Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

QP: Like a greatest hits package 

Posted on by

All of the leaders were present today, for probably the last time in the 41st parliament. And hey, government computer systems were under a cyberattack as it went off, so that was exciting. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about General Lawson’s comments on “biological wiring” as it relates to sexual harassment in the military and what the government would do about it. Harper denounced the comments and noted that Lawson apologised immediately and that they would implement the recommendations of Justice Deschamps. Mulcair asked again in English, demanding a personal commitment by the PM to changing the culture of the military, but Harper repeated his response but cautioned Mulcair against slurs against all members of the military. Mulcair then changed topics to the RCMP deletion of those gun registry records and wondered about the PMO role in encouraging them to do so. Harper insisted that they acted under the law. Mulcair then brought up the Senate audit, and wondered about the residency of Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen (who was not named in said audit). Harper, a bit testy, brought up the NDP satellite offices. Mulcair turned to another senator’s mileage claims, to which Harper said that they were inventing things and reminded them of the satellite offices again. Justin Trudeau was up next, returning to the issue of sexual harassment in the military, and wondered why the PM would not immediately dismiss the Chief of Defence Staff for comments that he himself condemned. Harper returned to his previous response, following a dig at Trudeau. A second round in French got the same response again, and for his final question, Trudeau touted his plans for a revised Supreme Court appointment process, and rhetorically asked why the PM doesn’t commit to appointing bilingual judges. Harper insisted that the institution was already bilingual, and not every member was required to be.

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/611239298713698305

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hyperbolic abolition nonsense

Posted on by

In the aftermath of the AG’s report on the Senate, we see a little more analysis of what it said – questions of residency issues, or about whether some board and charity work qualifies as Senate business – but mostly we’re seeing a bunch of hyberbolic bluster and nonsense from the pundit class about holding a referendum on Senate abolition (can’t be done during a general election, and won’t actually be binding or really democratic). No one has taken this kind of bluster to the next level quite like Thomas Mulcair, who has taken the talk to the level of being obtuse. Quebec premier Phillipe Couillard said he’s not interested in Senate abolition, end of story, but Mulcair kept insisting that he’ll get a “mandate” for abolition and he’ll work with the premiers on that issue alone, as though nobody would make other demands, or that minority provinces and territories would willingly give up what little representation they have so that they can be completely swamped by all of the Commons seats in Ontario – you know, one of the reasons why the Senate was designed the way it was, which was to act as a counterbalance. But then, Mulcair decided to not only stick with being obtuse, he doubled down on dickishness and declared that no Senator had ever done any work of any value – because apparently the Kirby report on mental health, or Romeo Dallaire’s work around child soldiers, or the study on the Canada-US price gap, or any number of examples of quality work the Senate has done – far better than anything the Commons has produced in recent memory – is nothing. With this having been said, let me add a couple of notes of my own, particularly for journalist colleagues – if you start talking about Senate “reform,” note that you had better have a specific reform proposal in mind, otherwise you’re actually talking about nothing. Senate reform is kind of like a unicorn in that it’s magical and fantastical and everyone wants it but can’t be grasped because reality soon sets in, and what reforms you’re proposing are almost certainly unworkable. Trudeau’s plan for a reformed appointment process is a start, and probably the best that can happen, but we don’t know what the outcome is going to be when those senators appointed by this new process start filtering into the system.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608645300207534080

