Tag Archives: Afghanistan

Roundup: Giorno joins the brigade

Posted on by

Proponents of proportional representation are getting a bit of a boost across party lines as former Harper advisor Guy Giorno is adding his name to the so-called “Every Voter Counts Alliance” to push the government to adopt such a measure. (Note that the name of this group is hugely problematic because every vote already counts, and suggesting otherwise is tantamount to voter suppression). Giorno says the Conservatives shouldn’t be afraid that changing the system will mean that they will be permanently shut out of power (as is one of the arguments that proponents tout as a feature of the change), before launching into the usual talking points of “fairer” and “more democratic” which are a) complete bunk, and b) at a direct cost to the system of accountability that the existing First-Past-The-Post system is really good at achieving. Also, it’s a bit rich to hear the hyper-partisan Giorno talk about how wonderful it would be for PR-elected legislatures to require more co-operation, collegiality, working together” – all of which is ridiculous, since it simply changes the power calculus in order to keep coalitions cobbled together and giving smaller and more radical parties outsized influence to keep those coalitions together, while parties at the centre of governments can go for decades without being tossed out as they shuffle coalition partners around instead (again, a feature of our current system being the ability to throw the bums out, which PR does not do very well). Suffice to say, Giorno’s voice in the debate doesn’t actually change that the arguments are based on emotion and logical fallacies, and while he has different partisan credentials, it’s still a system that that nobody should be rushing into on the basis of emotion. Meanwhile, here’s Colby Cosh to demolish some of the arguments.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Looking to avoid mistakes

Posted on by

The defence minister’s slow rollout of the new plans going forward in the Iraq mission to combat ISIS has been providing the government an opening in which to be attacked by both sides, but when Harjit Sajjan hits back against the government, there have been a few cries by the Conservatives that are a wee bit defensive. When Sajjan suggests that there were failures, the Conservatives wonder aloud if that means the girls who are going to school, or the humanitarian work that’s been done over the years. Sajjan, who was on the ground in Afghanistan for three tours, and has mused openly about looking to avoid the same kinds of mistakes, has plenty of ammunition to choose from. Read any book about the mission, and you’ll find countless examples of problems of poor management, poor communication, and as Sajjan has noted, unintended consequences of actions we’ve taken that helped our enemies in the longer term, particularly with recruitment. That he wants to take the time to get a new mission on the ground in Iraq right is hardly surprising in this context, but everyone demands answers. Meanwhile, Canada’s in the bottom third of allies in NATO for defence spending, which shouldn’t surprise anyone, though it has noted that capability and spending levels are not necessarily the same thing, and that countries who meet spending targets are generally useless.

Continue reading →

QP: A strategic blunder in questioning

Posted on by

Tuesday, and with the Auditor General’s report now on the table, there promised to be more than a few questions about some of his scathing findings. Rona Ambrose was ready, mini-lectern on desk, she read a question about Trudeau telling resource sector workers to “wait it out,” and concern trolled about a national carbon tax plan — you know, one that doesn’t exist. Trudeau reminded her that her government made things worse for Albertans after ten years in power. Ambrose asked again in French, and Trudeau told her that a responsible economy meant being responsible about the environment. Ambrose then called the bill repealing those anti-union bills “payback,” to which Trudeau reminded her that their first piece of legislation was actually lowering taxes. Gérard Deltell took over, asking again in French, to which Trudeau insisted that they rectified the situation when they learned about the illegal donations. Deltell took a swipe at unions, but Trudeau shrugged it off. David Christopherson led off for the NDP, demanding that they fix the items highlighted in the Auditor General’s report. Trudeau said that they were alarmed and were working to repair the damage of the last government. Christopherson demanded proof of commitment, and Trudeau insisted that unlike the previous government, they did more than just make announcements. Brigitte Sansoucy took over to ask again in French, particularly around the Social Security Tribunal, to which Jean-Yves Duclos let her know that he met with the AG and he would do everything in his power to fix the situation. Sansoucy raised the AG report on export controls, to which Ralph Goodale insisted that they intend to follow his advice and that they were implementing an action plan.

Continue reading →

QP: Carry on the middle-class talking points

Posted on by

As Monday is the new Friday, none of the main leaders were in the House — Harper in Europe, Mulcair in Quebec City, and Trudeau across the river in Gatineau, having just laid out his party’s new tax plan. When QP kicked off, Megan Leslie led off, asking about job losses in the manufacturing sector. Pierre Poilievre took the question, and listed off some talking points about how great their family tax cuts were. Leslie noted the media reports that Conservative MPs will personally benefit more from income splitting than others, but Poilievre was undaunted from his talking points. Leslie then changed to the topics of coalition air strikes in Syria hitting civilians. Rob Nicholson noted that they had a 12-month commitment. Jack Harris then asked about Harper’s comments that they were not sure how effective the bombing campaign was. Nicholson noted it was a precision campaign, and wanted the NDP to thank the men and women in uniform. Harris then asked about reports about allegations of mistreatment of Taliban by military police. James Bezan insisted that they were taking the allegations seriously. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, praising their recent announcement and wondered why the government wouldn’t adopt it (Poilievre: Yay our plan), and Ralph Goodale got increasingly critical of that plan Poilievre was touting (Poilievre: You just said you want to raise taxes on people making $60,000 — blatantly untrue).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Buh-bye, Pauline Marois

