Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

Roundup: F-35s flare up again

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: About those Senators who approached Mulcair

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The dream of tax simplification

Posted on by

With the big economic debate coming up tomorrow, it’s with no small bit of amusement that noted economist Jack Mintz dropped a bomb in the middle of the election, and blowing open the pledges of most of the parties. In particular, Mintz says that the corporate tax rate should be lowered so as to keep those companies from shifting the burden in the form or lower wages or higher prices; raising the small business tax rate because it’s largely used by the wealthy to pay lower taxes; and eliminate a suite of investment tax credits to make the whole system simpler and fairer. In other words, doing pretty much the opposite of what the NDP has promised, and to a degree what the Conservatives have promised with their small business tax rate promises and more boutique tax credits than anyone knows what to do with. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find an economist who thinks that boutique tax credits are a good idea – particularly as Harper promised yet another bunch, this time for single and widowed seniors, and as Kevin Milligan explained, it’s pretty useless considering that a) it’s non-refundable and a lot of those seniors already don’t pay taxes, and b) we have a number of other income supports for seniors. (Also, I think this means that Harper is officially trolling singletons and childless couples, who are now the great pariahs of tax credits). The consensus would be that it’s better to eliminate the boutique tax credits and simply lower the overall tax rate – but how would parties be seen as rewarding “deserving” Canadians of those tax credits. (Again, it would seem that singletons and childless couples are not deserving.) Harper claimed that his boutique tax credits haven’t made tax forms too complicated. That sound you hear is every accountant in the country laughing, because it’s simply not true. We need major tax reform in this country, overhauling the system from top to bottom. (Same with the Criminal Code, incidentally). Too bad nobody is going to campaign on that.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/643841869735006208

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/643842726228680704

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, Chong’s bill won’t give us Australian leadership spills

Posted on by

News of the leadership spill in Australia, ousting Tony Abbott as prime minister and ending the greatest political bromance of the Commonwealth countries (Harper and Abbott were quite the mutual admiration society), we were suddenly inundated with Twitter musings about whether that could happen in Canada, thanks to Michael Chong’s Reform Act which passed this summer. While Kady O’Malley offers the “in theory” answer, the in practice answer is that no, it couldn’t happen here, because Canada has a terrible system of leadership selection that purports to “democratise” the system with grassroots involvement, but instead created an unaccountable and presidentialised system of an overly powerful leader that has little fear of their caucus turning on them, because caucus didn’t select them. When it comes to removal, selection matters. A lot. Chong’s bill, perversely, makes an Australian situation less likely by raising the bar for leadership challenges to happen in the first place, and would instead give us situations like what happened in Manitoba where a sitting leader was challenged, and when it went to a leadership process where he still participated and won based on the grassroots support when his caucus was no longer behind him, well, it’s ugly and it’s down right unparliamentary given that a leader needs to have the confidence of his or her caucus, and when they don’t but stay in based on grassroots votes, the system breaks down. Paul Wells cautions that reforming a system usually replaces real or perceive problems with different problems, while Andrew Coyne points out that being able to dump a bad leader quickly is the lesser evil of being stuck with them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: May’s magical thinking

Posted on by

It was Elizabeth May’s turn to go before Peter Mansbridge last night, and as with all other leaders, she too got the basics of government formation wrong – but unlike the others, May just got it wrong in a different way. She insisted that if Harper got a minority government, the opposition parties should be able to call the Governor General to insist that they get a chance to form government before Harper. Nope, that’s not how it works, because the incumbent remains the Prime Minister until he or she resigns. That’s because the position can never be vacant. Ever. Her Majesty must always have a government in place, and it’s the GG’s job to ensure that happens. So really, no matter the result on election night, the leader whose party wins the most seats isn’t invited to form government – the incumbent is still the government until they choose to resign, which may or may not involve testing the confidence of the Chamber first. May also revealed that she has the GG’s number and will make that call herself, as though he is obligated to take it. Remember of course that May has also previously written the Queen about issues, and treated form letter responses as vindication. It’s part of her particular problem of over-reading her mandate – she’s hugely conflated her role as an MP with that of being in government in the past, and it’s a problem with how she interacts with the system. It’s also part of her curious insistence that somehow, a handful of Green MPs sitting in opposition and not in a coalition cabinet would magically make a minority parliament a less fractious place. How, exactly? Did none of the proponents of more minority governments learn any lessons from the three minority parliaments prior to 2011? Apparently not, because the magical thinking prevails.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Conservatives’ anti-refugee inertia

