 25 saw one of the more noteworthy economic debates we've seen in the current session of Parliament, as a former-PC-turned-Liberal raised the issue of income inequality to a noteworthy response from the Harper Cons.
The Big Issue
Scott Brison presented what should have been a relatively non-controversial motion - calling not even for immediate action to address income inequality, but merely for study of the issue with a focus on "welfare walls" rather than substantive redistribution. But Dany Morin recognized that the Cons are doing everything in their power to reduce public knowledge of the issue - and sure enough, Brison's motion was met with admonitions from Shelly Glover and Cathy McLeod that their party doesn't believe the issue deserves any discussion.
Meanwhile, Peggy Nash nicely summed up what we already know about the corrosive effects of inequality. And Hoang Mai lamented the Cons' refusal to recognize reality. But the Cons made it abundantly clear that they don't see inequality as a problem worth addressing - meaning that we can expect at least three more years of matters getting worse.
First Principles
Another day of debate on the citizen's arrest bill led to plenty of discussion about the parties' general philosophies about criminal justice. Mike Sullivan noted that the Cons' anti-refugee bill treats newly-arrived individuals as offenders, then made the point that few if any potential offenders will look into the possible sentences before deciding to engage in criminal activity. Raymond Cote questioned how the Cons can favour judicial discretion when it comes to the reasonableness of a citizen's arrest but not when it comes to sentencing, and suggested that we take an epidemiological point of view in evaluating our criminal justice policy. Charlie Angus commented that dealing with crime has to be a community effort rather than relying unduly on individual action. And Craig Scott pointed out that the committee process had been highly effective in addressing C-26 - again raising questions as to why the Cons are so eager to shut it down most of the time.
In Brief
Nycole Turmel criticized the Cons for slashing support to co-operatives in the budget. Charlie Angus pointed out that Bev Oda was a repeat offender when it came to frivolous spending of public money which went unaccounted for until opposition parties raised the issues. Romeo Saganash compared the cost of Oda's limo rides and five-star hotel rooms to the much smaller price of saving children through programs which the Cons are cutting, while Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet noted that the Cons had sunk to a new low in refusing to fund programs covered by a homelessness partnering strategy. Fin Donnelly contrasted the Cons' rhetoric about merely wanting to change fisheries regulation to avoid regulating ditches against their admission that part of the goal was to grease the skids for massive pipeline projects. Maria Mourani presented a private member's bill to review the extraterritorial activities of Canadian businesses. And in adjournment proceedings, Linda Duncan questioned the Cons about their choice to limit consultation with First Nations on resource projects which affect their land and livelihood.
The Big Issue
Scott Brison presented what should have been a relatively non-controversial motion - calling not even for immediate action to address income inequality, but merely for study of the issue with a focus on "welfare walls" rather than substantive redistribution. But Dany Morin recognized that the Cons are doing everything in their power to reduce public knowledge of the issue - and sure enough, Brison's motion was met with admonitions from Shelly Glover and Cathy McLeod that their party doesn't believe the issue deserves any discussion.
Meanwhile, Peggy Nash nicely summed up what we already know about the corrosive effects of inequality. And Hoang Mai lamented the Cons' refusal to recognize reality. But the Cons made it abundantly clear that they don't see inequality as a problem worth addressing - meaning that we can expect at least three more years of matters getting worse.
First Principles
Another day of debate on the citizen's arrest bill led to plenty of discussion about the parties' general philosophies about criminal justice. Mike Sullivan noted that the Cons' anti-refugee bill treats newly-arrived individuals as offenders, then made the point that few if any potential offenders will look into the possible sentences before deciding to engage in criminal activity. Raymond Cote questioned how the Cons can favour judicial discretion when it comes to the reasonableness of a citizen's arrest but not when it comes to sentencing, and suggested that we take an epidemiological point of view in evaluating our criminal justice policy. Charlie Angus commented that dealing with crime has to be a community effort rather than relying unduly on individual action. And Craig Scott pointed out that the committee process had been highly effective in addressing C-26 - again raising questions as to why the Cons are so eager to shut it down most of the time.
