The Trans-Pacific Partnership talks are taking place right now, with the possibility that a deal could be struck with Canada while we’re in a writ period. The optics of this are a bit fraught, because if the government gets the deal signed, then they can crow about their prowess on the campaign trail, and how they’re signing deals to boost our economy. But the flip side of that coin is that a really big deal may be a kind of violation of the Caretaker Conventions that govern how an incumbent government operates during a writ period. Remember that we can never be without a government even when Parliament is dissolved – they just need to exercise restraint, and can’t implement major policy changes or make appointments during that period. This time around, however, the government released the Convention guidelines publicly while adding specific exemptions about negotiating trade deals. On the one hand, there is a certain amount of sense – do we really want to hold up the eleven other countries while we are in an extra-long election period? (Note that there seems to be a desire to conclude the deal before the American election gears up to full-on insanity mode). One of the arguments is that there should at least be some kind of consultation with opposition leaders if the negotiations continue during the writ period, and there are complaints that the TPP negotiations are unprecedented in their secrecy. What is not mentioned is that secrecy is deliberate considering how game changing this pact could be, particularly when it comes to weakening some of the tough subsidized markets in several member countries. And if you look at the reactions that rumours of deals around weakening Supply Management or auto parts content rules, and promises by other party leaders to maintain those protectionist policies, it’s hard not to see why they want to keep a lid on things until they’re finalised – particularly if the goal is actual trade liberalisation rather than just lip-service. It’s a delicate balance, and arguments can be made on both sides of the propriety of the government’s negotiations under the Caretaker Conventions. For example, Susan Delacourt argues the government is going beyond the Conventions. I’m not sure I have any answers, but I guess we’ll see what gets decided, and let the chips fall where they may.
Roundup: A baffling public service pledge
In a bid to win over the public service vote in the Ottawa region, the NDP have pledged a “code of conduct” for ministers and their staff, as well as an end to cuts to the public service, a Public Appointments Commission to end patronage appointments, a restoration of collective bargaining rights, and putting an end to contract staff. Oh, and an end to muzzling “scientists and other public service employees.” And that sends off my alarm bells because it’s a massive reorientation of the role of the public service. While the NDP thinks that they’re trying to remove the politicization around the public service that has been developing, empowering public servants to speak against the governments that they are supposed to serve is mind-boggling. The issue of just what we’re muzzling in terms of scientists was thoroughly hashed out a few months ago when Andrew Leach went against the countervailing wisdom and challenged the “white coat” privilege that these kinds of pronouncements assume, that it’s all a bunch of benevolent climate scientists who can’t speak about their work. What it ignores is that there are other kinds of scientists – like economists in the Department of Finance – for whom this is not even a consideration. Just because it’s politically convenient to think that we want these white coats to denounce the government’s environmental policies, does that mean it should be okay for government economists to denounce fiscal policy? Or government lawyers to denounce the government’s justice policies? (It’s also why their candidate, Emilie Taman was denied a leave to run – the Public Prosecution Service was created to remove the perception of political bias from Crown prosecutions, and having one of your prosecutors running for office defeats that purpose). Public Servants serve the Queen and carry out their duties in a neutral fashion. Making it easier for them to start denouncing the government is a mystifying promise. Also, the promise to bar temps is short-sighted and makes it harder for young people to get civil service jobs. Those temp jobs are often the best way to get one’s foot in the door in the public service and get some experience that can translate into a job, considering how byzantine and nigh-impossible the outside competition process is if one wasn’t lucky enough to get bridged in through a school programme. Conversely, getting new staff in a timely manner or for a specific project is also a ridiculous process for managers. Banning temps makes no actual sense.
Roundup: Munk debate a success
The Munk Debate on foreign policy was actually really well done – probably the best and most substantive debate we’ve had so far during this election, with a good format, good moderation, and bilingualism that more or less worked out (though there could have been a bit more effort into the French). (Kady’s liveblog here). We also started to see a bit more of a change in the leaders. Harper was more or less his usual self, and in foreign policy, well, he’s got ten years of experience, but he also has a record to defence. Trudeau stepped up his game in this debate, and was the most confident and self-assured he’s been of any debate. The improvement was marked, and given the low expectations going in, where people figured that foreign policy was his weakest area (especially as it’s where most of his notable gaffes going into the election were), but those fears were largely put to rest. As for Mulcair, people expecting a statesmanlike performance were largely dashed as he tended to more personal attacks and swipes, while avoiding a number of answers – possibly because his party’s foreign policy platform is the thinnest of the three. Trudeau also defended his father’s record from attacks by Mulcair, and seemed to have a few of his best moments doing so, and it did get notice over the Twitter Machine. (It was also, he noted the fifteenth anniversary of his father’s death, so that certainly did weigh on his mind at the time). Here is some debate reaction from Michael Den Tandt, the Ottawa Citizen’s panel, and over Twitter, Bob Rae (who was subject of another of Mulcair’s swipes on stage). Oh, and audience polls seem to indicate that Trudeau was the big winner. Make of that what you will.
