Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

Roundup: More calls to keep the bombers

Posted on by

ISIS forces launched a surprise attack against Kurdish forces in five different places in Iraq yesterday, and Canadian Special Forces trainers in the area helped fight them off, which did involve calling in air strikes from our CF-18s. No Canadians were injured in the fighting, but it did lead to a new round of calls, primarily from the Conservatives, to keep the CF-18s in theatre, regardless of the promise to withdraw them in favour of a more robust training presence on the ground. Some even went so far as to claim that if we didn’t have our planes in the area, our allies wouldn’t be as quick to respond to Canadian troops coming under fire (but that has been shut down by experts in the field right away). Michael Petrou remains unconvinced by Trudeau’s position on pulling out the CF-18s from Iraq, while Michael Den Tandt sees it as a kind of political calculation that isn’t so much related to pre-election promise, but rather the broader political implications of a ground war in the region.

https://twitter.com/michaelsona/status/677677335794073601

Continue reading →

Roundup: Tiresome cheap shots

Posted on by

Oh, look – there’s the Senate bat-signal and oh, it’s because a couple of pundits have decided to be completely tiresome about it. I see. Up first is CBC’s Terry Milewski, who has once again decided to use Mike Duffy to paint the whole of the Senate with his disreputable brush. Never mind that the vast majority of senators don’t abuse the system, or that they have made vast improvements on financial controls and transparency (and remain far more transparent than the House of Commons in most respects), apparently the whole system is an unfixable morass because Duffy. Um, okay. And to cap it off, Milewski tries to make some wrong-headed point about representation in the Senate, ignoring that representation is along regional and not provincial lines, and no, Newfoundland is not part of the Maritimes and is a region unto itself, but hey, conflating its seats is fun and deliberately misleading! Apparently nobody has taken a basic civics or Canadian history course, because the whole point of why the Senate was constructed the way it was, was precisely because it wasn’t supposed to be representation-by-population. The Commons is, and the Senate had to rebalance the representation to keep Ontario from swamping the minority provinces. Oh, but those are “bizarre” and “absurd imbalances” apparently, because Milewski has decided that ignorance is the effective bully tactic. It’s a series of cheap shots that should be beneath the journalistic establishment, but alas no, it’s become par for the course these days. And then there’s Andrew Coyne, who decided to deliberately over-complicate the situation in the Senate in order to misconstrue what’s happening and sow confusion to make a point, that it’s not the kind of reforms that he would prefer (never mind that he’s never quite articulated why it’s preferable to have an elected Senate that would compete with the Commons, or to remove the Senate’s veto powers when they’re necessary to thwart a majority prime minister who is overstepping his or her bounds, other than the saying “democracy!” while hand-waving). But clearly, some clear-eyed critical thinking about our parliamentary institutions is a lot to ask, particularly when there are cheap points to be scored.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/676603993049690112

Continue reading →

Roundup: Early committee shenanigans

Posted on by

The brief sitting of Parliament last week saw some committee shenanigans already underway, despite the new era of hope and optimism. Because of political considerations, as in not having enough members for official party status, the Bloc were denying unanimous consent to form new committees as they won’t have a voice on them. While they relented on the creation of the special joint committee on assisted dying – which they nevertheless still want a voice on even if they can’t vote – they continued to deny the formation of the Finance Committee, which means that it now can’t hold any pre-budget consultations. So while rules are the rules around who can sit on committees, and we were reminded when these tactics were going on that the Bloc themselves were adamant that they be followed to deny NDP and PC MPs seats on committees back in the nineties, times change apparently, and now they want to throw their weight around. As for the Liberals, they’ve already undermined their promise not to have parliamentary secretaries sit on committees by assigning the House Leader’s parliamentary secretary to the Procedure and House Affairs committee, but he insists that he won’t vote – just assist other members. That sounds suspiciously like the PMO still trying to bigfoot the committees, and exert undue influence on what should be independent operations that have a duty to hold government to account – something that becomes more difficult when you have a someone charged with assisting the government in the ranks. One hopes that they come to their senses and knock it off before things really get underway, but it is a disappointment that they are not living up to the spirit of that promise, if not the letter. (Also, Charlie Angus is lamenting the partisanship on committees? Has he looked in a mirror lately?)