In Brief
Nycole Turmel criticized the Cons for slashing support to co-operatives in the budget. Charlie Angus pointed out that Bev Oda was a repeat offender when it came to frivolous spending of public money which went unaccounted for until opposition parties raised the issues. Romeo Saganash compared the cost of Oda's limo rides and five-star hotel rooms to the much smaller price of saving children through programs which the Cons are cutting, while Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet noted that the Cons had sunk to a new low in refusing to fund programs covered by a homelessness partnering strategy. Fin Donnelly contrasted the Cons' rhetoric about merely wanting to change fisheries regulation to avoid regulating ditches against their admission that part of the goal was to grease the skids for massive pipeline projects. Maria Mourani presented a private member's bill to review the extraterritorial activities of Canadian businesses. And in adjournment proceedings, Linda Duncan questioned the Cons about their choice to limit consultation with First Nations on resource projects which affect their land and livelihood.
Parliament in Review - April 24, 2012
Tuesday, April 24 saw a day of debate focused on a relatively non-contentious piece of legislation: a citizen's arrest bill which largely reflected Olivia Chow's work after charges were laid against David Chen of the Lucky Moose.
The Big Issue
When it came to the substance of the bill, there was little disagreement among the three parties in Parliament. Leading off the discussion was Con MP Robert Goguen, who recognized that by working with the opposition parties in committee the government had managed to improve the initial wording of the legislation - raising an obvious question as to why they aren't interested in doing the same more often. Jinny Sims carefully distinguished between the limited expansion of citizen's arrest provisions and any danger of vigilantism, while Linda Duncan and Charlie Angus highlighted the Trayvon Martin case as an example as to why we should be careful about encouraging anything along those lines.
The one dissenting voice was that of Elizabeth May, who not only questioned the inclusion of a single provision allowing for an arrest after a reasonable time, but indicated her intention to vote against the entire bill as a result. And Jack Harris recognized May's sincere concerns, while suggesting that an associated proliferation of private security firms might need to be addressed by the provinces.
The Wrong Prescription
Full credit goes to Con MP Terence Young for questioning the overuse of statins to reduce cholesterol. But Young's party-approved remedy looks like a bizarre way to counter the undue influence of big pharma in pushing its choice of profit drivers:
Ruth Ellen Brosseau offered a statement on Montreal's massive Earth Day rally, while Megan Leslie slammed the Cons for restricting media access to environmental scientists. Chow questioned the erosion of Canada's rail capacity under Lib and Con governments alike. Ted Hsu's question on the actual net impact of closing prisons was met with the remarkable response from Vic Toews that it would cost not a single penny to house the same prisoners elsewhere. The Cons pushed through their ways and means motion on the budget. Hedy Fry spoke to a private member's bill on cyberbullying, while Dany Morin asked whether more should be done to prevent rather than punish such harm and Goguen noted that the list of offences included in Fry's bill might be incomplete. And in adjournment proceedings Jamie Nicholls sought answers about a long list of Con patronage appointments, while Randall Garrison followed up on the Cons' air travel regulations which discriminate against transgendered travellers.
The Big Issue
When it came to the substance of the bill, there was little disagreement among the three parties in Parliament. Leading off the discussion was Con MP Robert Goguen, who recognized that by working with the opposition parties in committee the government had managed to improve the initial wording of the legislation - raising an obvious question as to why they aren't interested in doing the same more often. Jinny Sims carefully distinguished between the limited expansion of citizen's arrest provisions and any danger of vigilantism, while Linda Duncan and Charlie Angus highlighted the Trayvon Martin case as an example as to why we should be careful about encouraging anything along those lines.
The one dissenting voice was that of Elizabeth May, who not only questioned the inclusion of a single provision allowing for an arrest after a reasonable time, but indicated her intention to vote against the entire bill as a result. And Jack Harris recognized May's sincere concerns, while suggesting that an associated proliferation of private security firms might need to be addressed by the provinces.
