Roundup: Stop demanding deployment votes

Posted on by

While Harjit Sajjan is off in London at a meeting of defence ministers, his critics are back in Ottawa grousing about the shift of focus from peacemaking to peacekeeping – never mind that Sajjan has already said that any upcoming mission is unlikely to be “peacekeeping” in the traditional sense as opposed to what he’s terming “peace operations.” That aside, the other emerging bit of drama is the fact that Sajjan is indicating that the government is unlikely to put such a deployment to a vote in the House of Commons – which is of course the way that things should work, but the Conservatives under Stephen Harper started saying they were going to hold votes starting with the Afghanistan mission extension under the guise of being “more democratic” when their whole point was to publicly divide the Liberals, and hey, that happened. (Remember when Harper crossed the floor to shake Michael Ignatieff’s hand after that vote? Because that wasn’t about trying to put a skewer in the brewing leadership contest, no sir). But beyond the reasons why the practice started, it’s antithetical to the whole point of parliament, which is to hold the government to account. When you put decisions like this to a vote – even if it’s non-binding and worded as “supporting a decision,” it gives the illusion that you’re giving parliament a role in the decision, when that’s not their job. When they are implicated in the decision making, they are not able to effectively hold the government to account because they can turn around and say “the House voted on this,” and shrug it off – and yes, the Conservatives did this on a number of occasions as well. So yes, have debates. Have committees scrutinize the missions as they happen, but don’t insist on votes, even if it’s for symbolic reasons, because that poisons the well.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/773921571438157824

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/773921858794102784

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/773923808633839616

On a related note, at the meeting of defence ministers, some of the shortages facing peacekeeping operations in Africa were noted, and one of them is the need for more female peacekeepers on the ground.

Good reads:

  • The government announced more public consultations on reforming anti-terror laws, but it looks like lawful access laws are once again being contemplated.
  • Ralph Goodale is unhappy with his US counterparts for slapping a lifetime ban on someone who admitted to smoking marijuana – despite it being legal in four states.
  • SNC-Lavalin got a slap on the wrist for illegal donations to the Liberals and Conservatives between 2004 and 2011.
  • Apparently Canadians are okay with seats being set aside for Indigenous Canadians in the Commons, the Senate and the Supreme Court, and I’m not really sure, guys.
  • Here’s an interesting read about the dance between Parliament and the Supreme Court when it comes to interpreting the Charter.
  • While Thomas Mulcair digs in his heels to say he’s staying on as interim leader, the internal rumblings for his ouster are getting louder.
  • The Conservatives are holding their caucus retreat in Halifax, to show Atlantic Canada that they still care about them.
  • Andrew Scheer is officially in the Conservative leadership race now.
  • Kellie Leitch says comparisons between her “values screen” and Trump’s “extreme vetting” are unfair, while Tony Clement says he wants “enhanced screening.”
  • Martin Patriquin writes about why a “values test” won’t fly in the end.

Odds and ends:

Here’s a look at how the UK is planning to renovate their parliament buildings in contrast to how Canada is doing it.