Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

QP: Shoehorning in the Duffy issue

Posted on by

Despite it being a Tuesday, only two leaders were present — Thomas Mulcair, and Elizabeth May. Alas. Mulcair led off, asking about the destruction of records on the long-gun registry despite the Access to Information requests. Stephen Blaney insisted that the RCMP respects all laws and the will of parliament — which, you know, hadn’t been recorded because it was simply a bill at the time. Mulcair demanded to know who ordered the records deleted, and Blaney didn’t deviate. Mulcair tried to stretch it to the audit on Senate residencies, and Blaney insisted the NDP should be given a free vote on an upcoming gun bill. Mulcair insisted that the PM release the statement that Duffy apparently signed about his residency, to which Paul Calandra stood up and reminded the NDP about their satellite offices. Mulcair kept trying to tie the Duffy affair into things, and Calandra repeated his demanded that the NDP pay back the money from those offices. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, decrying the focus on TFSAs instead of focusing on those who need help. Pierre Poilievre listed a couple of scenarios where seniors use the accounts. Scott Brison hammered on the TFSAs and the PBO’s statements on them, and Joe Oliver actually answered, listing some figures about them as a kind of non sequitur. Brison noted the GIS payments affected by TFSAs, but Oliver quoted some people who support their moves.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cheap outrage against the AG

Posted on by

The Auditor General is in the news for a couple of reasons, both of which start bordering on the ridiculous. The first is the news about the price tag of the Senate audit, which is said to be approaching $21 million. The AG himself didn’t want to start talking numbers out of context, and to wait for the final report, but this likely has to do with the fact that a number of outside contract staff were brought in to do the audit – which is also what a lot of the process complaints are, particularly since these outside auditors have no idea about what constitutes parliamentary functions, or the bounds of propriety in some cases. (Incidentally, the numbers of senators affected being leaked in this story is far less than those in other reports). The other story is more egregious, but not for the reason you might think. CTV reported that the AG’s office has spent $23,000 over four years on team-building exercises. Mind you, that’s over 600 staff, which basically amounts to an annual pizza lunch, and it’s in the context of a $90 million annual budget, but look – a big number with little context! Scandal! And thus we get to the egregiousness of the cheap outrage that apparently fuels out political media in this country. Who doesn’t love a story where a big number gets presented with inadequate context, and calling it a scandal? Why can’t we be a country that is so cheap and flinty that we are the Ritz-crackers-and-ginger ale crowd? Why should we spend money on anything at all? But no, it’s all OH NOES PIZZA LUNCH and lighting our hair on fire. And then of course, the perennial bugaboo of the Challenger jets, where every time the GG flies somewhere we need to get the CTF on the line to decry how terrible it is that we go and do diplomacy. Sometimes I wonder if we’re really a grown-up country after all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A court challenge goes ahead

Posted on by

It’s a court challenge that is probably understated in its importance and its longer-term implications, but the attempt to challenge Stephen Harper’s refusal to appoint new senators got a boost as the Federal Court rejected the government’s attempt to have it struck down before being heard. That means that the challenge can go ahead, and we’ll get a ruling from the Federal Court (which may possibly even make its way up to the Supreme Court) as to the constitutional requirement that a Prime Minister has to advise the Governor General on Senate appointments. The common retort about the obligation is that the constitution doesn’t specify when appointments need to be made – simply “from time to time,” but the plain reading of that text is that because there are no fixed dates as to when seats become vacant, there can be no fixed times as to when they are to be filled. That vacancies are allowed to pile up also goes against the representative nature of the Senate – those regions are entitled to their representation, and it should be as unconscionable that those seats are left vacant as it would be if they were seats in the Commons. This argument is being made in the challenge, “When shall a vacancy be filled? When it happens, not at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.” While the courts may make a declaration as to the constitutionality, it is unlikely they will be able to make a declaratory order that it be enforced, however, because it is in relation to a constitutional convention as opposed to a statute, but it still matters. Why this is important is not only for the obligation that Harper has made his decision not to appoint any more senators known (at least not in the current political climate), the NDP have also declared that they wouldn’t make any appointments either were they ever to form government, but good luck getting the unanimous consent of the provinces to make that constitutional amendment. They too would be bound by a positive declaration by the courts – that they are obligated to make the appointments. That Harper and Mulcair are on the same side of an issue, even if it’s for different reasons, is a curious state of affairs, and it’s very telling that the government tried to get it thrown out of court.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to politicize the GG