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Senate steps up

Posted on by

In their very first piece of legislation passed, the House of Commons ballsed it up. Quite badly, in fact. In rushing through a supply bill, they didn’t include a necessary schedule for where the money that was being authorised would be spent, which is a pretty big deal. And so, when it reached the Senate, this was caught and the bill had to be sent back before the Senate could deal with it and pass it so that it could get Royal Assent and everyone could go home for the holidays. The Senate, however, was not amused. This is not the first time that defective bills have made it to the Senate, be it when they sent an earlier unamended version down the hall, or when their due diligence wasn’t done and they had to make some kind of excuses to get the Senate to pass it anyway with the promise of adding a clause in a future bill to retroactively fix it. And the patience of the Senate is wearing thin. In the words of Speaker Furey:

“While it is not our place to look into the functioning of the House of Commons, I am appalled that we received a defective bill. If it is the wish of the house, I would be prepared to write to my counterpart in the House of Commons to seek his assurance that this will not happen again.”

Liberal Senator Terry Mercer was even less forgiving and deservedly so:

“It galls me, Mr. Speaker, that they talk about an administrative error. That’s passing the error off onto the staff. I’m sorry; the Members of Parliament voted on this; it is their fault and they alone take the blame… To give us this BS about administrative error, passing the buck off to someone in the administration of the House of Commons, doesn’t wash with me, and it shouldn’t wash with anybody, and it shouldn’t wash with Canadians. I want this to be notice to the Minister of Finance and to our colleagues in the other place that this place will not put up with this anymore.”

Senator Fraser suggested that the Commons needs to examine their system and perhaps even apologise to the Senate, while other Senators noted that this is government legislation and not a private member’s bill, and that perhaps the Senate should not always be as patient and perhaps rise without granting Royal Assent in the future. Part of the root of this is that that the Senate, yet again, did its job while the Commons didn’t. In their haste to get this passed so that MPs can leave, MPs spent a grand total of fifteen minutes on the Supply bill, including Committee of the Whole. That’s right – fifteen minutes to examine and authorise the spending of money by the government. The Senate Finance Committee held three days of pre-study on the bill so that they would know what the issues were, and lo and behold, when the bill arrived in defective form, they could spot it immediately. And as noted before, this keeps happening with increasing frequency. And yet, when we send MPs to Ottawa to “be our representatives,” we seem to forget that they have a job to do – to scrutinize bills, and most especially spending, and they’re not doing it. They leave it to others to do, be it the Auditor General, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or the Senate – all while bitching and moaning about how terrible the Senate is even though the Senate is actually doing their jobs when MPs aren’t. And the next time I hear someone give me the line about how the Senate has no function in a modern democracy, I can give them yet another object lesson about how the Commons is the real dysfunctional chamber in our democracy. I’ll repeat Speaker Furey’s admonition – it’s appalling. Shape up, MPs. You’re embarrassing yourselves.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Demanding a referendum