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608645895211503618

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608647086427361281

Continue reading →

Roundup: Victory for concern trolls

Posted on by

Consider it a victory for the concern trolls, particularly those hosting the political shows, who spent four days hounding Senate Speaker Leo Housakos and Senators Carignan and Cowan over a trumped up appearance of conflict of interest because they had a role – and largely a peripheral one – in the establishment of the arbitration process and appointment of Justice Ian Binnie to oversee the Senate arbitration process. While Carignan repaid his staffer’s questioned expenses right away, citing it as an error, both Housakos and Cowan had legitimate differences of opinion with the Auditor General over the expenses he flagged, and both intended to take it to arbitration. Monday morning, they changed course, citing that they didn’t want to taint the process by any appearance of conflict, which if you ask me is a potential tacit admission of guilt, but also weakens any ability for senators to push back against what is looking increasingly to be a series of subjective value judgements made by auditors when it comes to expenses that were flagged. (And I’m not going to go into the way in which the NDP and others are conflating these legitimate grievances with notions of criminality other than to offer the reminder that Thomas Mulcair should be thankful he made the comments about Senator Housakos that he did during QP yesterday were made under privilege, lest he face a libel suit). The fact that members of the media torqued this angle of a conflict of interest – which did not bear itself out in fact – shows how much they feel no compunction or conscience about using the Senate as a punching bag because they feel they have public sentiment on their side – never mind that they were central in creating that public sentiment out of overblown rhetoric and hyperbole. It’s not that all of the AG’s findings will be questionable – the ones that Senator Eaton repaid certainly did not appear to be above board, but as Senator Plett remarks in his explanation for some of the flagged expenses, the auditors’ assessments can lack common sense. Of course, for all the concern trolling, it remains a basic fact that the figure of potentially misspent funds is actually tiny in context – and when you look at it in comparison to spending breaches in the Commons, it doesn’t even compare. But MPs won’t admit that they have a worse record, nor will they open their own books up, but don’t let the hypocrisy surprise you.

Continue reading →

QP: Gross mischaracterizations and repetition

Posted on by

The second-last Monday QP of the 41st parliament, and it looked like it was going to be a bit of a sleeper. Thomas Mulcair showed up on a Monday, which was unusual, and possibly because he’ll be at Jacques Parizeau’s funeral tomorrow. None of the other leaders were here either, however, so it was going to be pretty weak sauce. Mulcair led off by grossly mischaracterizing the AG revelation on Senate Speaker’s spending, saying that Speaker Housakos has a “spending problem.” Paul Calandra said that the Speaker had answer the question for itself. Mulcair demanded to know if the PMO was orchestrating the response to the recent Senate scandal, to which Calandra responded that the Senate invited the AG in and would answer for themselves. Mulcair asked again in French, got the same answer also in French, and then he moved onto the G7 communique on climate change. Colin Carrie got to respond to this one, reading that the G7 came up with a strong and unanimous statement on climate change. Mulcair demanded action on climate change,and got another talking point about our “clear” record. David McGuinty led off for the Liberals, asking in French about contradictory statements the government has made about infrastructure spending at the G7. Denis Lebel insisted that the facts were wrong, and that they were making record investments. Adam Vaughan blasted the government for their false assurances at the Federation of Canadian Munipalities meeting, to which Lebel insisted that the former Liberal government didn’t live up to promises. Vaughan hammered on the government and their messaging, to which Joe Oliver got up to insist that money would be available when projects needed them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting ahead of the story

Posted on by

As we inch toward the full release of the Auditor General’s report, more material is leaking out, while some senators are trying to get ahead of the story and highlighting what they see as problems with the audits. Conservative Senator Janis Johnson, for example, was flagged for a couple of flights, and she even provided ample documentation to show that it was parliamentary business, however the auditor made a value judgement – he “felt” the trips were personal, never mind that the personal aspects to said trips (also perfectly allowed and not billed to the Senate) were booked after the work trips had been arranged, and yes, documentation supports it. That the auditor insisted that the problem was that she didn’t use the Outlook calendar is an exceedingly bizarre criteria for finding the expenses questionable, despite other supporting documentation. Given the legitimate dispute over the audit report that he has expressed publicly, and that of Speaker Housakos, it’s no doubt that we’ll start to get a better taste of what could be a very problematic audit from the auditor’s side. Meanwhile, we’re starting to get more boneheaded commentary from the pundit class again, wondering why the government just can’t stop funding the Senate – as though it wasn’t a completely separate house of Parliament with institutional independence and not answer able to the government. Why not cut off funding to the Supreme Court as well? Oh, right – we have a thing called the Constitution. Other hosts are stoking this hysteria over what they are trying to claim is a conflict of interest between the Senate leadership and the establishment of the arbitration process with Justice Ian Binnie, but when you look at the facts, it’s just not supportable, as Senator Cowan amply pointed out on The House over the weekend. When it’s pointed out that Duffy and company didn’t get this kind of a process, Cowan said point blank that he didn’t agree with that process at the time and that two wrongs don’t make a right. Elsewhere, Thomas Mulcair vowed he would consult with the premiers to try to abolish the Senate if he should be elected, to which I say good luck with that. You think the Atlantic provinces will give up that representation, or that Quebec wouldn’t have a laundry list of other demands? Keep dreaming.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/607713842966073344