The Wrong Prescription
Full credit goes to Con MP Terence Young for questioning the overuse of statins to reduce cholesterol. But Young's party-approved remedy looks like a bizarre way to counter the undue influence of big pharma in pushing its choice of profit drivers:
Most patients can lower their cholesterol with diet change and exercise without the risk of serious adverse effects from statin drugs. Since doctors generally ignore safety warnings from regulators, patients should get the best available evidence on statins from their pharmacists and by doing their own research.In Brief
Ruth Ellen Brosseau offered a statement on Montreal's massive Earth Day rally, while Megan Leslie slammed the Cons for restricting media access to environmental scientists. Chow questioned the erosion of Canada's rail capacity under Lib and Con governments alike. Ted Hsu's question on the actual net impact of closing prisons was met with the remarkable response from Vic Toews that it would cost not a single penny to house the same prisoners elsewhere. The Cons pushed through their ways and means motion on the budget. Hedy Fry spoke to a private member's bill on cyberbullying, while Dany Morin asked whether more should be done to prevent rather than punish such harm and Goguen noted that the list of offences included in Fry's bill might be incomplete. And in adjournment proceedings Jamie Nicholls sought answers about a long list of Con patronage appointments, while Randall Garrison followed up on the Cons' air travel regulations which discriminate against transgendered travellers.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Parliament in Review - April 23, 2012
Monday, April 23 was the first day back in the House of Commons following the Easter break. And it featured some of the most lively and telling discussion we've seen yet on the Cons' anti-refugee legislation as the second-reading debate reached its end.
The Big Issue
As part of the refugee bill debate, Craig Scott made his first speech as the NDP's MP for Toronto-Danforth. And he wasted no time in showing what he'll add to the NDP's caucus:
Meanwhile, for the Cons, Jason Kenney took umbrage at any suggestion that his party wanted to get tough on refugees - only to admit that part of the bill's purpose is deterrence to keep them from coming to Canada. And while Patrick Brown offered a boilerplate defence of a plan to require biometric information from new immigrants, Dan Harris rightly criticized the fact that the Cons were refusing to hear from a committee already assessing the use of biometrics.
But as tends to be the case, the Cons simply decided to ignore every valid criticism of their legislation, and voted down the NDP's proposed amendment before forcing the bill through.
Pop Quiz
Caron received a response to his order paper question (#489) as to the criteria used to decide to close a processing centre in Rimouski and set one up for the primary benefit of Christian Paradis in Thetford Mines and the reason why the change was made. Your challenge: spot anything in the answer that amounts to an explanation of the decision beyond "because we damn well said so, that's why".
In Brief
Merv Tweed spoke to his bill to prevent Canada Post from hiking rates on books delivered between rural libraries. And the idea received multi-party support - though it's worth asking how Tweed's initial can be reconciled with the Cons' constant demand that Crowns be run as revenue-maximizing businesses or sold off to be turned into just that.
Meanwhile, Malcolm Allen offered a statement on cuts to food inspections through both the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canada Border Services Agency, then followed up in question period. Francoise Boivin served notice that the NDP won't hesitate to defend a woman's right to choice. Megan Leslie wondered about the minders being sent to accompany civil servants to a conference and report on their activities. Irene Mathyssen's question about how much money was being cut out of OAS was met with Diane Finley's response that her government's attacks on seniors' standard of living have nothing to do with deficit reduction. Carolyn Bennett slammed Leona Aglukkaq for singling out aboriginal health for massive cuts. And Caron asked adjournment questions about the Cons' lack of a realistic plan to foster research and development in Canada, while Jack Harris wondered what exactly the Cons plan to do with the influx of prisoners created by their dumb-on-crime strategy (especially as they indicated they planned to close some facilities).