Posted on by

The issue of electoral reform has boiled over into what could be seen as the first major disagreement of the 42nd Parliament. The Conservatives have become quite vociferous in demanding that any change to the electoral system be put to a referendum – no doubt out of selfish considerations, knowing that most forms of alternative voting would be seen to disadvantage them, and secure in the knowledge that every time that such alternative ballots have been put to a vote either in Canada or the UK, that the existing First-Past-the-Post system ends up winning out. (Kelly McParland and the Maclean’s editorial are also in favour of a referendum). Even in Canadian polls on electoral reform, there remains a preference for a simple ballot that can deliver a stable government – something that most forms of alternative voting won’t deliver. While some pollsters have had fun with the numbers, trying to build models of what the election results would have delivered under different systems, the truth is that we can’t know what would have happened because there’s no guarantee that we would have had the same parties or configurations thereof in the election – particularly under a proportional representation system that encourages fringe parties, and given the country’s geographical, linguistic, and cultural diversity, a system that rewards smaller parties could very well fragment the “big tent” parties that currently exist. While people insist that we wouldn’t turn into Israel or Italy, the real worry is turning into Belgium, where the linguistic divisions in their PR system were so fragmented that they couldn’t form a workable government for over a year. While the government (and in particular Dominic LeBlanc) say they will engage in a broad consultative process and try to come to a consensus, I’m pretty sure that political consensus with the other parties won’t happen – the NDP favour one form of MMP, the Greens favour a PR system of some variety, and the Conservatives favour the status quo while the Liberals are more keen on ranked ballots, it’s hard to see how consensus will be built out of that. And at least LeBlanc concedes that consultations may show that the status quo ends up being preferable, and if there is an argument for that, it’s that our system right now allows you to throw the bums out – something that becomes all but impossible in PR systems where coalition partners get shuffled around but the central party remains in power for decades. It’s hard to see how that can in any way be preferable in a robust democracy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Imposition and breaches of privilege

Posted on by

The Senate sat for the first actual sitting of the new parliament yesterday, and already the new era is being felt as they had to do away with Senate Question Period as there was no one there to answer questions on behalf of the government. You may not think this is an issue, but it does blow a hole in the accountability role of the Senate. Conservative Senate leader Claude Carignan moved a motion that would invite ministers to appear before the Senate to answer questions instead, and couched it in the language of urgency for regions like Atlantic Canada, who have no Conservative representation in the Commons, and they would have questions to ask that need answers. Of course, that would require going into Committee of the Whole and calling those ministers to the bar, rather than being able to do it as a regular Senate QP, which presents logistical challenges, but we’ll see what the government has to say in response. Meanwhile, former Senate Speaker Leo Housakos is moving a point of privilege that the government’s refusal to appoint a Government Leader is interfering in the operations of the Senate, which infringes on their privileges as a result. I don’t think he’s completely wrong there, particularly that the government is forcing changes to the way the Senate operates by circumventing things like Senate QP from functioning properly without anything in the way of consultation. It remains to be seen if the new Speaker will deem it a prima facia breach and put it to the Senate rules committee to determine if the breach is real, but this could be setting up a conflict between the two chambers, which could have been avoided if Trudeau had been a bit more thoughtful in the way he’s handled the whole situation. (As for other Senators complaining that “partisan” is being treated like a dirty word, and that the future “non-partisan” appointments will all be Liberals, and claiming that having senators in national caucus makes them more accountable, well, I think they need to take a breath and get a grip, because there are better ways to argue their points than the way they’re going about it).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A dubiously predicted rejection

Posted on by

There are days when the Senate bat-signal shines in the sky, and I’m likely to sigh and say “Oh, you again.” And it’s one of those times, wherein the Hill Times writes a screaming headline about Liberal senators saying they’ll oppose an appointed Government Leader, only for the story to be about one unnamed Senate Liberal source (not even necessarily a senator) saying that they might objet to an appointment, but no one really knows because it’s all up in the air. So, chalk another one up for hyperbole without any real basis for it. Now, it does seem like there are some issues that need to be sorted, such as whether they count as a Recognized Party for budget reasons when it comes to leadership, but that would seem to me to be an issue that they could solve internally as the Senate is self-governing. And for sure, the sense of uncertainty amongst Senate Liberals is likely getting frustrating because I’m sure they’d like to know if there will be things like Senate Question Period still carrying on without a member of the government to hold to account, or how they will shepherd government bills through the Chamber, or even how they will organise seating (as there really isn’t a government and opposition side any longer), but again, it’s all up in the air. One does hope that the Liberals on the Commons side will start getting more communicative about what’s going on, seeing as having a functioning Parliament would be a good thing to get sorted, but it seems that we have to remain patient a little longer. Hyperbolic headlines don’t help.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Action on assisted dying