https://twitter.com/carbonexplorer/status/648663698819694592
Very tired line from Mulcair – "sort of like being attacked by a dead sheep"- proud to have led a govt that re-built Ontario at a tough time
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) September 29, 2015
I didn't always agree with Pierre Trudeau but he was a great man. I can't say the same about Tom Mulcair #cdnpoli
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) September 29, 2015
Mulcair's entire "record" on the environment was when he was a Liberal. So I guess it didn't count. #cdnpoli.
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) September 29, 2015
Nastiness is one thing, recycled nastiness is worse. #cdnpoli
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) September 29, 2015
Apparently Mulcair said he's campaigning for a "strong stable majority government". Even his fantasies are written by someone else #cdnpoli
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) September 29, 2015
APTN's Iqaluit bureau correspondent has never heard the 'big sled no dogs' quip about Harper in Nunavut https://t.co/u3V1khtKN5
— Jorge Barrera (@JorgeBarrera) September 29, 2015
https://twitter.com/kateheartfield/status/648657546933325824
Harper doesn't get obvious segue to talk about how much he supports Israel so he makes his own.
— Michael Petrou (@michaelpetrou) September 29, 2015
Oh, Trudeau veering into deficit spending. #MunkDebate pic.twitter.com/8jFLR6qStT
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) September 29, 2015
Roundup: Let the equivocation begin
With three weeks left in the race, we’ve started seeing Thomas Mulcair start equivocating – or clarifying in any case – some of the policy planks he’s been running on. In many of those cases, it’s starting to make his promises look far less impressive. Take childcare – he is now talking about sitting down with provinces and using some of their existing spaces toward his “one million spaces” goal. One example was with Ontario, and the two years of full-day kindergarten offered in this province, so how does that get counted into with is childcare pledge, and the funding questions that go along with it? Add to that, with some 900,000 spaces already in existence across the country, does that mean that his plan will simply be to add another 100,000 spaces over the next eight years and make sure that they simply cap the fees at $15/day? Or is it still supposed to be a million new spaces? With his cap-and-trade announcement, he says that provinces can opt-out so long as they meet or exceed the federal objectives. But does that not then become essentially the Liberal position, where the provinces take the lead while the federal government establishes the targets? And didn’t he denounce that very notion? Mulcair has even started back-pedalling a little on his criticism of “useless” senators, saying it was only the institution he was denouncing (which, I’m sorry, is absolutely not what he said at the time). As crunch time approaches I’ll be interested to see how much more “clarifying” happens between the different parties, and how much of that clarifying goes against what they were saying the whole time.
Mulcair just clarified that his million daycare spaces by 2023 includes those already in place (over 900 000). See http://t.co/Xs5a2uFbWo
— Marc Garneau (@MarcGarneau) September 26, 2015
Roundup: Two senators are not enough
After Thomas Mulcair indicated that he’d been approached by a couple of Senators who would be willing to help him pass his agenda, we now get a couple of names – Liberal Senator Larry Campbell, and Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth, though the latter isn’t talking about it (and personally I wonder why she would volunteer considering how shoddily she’s been treated by the NDP after she made that joke about camembert, and yes, it was a joke). But it’s not quite as cut-and-dried as Mulcair seemed to make it out to be. Campbell, in an interview with CBC, said he’d be willing to ensure that bills get due credit, but that’s not exactly putting oneself in the position of shepherding through an entire NDP agenda. I also have my doubts when Campbell says that the Senate doesn’t need a leader of the government and a leader of the opposition, largely because it clashes with our system of Responsible Government. The current framework allows for Senators to hold the government to account in the way that MPs can, by asking questions of a member of cabinet – nominally the leader of the government in the Senate, never mind the fact that Harper’s current leader is not in cabinet because he churlishly is trying to distance himself from the Senate. And one of the most underrated ways in which Senators perform this accountability is in the leader’s ability to take questions on notice and provide written responses. Losing this ability would be a blow to the Senate’s accountability function, which is a vital part of their role of Sober Second Thought. You need answers from government if you are to properly consider their legislative agenda, and losing that conduit is going to hamper that ability. Campbell and Senate Liberal whip Jim Munson also mused about making the Senate Speaker elected by the chamber, but I’m not sure how easily this can be accomplished considering that the Senate Speaker has duties beyond what the Commons Speaker does in terms of protocol and diplomatic duties, which is one of the reasons it’s a Governor-in-Council appointment. He or she is the “Queen’s man” (or woman as the case may be) for a reason, and there may be a lot of hoops to jump through in order to make that change. I’m not saying it’s not doable, but it may not be easily doable – particularly if you have an NDP prime minister who has no interest in doing anything for the Senate. Suffice to say, it’s not enough for Mulcair to use these couple of senators as an excuse to ignore his constitutional obligations.