Continue reading →

Roundup: Leaks and leaping to judgement

Posted on by

Even before the Auditor General had turned over to the Senate his report on their expenses, the leaks were already coming out fast and furious, starting with the knowledge that the two leaders in the Senate as well as the Speaker had expenses that were questioned, and in the cases of the Liberal leader and the Speaker, they planned to challenge those claims before the independent arbiter that has been set up to deal with these issues, while the Conservative leader’s expenses were already paid back as they related to a staffer who had improperly filed claims. The Liberal leader, Senator Cowan, got out in front of it – there are $10,000 in travel expenses from four years ago that had to do with parliamentary business that he no longer had supporting documentation for because the claims had been dealt with at the time and not retained, but the auditors are making a big deal of it – and that seems perfectly fair and reasonable. By this point, however, certain breathless types in the media started hyperventilating about how the fact that these were the people who established the arbitration process, so this was supposedly some kind of “conflict of interest,” which not only sounds ridiculous on its face, but it impugns the integrity of former Justice Ian Binnie, who will hear the cases. I mean, come on. It also smacked of the presumption of guilt, never mind that there is plenty of indication that in many cases, the auditors made value judgements about what should qualify and what should not, and of these 29 total files, one has to assume that a good chunk of them will come out of the arbitration process favourably. As time went on, the nine senators whose audits were found to be egregious were revealed, two of those senators still sitting – Senator Boisvenu for the Conservatives (who immediately removed himself from caucus pending the outcome of the investigation), and Senator Kenny for the Liberals (who was recently out of caucus during a sexual harassment investigation that he was cleared in). All of this before the report has been made public. The fact that we don’t have facts and figures before us, that we have a number of claims going before the arbiter, that some of these claims were simply errors and not done with malicious intent, and that there were demonstrable problems with the auditors during the process means that we should all take a deep breath and not rush to proclaim everyone guilty, or the institution as a whole to be tarnished. Yes, it’s a rough patch, and it’s the price they are paying for increasing their transparency. It’s funny that all of the MPs sanctimoniously lining up to denounce the Senate – or worse, concern troll about its credibility or legitimacy – won’t let the AG look at their own books. Funny that.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/606644654902288384

Continue reading →

QP: More reconciliation scripts

Posted on by

Even though it was a Wednesday, all of the party leaders were off in Rideau Hall for the closing ceremony of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That left Megan Leslie to lead off, asking about the refusal of the government to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Mark Strahl responded by reading a talking point about those rights already being entrenched in the constitution. Leslie listed off the various ways in which the government was failing Aboriginals, to which Strahl listed their successes, like the apology and striking the TRC in the first place. Leslie demanded the education funding gap for First Nations be closed, and Strahl read a condemnation of the attitudes that gave rise to the residential schools. Peter Julian then picked up, repeating Leslie’s first question in English. Strahl gave a list of accomplishments, and when Julian closed with a blanket condemnation, Strahl repeated his admonishment that the NDP voted against the good things they did. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals in French, saying that his party immediately accepted all 94 recommendations in the report and wondered if the government would do the same. Strahl said that they would consider the recommendations in light of the full report, to be delivered at the end of the year. Ralph Goodale then picked up in English on the same topic, and got much the same answer from Strahl. For the final question, Marc Garneau called out Conservative contradictions on supply management as part of Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, and Maxime Bernier  gave a single-word response that they would protect it.