Posted on by

We’re now less than a week away from the opening of Parliament, and there’s a lot for the Liberals to do. One of those things is deciding what to do about the assisted dying file, and it looks like the Liberals have planned to strike a special joint committee of MPs and senators to quickly examine the issue and provide some legislative recommendations to the government. Remember that the deadline the Supreme Court gave the government is February 6th, and they haven’t decided if they will as the Court for an extension – one they may not be granted, and one where that extension will be a burden to those on the ground who may actually need the law in a timely fashion. There are a couple of reasons why the inclusion of senators in the process is noteworthy – one is that it can help to speed up the process of passing the inevitable legislation, because it can be like a bit of pre-study, getting them involved earlier in the process in order to speed up their own deliberations on the bill when it arrives. The other reason is that the Senate was debating a bill on doctor-assisted dying in the last parliament, which had been sponsored by Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth, based on her consultations with former MP Stephen Fletcher, and had workable solutions to some of the issues raised in protecting the vulnerable. That bill was debated over several days at second reading, but never was voted on to send to committee, likely because of some foot-dragging, but that debate happened, and those same senators are still there. If it’s something that can help speed the process, it’s not a bad idea that they’re in the loop and participating in solving the problem, which could potentially get legislation in the system before that Supreme Court deadline, and with a little luck, they won’t need to ask for an extension.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Nonsense parliamentary suggestions

Posted on by

It’s not just the Senate bat-signal I see in the sky, it’s also the Parliament bat-signal as a whole. Starting with the Senate, one of those so-called “Senator-elects” in Alberta writes a baffling column about “restructuring” the Senate to better reflect regions, while moaning about how Alberta’s oil industry isn’t getting the same help as the auto industry would when being faced with job losses. I’m not quite sure what he’s trying to get at, but the thing with the traditional moans about “Western alienation” and hoping that cockamamie schemes like a “Triple E” Senate is that it would do precisely zero to counter the problem, particularly as the problems they’re trying to fix generally can’t be solved by the Senate in the first place. Moving along, former NDP MP and former democratic reform critic Craig Scott pens a gong show of an op-ed about changing the Office of the Speaker in the Commons, supposedly to better insure its independence but it comes off pretty much as the sour grapes of third party grumbling that it really is. Giving the Speaker all kinds of new powers with no real checks on them? Giving him or her the independence to rule with an iron fist despite the real threats inherent within Responsible Government? Plus a bitter kick at the protocol position of the Senate Speaker? It’s incoherent nonsense. Speaking Speakers, outgoing Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer has some thoughts about reforming Question Period, most of which make more sense than what Scott had to say. I have a column out later today that picks up on these points, and I promise you it’ll make far more sense than Craig Scott’s rambling.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Alberta and the first ministers

Posted on by

The talk of the week will fall into two categories – climate change, and refugees, but for today, climate change is going to be the big topic of discussion, given Alberta unveiling their momentous climate change plans yesterday, followed by the First Ministers Meeting on the subject today. Alberta’s plan is ambitious and courageous – carbon pricing that matches BC’s by 2018, phasing out coal-fired electricity (the vast majority of the province’s grid) by 2030, absolute emissions caps on the oilsands that are a little higher than where they stand today – and lo and behold, the energy sector didn’t freak out, but rather embraced the changes (given that they’ve been demanding a price on carbon for years anyway). In fact, there was commentary that these kinds of changes may be necessary in order to allow them to grow (though if the idea is the gradual phase-out of fossil fuels entirely, I guess we’ll see how that goes). And with this new plan in place, Alberta premier Rachel Notley can come to that First Ministers meeting later today and have something to put on the table, which may indeed help to put pressure on other lagging provinces to start making changes they may be hesitating to do. Jason Markusoff has more on the Alberta plan, and the questions that it raises.

Continue reading →