The Big Issue
As part of the refugee bill debate, Craig Scott made his first speech as the NDP's MP for Toronto-Danforth. And he wasted no time in showing what he'll add to the NDP's caucus:
One huge difference is that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires that a person be a permanent resident before the person is able to sponsor family members, such as the person's spouse, children, or parents, to immigrate to Canada. Thus, under Bill C-31 irregular refugees would have no hope of reuniting with family in Canada for at least five years.Other speakers including Kevin Lamoureux also questioned why the Cons are so determined to keep families apart for a period of up to a decade. Kirsty Duncan pointed out how quickly patterns of human rights abuse can emerge and render obsolete the "safe country" designations the Cons want to use to attack refugees' rights. Guy Caron and Andrew Cash criticized the Cons' pattern of placing large amounts of power over individual rights in the hands of unaccountable ministers. Caron also lamented the politicization of refugee claims. Libby Davies highlighted the fact that organizations familiar with refugee issues were lining up against C-31, then observed that the bill would allow the Cons to retroactively attack refugee status if circumstances changed in a new immigrant's country of origin. Elizabeth May asked about the cost of locking up refugees rather than allowing them to contribute to Canadian society. Jinny Sims queried how refugees would take the Cons' admonition to play by the rules seriously when the 300,000 who did so in the current skilled worker program queue are being arbitrarily deleted. Anne Minh-Thu Quach and Massimo Pacetti pointed out that there's plenty of reason why refugees can't be expected to meet the ridiculous requirements placed on them by the Cons.
Currently, family class applications in this country are often processed at a snail's pace. It is not uncommon for it to take three years for a child or a spouse to be admitted and sometimes up to six years for parents. It is no stretch to say that a refugee who started out as a designated foreign national may have to wait 10 years for family members to join him or her.
If that is not enough, a designated foreign national refugee will not even be able to travel outside Canada to spend time with family, for example, in a country other than the country of origin which the refugee fears going back to. Why is that? Bill C-31 decrees that such a refugee will not be given travel documents until he or she becomes a permanent resident, that is, until at least five years have passed, despite the fact that the refugee convention requires that travel documents be issued to refugees once they are “lawfully staying” in the host country. Fortress Canada thus becomes prison Canada for the designated foreign national refugee. If he were still alive, Kafka could not have written Bill C-31 better if he tried.
Meanwhile, for the Cons, Jason Kenney took umbrage at any suggestion that his party wanted to get tough on refugees - only to admit that part of the bill's purpose is deterrence to keep them from coming to Canada. And while Patrick Brown offered a boilerplate defence of a plan to require biometric information from new immigrants, Dan Harris rightly criticized the fact that the Cons were refusing to hear from a committee already assessing the use of biometrics.
But as tends to be the case, the Cons simply decided to ignore every valid criticism of their legislation, and voted down the NDP's proposed amendment before forcing the bill through.
Pop Quiz
Caron received a response to his order paper question (#489) as to the criteria used to decide to close a processing centre in Rimouski and set one up for the primary benefit of Christian Paradis in Thetford Mines and the reason why the change was made. Your challenge: spot anything in the answer that amounts to an explanation of the decision beyond "because we damn well said so, that's why".
In Brief
Merv Tweed spoke to his bill to prevent Canada Post from hiking rates on books delivered between rural libraries. And the idea received multi-party support - though it's worth asking how Tweed's initial can be reconciled with the Cons' constant demand that Crowns be run as revenue-maximizing businesses or sold off to be turned into just that.
Meanwhile, Malcolm Allen offered a statement on cuts to food inspections through both the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canada Border Services Agency, then followed up in question period. Francoise Boivin served notice that the NDP won't hesitate to defend a woman's right to choice. Megan Leslie wondered about the minders being sent to accompany civil servants to a conference and report on their activities. Irene Mathyssen's question about how much money was being cut out of OAS was met with Diane Finley's response that her government's attacks on seniors' standard of living have nothing to do with deficit reduction. Carolyn Bennett slammed Leona Aglukkaq for singling out aboriginal health for massive cuts. And Caron asked adjournment questions about the Cons' lack of a realistic plan to foster research and development in Canada, while Jack Harris wondered what exactly the Cons plan to do with the influx of prisoners created by their dumb-on-crime strategy (especially as they indicated they planned to close some facilities).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)