Continue reading →

QP: Scripts on reconciliation

Posted on by

It was all leaders present for one of the few remaining Question Periods of the 41st parliament where we’ll see them all together. Thomas Mulcair led off, acknowledging that they were on unceded Algonquin territory, and noted the Conservatives voting against an NDP bill to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Mulcair wondered if the government would adopt it, to which Stephen Harper reminded him that Aboriginals are already included in the constitution and that the UN Declaration is an “aspirational document.” Mulcair repeated “aspirational” with a vitriolic tone, then demanded a nation-to-nation relationship between First Nations and Canada. Harper reminded him that they established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and they were working to improve the living conditions of all Aboriginals. Mulcair noted that at least 6000 children died in residential schools, and wanted Harper to acknowledge that they were “cultural genocide.” Harper insisted that he addressed the damage of forced assimilation seven years ago, and that the NDP consisted voted against the concrete steps the government was taking. Mulcair then noted poor education outcomes for First Nations currently, to which Harper reminded him of measures in the budget. Mulcair demanded that the funding gap for First Nations students be closed, to which Harper said that they were trying to reform the system and that the NDP vigorously opposed them. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about unfinished Reconciliation action for Métis and Inuit, and wanted nation-to-nation engagement. Harper reiterated the various achievements they’ve made, and encouraged the Liberals to stand with when. Trudeau said that his party accepted and pledged to adopt the TRC Reports recommendations and wanted the same pledge from the government. Harper said that they would study the report, before returning to his slap that the Liberals voted against concrete measures. Trudeau gave it one last attempt, to which Harper said that there was no ideal relationship in our history and they were working to improve the living conditions of First Nations.

Continue reading →

QP: He was talking about Greece

Posted on by

Thursday, and wouldn’t you know it, and to my great surprise, Stephen Harper was actually present for a change. Neither Thomas Mulcair nor Justin Trudeau were present to face off against him, however, so make of that what you will. That left Peter Julian to lead off, and wouldn’t you know it, he started off with yet another Mike Duffy question, on the altered audit report. Harper, of course, rejected the premise of the question and noted that Duffy was before the court for his own actions. Julian moved to the pro forma question about Duffy’s residency, and Harper responded with a pro forma response about the NDP satellite offices. Julian moved onto the Senate invoking privilege to keep their internal audit from the court — not actually government business — and Harper responded again with the satellite offices. Niki Ashton was up next, and asked about the lack of response to the First Nations housing fund, and Bernard Valcourt read a statement about significant resources being allocated to meeting housing needs. A second round was much the same. Scott Brison led off for the Liberals, asking about relaxing labour laws that would make it easier to fire Canadians, which Joe Oliver supported. Harper insisted that Oliver was talking about Greece, not Canada, and slammed the Liberal record. Brison pushed on the issue, and Harper read the latest Conservative attack line about how Trudeau apparently wants a new mandatory payroll tax. Marc Garneau closed the round, asking about the same issue in French, and got the same answer about it being a discussion about Greece, and that the Liberals would raise payroll taxes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Re-starting the CPP debate

Posted on by

Talk of expanding the Canada Pension Plan was dominating the discussion yesterday, but much of it seemed to be in a bit of a vacuum. To recap, the Conservatives, having largely eschewed any talk of CPP expansion as “job-killing payroll taxes” to date (despite some positive noises having been made by Jim Flaherty at one point), say they’re going to consult on voluntary expansion, but haven’t approached any of the provinces, which they need to do. The Liberals are moving in the direction of making an expansion mandatory, which the NDP have already largely been in favour of. For some context, Maclean’s spoke to a pension expert about the situation, and they reposted an piece from Kevin Milligan about what different expansion models could look like (and it’s also a reminder that none of this is about poor seniors, who are already taken care of by other programmes). The Ottawa Citizen also has a Q&A about the discussion as well. What should also bear mentioning is that voluntary increased contributions, if not done in a certain way, could dramatically increase the administration costs of CPP since it will require individual management of accounts – something that the current system does not currently need. Dramatically increasing costs will make CPP a less efficient vehicle for retirement savings, and may start to look like a commercial pension instead. If the government is insistent on a voluntary expansion as one of a number of options (like TFSAs and pooled registered plans), then this cost factor could be an important determiner in what that could look like.

Continue reading →