Posted on by

It was akin to a massacre. The results are in, and it’s certainly a majority and almost a landslide for the Quebec Liberals considering the predictions going in, while Pauline Marois lost her own seat, and the Charter of Quebec Values is being consigned to the dustbin of history. And yes, Marois is stepping down as leader, while Pierre Karl Péladeau all-but declared his leadership intentions. Mark Kennedy looks at what Couillard’s win means for federalist forces in the country, which might mean an effort to rebuild some bridges, and remember that Couillard has even mused about getting Quebec’s signature on the constitution at long last. Andrew Coyne says that after this many elections were a referendum has been resoundingly rejected that in essence, Quebeckers have not only accepted the constitutional status quo but have pretty much signed the constitution. Paul Wells writes that the PQ is stuck between an electorate that won’t buy their policies, a party base that won’t retreat, and the looming threat that they will become the Tea Party of Quebec. Here’s the At Issue panel’s reading of the election results.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A new front bench dynamic

Posted on by

The House is back this week, though Harper is over in Europe. We will, however, see the first of the new line-up on the government’s front bench, with Joe Oliver taking Jim Flaherty’s place, and Greg Rickford filling in for Oliver. Add to that the NDP’s front-bench shake-up and we’ve got a new dynamic of Nathan Cullen versus Joe Oliver, which I can just imagine will be full of passive aggressive snark from Cullen and impatient grumpiness from Oliver, if previous interactions are anything to go by. It also sounds like we’ll see the budget implementation bill get tabled this week, so we’ll see if that is as crazily omnibus as their previous implementation bills have been of late.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Voiding Nadon’s appointment

Posted on by

It really was a blow to Stephen Harper, and his judgement when making appointments. The Supreme Court in a 6-1 decision rebuked not only the appointment of Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court, but also the declaratory provisions passed in the omnibus budget implementation bill that made the appointment okay. Nadon never was a Supreme Court justice and remains a supernumerary justice on the Federal Court of Appeal, his appointment and swearing in ceremony null and void. There was a lot of reaction to the decision, including from Justin Trudeau who pointed out that this is a sign that Harper couldn’t even get the big things right, which puts his judgement into question (ironic, since that’s what the Conservatives are trying to attack Trudeau about). The Toronto lawyer who brought forward the challenge wonders why it was left up to him, a private citizen, to do something about the government’s attempt at subverting the constitution, and on his own dime. Adam Dodek walks Maclean’s through the decision, and in a separate op-ed says the ruling represents the entrenchment of the Court’s constitutional independence, and a serious blow to the “transparent” appointment process that Harper put into place. Emmett Macfarlane goes further into the repudiation of the appointment process, and says that the consequences of this decision will almost certainly mean doom for the government’s Senate reform reference. Carissima Mathen, who appeared at committee and said that the declaratory provisions were doomed to fail (and was mocked for it) gets the last laugh. Liberal MP and former justice minister Irwin Cotler draws the lessons from the whole affair as to the flawed appointment process, the government’s own delays in selection, and their ignoring the warnings that Nadon’s appointment was going to present a problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An office to serve non-existent MPs

Posted on by

The NDP are trying to open yet another Hill branch office, but this time in Saskatchewan – where they don’t have any MPs. In other words, trying to claim that it’s for parliamentary work is utter bunk. And “outreach officer” is not a Hill staffer position, by the way. When they claim that they need to be in touch with all Canadians, that’s not the job of Hill staffers – that’s the role of the local riding associations. Their associations are supposed to be the interlocutors between the local communities and the parliamentary party and caucus, a model that is ever weakening in the age of instamembers for leadership votes, and power centralized in leaders’ offices. That the NDP are trying to knock down those barriers between party work and Hill work is another worrying trend about the level of centralization that they are employing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit Flaherty

Posted on by

Out of the blue, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced his resignation from cabinet yesterday, but not his seat (just yet). This after Flaherty promised that he was going to run again, while simultaneously dropping hints that he was ready to wind down his political career. And it looks like Joe Oliver will be tapped to replace him as Finance minister, but no word on who would then take over the Natural Resources file. Here are some facts about Flaherty and his career, and a look back at his best ties, which were pretty much all green, which was kind of his shtick. Here’s Paul Wells’ profile of Flaherty from a couple of months ago.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A branch office in Montreal

Posted on by

The Liberals have big questions about the NDP’s “branch office” in Montreal, which they claim is totally for coordinating parliamentary work and is totally not doing any partisan work – really! Note that the NDP complained when the Bloc had an office set up in Montreal paid for out of Parliamentary funds, but when they do it, it’s not problem. What I find intensely curious about the whole affair is not only the way in which several of these staffers have dual titles, and that a number of them are labelled as “outreach.” The thing that I finds a little disturbing is the way that this points to a concerning level of central control when it comes to their MPs and staff, far and above the particular level of centralisation they already have with staffers on the Hill. Suffice to say, it all does look a bit suspicious.

Continue reading →