Posted on by

With opinion galvanizing around the Syrian refugee crisis, there are calls for the government to do more – even if the opposition parties’ targets remain a little on the weak side in the overall picture. Cities and provinces – in particular Quebec – are pledging to do more, but they are bound by the pace that the federal government sets. And above all, that is the real problem with Canada’s response. Chris Alexander has been subtly blaming the UNHCR for their slow and onerous process while trying to cast his government in a positive light for trying to change that, except they’re the ones who’ve made the system far more onerous in the first place. I’ve covered the refugee file for a number of years, most especially when I was writing for Xtra, and a consistent theme emerged was that every time the Conservatives changed the rules, they were making it harder for refugees to make it into the country. In a particular bid to try to keep out refugee groups that they didn’t want to deal with – Mexicans and Roma are two that immediately come to mind – they continually tinkered with the rules, going so far as to create a “designated country of origin” list to make it easier to reject and deport those groups, no matter that a high volume of them had legitimate claims. They shortened processing times on arrival to prejudice the system against them, particularly when it’s difficult to get documentation, and denied them avenues of appeal. And overseas, they’ve understaffed embassies and missions in areas with high refugee populations and outsourced refugee determination to the UNHCR, which doesn’t have the resources and capacity to do that. Here in Canada, they’ve shifted their focus to private sponsorship away from government sponsorship, and even when they try to assist private groups, they don’t give them the assistance that they really required, such as capacity building. And then there was the whole issue of cutting off healthcare for refugee claimants, which was also used as a means of disincentivising people from coming over. Add to this a focus on risk assessment and then prioritizing minority populations in places like Syria and Iraq, and suddenly it’s no wonder that they’re moving at a glacial pace when it comes to getting more refugees resettled in Canada. The lack of political will to tackle this refugee crisis has been long-standing and a long time in the making. There are plenty of things that they could do, as Joe Clark explained, such as putting people on the ground in the region, doing security checks there, relieving the UNCHR of all of the work of refugee status determination, and arranging transportation rather than offering them loans for it (because if there’s one thing that refugees need it’s to be nickel-and-dimed by the Canadian government). They have the capacity, but they’ve spent so long trying to choke off the flow of refugees that the law of inertia has taken hold, and they can’t turn the ship around. I don’t think enough people are calling them out on this fact.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The other ruthless dictator

Posted on by

NDP-turned-Green MP Bruce Hyer is warning that Thomas Mulcair will be as dictatorial of a Prime Minister as Stephen Harper if elected. To which I would reply “quite possibly.” While some of Hyer’s criticisms are that Mulcair will say anything to get elected, that’s fairly standard practice across a host of different parties and even leaders – and don’t think the Greens are much better, if you looked at how Kevin Milligan eviscerated their election platform’s costing over the weekend. But Hyer does have a point in that Mulcair’s NDP has been a very tightly controlled ship. Iron-fisted in many respects, but it does go back to the 2011 election, when Jack Layton was still in charge. The moment the election was over and they had accidentally won that wave of Quebec seats, with all of those paper candidates, the party went into communications lockdown and messaging became even more tightly controlled than that of the Conservatives. The NDP went so far as to centralise their communications media relations – something even the Conservatives hadn’t done, with their famous control from the centre. This carried on through the leadership and was adopted by Mulcair when he became leader, so it’s not just him that’s doing it – it’s the party’s entire apparatus. And it’s not like the NDP was this bastion of free voting even when Layton was in charge – MPs were routinely punished for stepping out of line with their votes, be it with QP slots taken away, or what have you. Solidarity was enforced, much as it continues to be under Mulcair. While I find José Nunez-Melo’s sour grapes at his nomination not being protected to be a bit rich, it does bear reminding that there is a darker side to the NDP that they don’t like to show or talk about, but it is there if you pay attention, even if Hyer is trying to pin it on Mulcair personally.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A moratorium courting constitutional crisis