Roundup: French debate, the first
So, the first French debate, and the only one where we’ll see five leaders all on the same stage. It wasn’t a dumpster fire, but it had its trying moments. Not twenty minutes into it, they got into the tiresome niqab debate, of which Justin Trudeau had the clearest and probably best statement, saying that we don’t accept it when men tell women what they can and can’t wear. There was also a ridiculous segment about the Senate, when it got compared to a vestige of our British colonial past (it’s not – the Senate of Canada is actually a wholly unique institution in the world), and Gilles Duceppe dropped the republican gauntlet in calling for an end to the monarchy, and saying an independent Quebec would do so. (Never mind that Quebec’s foundations are actually pro-monarchy, in part because it was the Quebec Act and Royal Proclamation that protected their language, culture and post-France turning the colony over to the British). Harper was pretty laid back in this debate, Mulcair easily nettled – particularly when Trudeau went after him on the bulk water exports issue. Trudeau was more evenly paced and not frantic this time around, Elizabeth May not overly memorable other than calling out the niqab debate as a distraction, and Gilles Duceppe, was as wily as a fox as ever. Here’s Kady O’Malley’s liveblog, while here’s the CBC recap. The Ottawa Citizen gathered four experts to react to the debate.
@journo_dale @stephenfgordon Either 6 or 8%. Been on a declining trend under Harper, if I recall .
— Jen Gerson (@jengerson) September 25, 2015
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/647212971484033024
Why does nobody ever say: "We put all our eggs in the manufacturing basket. When manufacturing declined, look what we were left with?"
— Jen Gerson (@jengerson) September 25, 2015
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/647215818904743936
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/647215942712193024
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/647215943102271488
Roundup: Ignoring legal advice
Looking through the government documents made available to the public during the court challenge on the government’s niqab ban during citizenship ceremonies, a pattern emerges quickly – that the department knew this was a non-starter, and they tried to offer alternatives for accommodation. Jason Kenney, the minister at the time, would have none of it, and pressed ahead anyway. And lo and behold, he used an instrument to implement a ban that was out of order. The Federal Court has said so, and the Federal Court of Appeal upheld it in a ruling from the bench, and this didn’t even touch the Charter arguments. But it shouldn’t be a surprise given the frequency at which this government’s legal and constitutional positions keep getting struck down by the courts, whether it’s with certain mandatory minimum sentences, or the Senate reference. People wonder what kind of legal advice they’re being given, and as this particular case clearly demonstrates in the documents, they’re being told that their positions don’t hold water – and yet they push ahead anyway. As we saw in the Duffy trial that the government created their own legal advisor position within the PMO, never mind that they have the Department of Justice who should be providing them with legal advice. The plain reading of what this means of course is that they didn’t like what Justice had to tell them, so they found a workaround to give them legal advice they found was more palatable. It all seems like such a waste of time, energy and taxpayer’s money – this from a party who insisted that they were going to put an end to waste in government.
https://twitter.com/michaelplaxton/status/646638431653765120
Roundup: Aspirational job targets
Stephen Harper’s election pledge du jour was a target of 1.3 million net new jobs by 2020, which sounds terribly impressive, but if you listen to the economists talk about it, there are a few caveats. Of course, we should note first that really, government’s don’t create jobs as such, but they can provide the environment that is conducive to investment and hiring. The question for Harper really is a) how many of these jobs would be created regardless of whatever you do, and b) what measures exactly are you proposing to create these jobs, considering that it’s becoming ever more clear that we’re moving into an era of really low growth. And no, just signing trade agreements isn’t enough, nor is just lowering taxes and calling it a day. The Conservatives asked Mike Moffatt and Kevin Milligan to check their figures, and both say that sure, it’s plausible – but it’s going to depend on strong global growth, immigration, and older workers staying in the workforce longer (as in not retiring). Mike Moffatt gives his analysis here, while Milligan (and others) have tweeted their comments.