Posted on by

Without going too deeply into this (something I’ll save for later), Stephen Harper decided that his best way to “differentiate” himself on the Senate was to flout the constitution, and declare a moratorium on any future appointments. There are already 22 vacancies in the Chamber – a full fifth of its complement, and more than any in history. It’s unconscionable, because there are supposed to be 105 senators, and not a maximum of. It’s a complete abrogation of the compromises made by the Fathers of Confederation, and furthermore, it’s also flouting the decision of the Supreme Court who said explicitly that the Senate has a role with sober second thought. That role is already being compromised because they’re having trouble filling committee seats, and this is a very serious problem. On the one hand, this official declaration of a moratorium is a gift to Vancouver lawyer Aniz Alani, who has launched a challenge in Federal Court to get a declaration that the Prime Minister is obligated to make appointments as they happen. It’s also courting problems with federal-provincial relations for a couple of reasons – one is that Harper is now attempting to do through the back door what he won’t do from the front door (again), and he’s using a childish tactic of throwing this problem into the laps of the premiers to come up with some kind of solution without him. It also highlights that there is again a choice for voters in the election – you can vote to keep in a party whose leader flouts the constitution and the Supreme Court; one who promises to do the very same while chasing the pipe dream of Senate abolition; and one who has promised concrete and constitutional measures to reform the appointment process in the same way that Harper did with vice-regal appointments. Oh, and in case you were wondering, if the courts declare that a Prime Minister has a constitutional obligation to make appointments as they happen – and that’s pretty much guaranteed – and the PM still refuses to, we’re into constitutional crisis territory where the Governor General will have the very real need to dismiss said PM. This is what we’re courting here. It’s not a trivial matter.

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/624675200358055936

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/624675923984576512

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/624676159687671809

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/624676449245638656

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/624676790179655680

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/624677092953858048

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving terrorists what they want

Posted on by

Because they’re totally not trying to use public service resources for electioneering purposes, it has been revealed that the Foreign Affairs minister Rob Nicholson wanted his department to produce a minimum of three media statements per week regarding the security threats posed by terrorism. While they would draw from events around the world, the statements would have been a steady stream delivered to media inboxes in the hopes of getting some kind of traction. Fortunately, the civil servants in the department realised this was ridiculous and pushed back, saying it wasn’t a priority for them to fulfil these requests, and good on them for doing so – it’s not their job to try and help the party build a narrative for their election campaign. And no doubt, we’ll likely hear a lot more about the security question from the Conservatives going forward, because it’s not like their economic record is doing them any favours right now. Of course, the irony in all of this is that it would appear to feed directly into the aims of terrorists, which is of course, to create fear. If the government is going to deliver nothing but a stream of statements saying “Ooh, terrorists! Be very afraid!” then doesn’t it mean that they’re letting the terrorists win? Even if they follow it up with the chest thumping about how awesome the government is by taking such a strong stand against them, etcetera, etcetera? I’m at a bit of a loss as to how this is a brilliant strategy in the bigger picture.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Crossing the line with a golf shirt

Posted on by

The official date of the new child benefit cheques going out saw the Conservative government at its most ham-handed yesterday, starting with a “leaked” letter to caucus about just how historic this event was as the “single biggest one-time direct payment in Canadian history.” Funny, it seems to me that an actual conservative government would rather just lower taxes across the board rather than bribe people with their own money, but oh, wait – this is a right-flavoured populist government and not a real Conservative one. As ministers and MPs went around the country to tout the benefit, and social media sites were bombarded with blaring ads, some of which were branded as “Christmas in July,” Pierre Poilievre was the most egregious of all, hosting a press event in Halifax that was arranged by his department, and yet featured him wearing a Conservative-branded golf shirt, as though this were a partisan event, or that it was somehow the Conservatives doling out this largesse rather than the Government of Canada. It was utterly crass, and yet the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner decreed that no, it wasn’t actually in contravention of the rules, though one cannot deny that it was in poor taste and poor judgement. Mind you, this bit of vote-buying is going to blow a big hole in the government’s budget, given that growth projections are down and we are pretty much certainly back into a deficit position (not that the budget was actually balanced – simply papered over by raiding the contingency reserve and the EI fund). But then again, the NDP have declared that the child benefit would remain under their plan on top of their plans to have this universal childcare programme (well, years down the road at a great cost to the provinces) and the Liberals planning to revamp the whole system that will also cost at least an extra couple of billion more than this programme does. Watching this play out in the election while each touts fiscal responsibility will be an interesting exercise.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/623101132664127488

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/623280296646057984

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/623280700016472064

Continue reading →