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646353978452668416
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646354120912187392
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646357137124257792
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646359832807649280
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646360403753041920
https://twitter.com/lindsaytedds/status/646347682307411968
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/646347416493363200
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/646355410262323200
I believe 1.3 million jobs by 2020 is achievable given increased labour force attachment by older workers. #elxn42
— Dr. Jack Mintz (@jackmintz) September 22, 2015
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/646355705893662720
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/646360723707293697
Roundup: F-35s flare up again
Talk of the F-35 fighters dominated the discussion yesterday, with Harper going full-bore on trying to say that Trudeau was living on some other planet if he thought that pulling out of the F-35 programme wouldn’t “crater” the country’s aerospace industry, while Mulcair – a vocal critic of the F-35s for years – suddenly said they should stay in the competition process. Of course, it sounds increasingly like Harper is trying to indicate the F-35s are the government’s choice all along no matter the procurement process that they’re going through right now with great fanfare, while Mulcair sounds increasingly like Harper – something Trudeau probably doesn’t mind. As a reality check, there are no contracts to tear-up, because we haven’t signed or committed to anything. As well, there is no guarantee that Canada pulling out of the F-35s would damage our industry because those companies supplying parts for the aircraft were chosen for quality, and because we paid into the development process, but didn’t commit to buying the full craft itself. Not to mention, any other plane we would go with (say, the Super Hornets) would have the likelihood of as many if not more regional industrial benefits. (And while we’re on the subject of reality checks, the Liberals apparently really bungled their costing figures for the F-35s in their own backgrounders). As for how you can have an open competition but exclude the F-35s? I don’t think that’s rocket science – it seems pretty clear to me that you simply add the specification to the procurement process that it needs to have more than one engine. That would rule out the F-35 pretty effectively, no? Suffice to say, it’s a lot of sound and fury, and plenty of flashbacks to the last election where this was an issue. Paul Wells writes more about it, and how it positions the leaders.
open competition does not necessarily mean open to all. Ruling out the most expensive and most criticized is not necessarily problematic
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) September 21, 2015
Roundup: About those Senators who approached Mulcair
Thomas Mulcair is telling people that he’s had senators approach him to say that they would be willing to work with him to pass a hypothetical NDP government’s legislation, but he won’t name names. While this may well be true, at least to a certain extent – we have been seeing numerous examples in the past couple of weeks of Mulcair exaggerating the truth – this should be unpacked a little bit. The first and most obvious thing is that we need to put aside the Harper Derangement Syndrome conspiracy theory that all of the Conservative senators are going to simply defeat any Liberal or NDP legislation that comes through because the fact that they were Harper appointees will apparently make them extra dickish, or something. Never mind that we’ve had plenty of parliaments where the party not in power held a majority in the Senate and lo and behold, things got passed with little difficulty. This will not change in the future. The second is that these Senators all know that they have a job to do, and that’s to scrutinize bills that come before them. Most of the time they pass. Occasionally they get amended and sent back. On very rare occasions, they get defeated, almost always because those bills are either fatally flawed, out of order, or unconstitutional and got passed on a whipped vote. And if the NDP holds up that climate change bill as an example of one the Senate killed, well, it’s because it was out of order and never should have been allowed to pass the Commons. That said, they are not rubber stamps, and won’t simply pass bills because the Commons did. It’s not their job, and if Mulcair has a problem with that, there’s a Supreme Court reference decision he should read. Third is that even if Senate Liberals formed a quasi-government caucus in the Senate should the NDP form government, it’s because the system needs to operate somehow. They are likely going to have to kluge together some kind of procedural workarounds to the fact that there won’t be an actual Leader of the Government in the Senate who can answer on behalf of the government, and if a hypothetical Prime Minister Mulcair doesn’t appoint a Senate Speaker, that is pretty much a constitutional nightmare waiting to happen. But Mulcair refuses to answer these fundamental procedural issues, while at the same time, he and his people continue to do nothing but hurl insults at the Chamber and its inhabitants while promising their abolition (which won’t happen, but they’re going to try anyway), while continuing to actively ignore the constitutional obligation to make appointments. So no, I’m not reassured by these senators who have allegedly approached him, because there’s more to it than just passing bills. We have a parliamentary architecture that he continues to ignore, and that should be worrying to anyone who cares about parliamentary democracy.