Posted on by

In a move so stunningly boneheaded that I can scarcely believe it, the NDP have gone to Rideau Hall to ask the Governor General to wade in on the Senate residency issue – because there’s nothing like trying to politicise the GG to show that you mean business about a petty issue. It’s like Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition doesn’t have a clue about what Responsible Government – the central organising principle of our democratic system – actually means. Here’s a refresher for their edification – the Governor General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister holds the confidence of the House of Commons, which is the chamber elected for the purpose of granting or withholding said confidence. The entire history of the struggle for Responsible Government in the colonies that became Canada, back in the 1830s, was because they wanted to control the appointments made by the Crown, rather than leave it up to the colonial masters in the UK. The entire history of Canadian democracy rests on the fact that it’s the elected government that advises the Crown on who to appoint, and not the other way around. And yet the NDP seem to suddenly think it’s cool to ask the GG to weigh in on which appointments he thinks are okay or not. Charlie Angus may tell you that he’s asking for an explanation and that he’s not trying to draw the GG into the “scandal,” but with all due respect, that’s a load of utter horseshit and he knows it. He’s trying to get the GG to tell him that the PM is wrong so that he has “non-partisan” authority to make the claim for him; that’s never going to happen. Ever. It is assumed that the advice the PM gives the GG is legitimate because the PM has the confidence of the Commons. That means that the quality of that advice is a ballot box issue – if we don’t like it, we get to hold that PM and that government to account by voting them out. It is not up to the GG to veto it unless it’s so egregious that it’s a blatant violation of the constitution, at which point he refuses the advice and the Prime Minister is forced to resign. But as much as Charlie Angus might like to think that Mike Duffy is some unprecedented scandal that rocks the very legitimacy of the Upper Chamber (which they don’t believe is legitimate anyway, so this is grade-A concern trolling on his part), it’s not a constitutional crisis. It’s just not. Even if Harper’s advice was dubious, it was up to Duffy to ensure that he lived up to the terms of that appointment, and ensuing he was a proper resident of PEI – which essentially would have meant a hasty house sale in Ottawa, buying a year-round residence on the Island (and not a summer cottage) tout suit, and then maybe renting an apartment or buying a small condo near Parliament Hill as his Ottawa pied à terre, being a legitimate secondary residence. Duffy did not do that. He instead got political opinions to ensure that he was okay with the summer cottage and a driver’s licence and that’s it, when clearly that was not enough. He bears as much culpability in this as the PM for making the appointment – not the GG. Charlie Angus should be utterly ashamed for this blatant attempt to politicise the GG, but I’m pretty sure he’s incapable of shame.

Continue reading →

QP: Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.

Posted on by

Despite it only being a Thursday, the major leaders were elsewhere in the country, busy campaiging instead of doing their jobs. Megan Leslie led off, bringing up job losses at Bombardier and wondered why the government wasn’t doing more for manufacturing. Pierre Poilievre gave a pro forma expression of sympathy before touting the government’s job creation record. Leslie asked again in English twice again, got the same answer, and then Alexandre Boulerice took another kick at it in French. Poilievre was just as adept in repeating the good news talking points in French. Marc Garneau led for the Liberals, also asking about the job losses, and Poilievre put a “Liberals would raise taxes” spin on his same talking points. Judy Sgro took a kick at it, naming some of the other closing plants and job losses, but Poilievre kept insisting the Liberals would raise taxes and kill more jobs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Committing to change – for real!

Posted on by

A rare bit of public damage control was on display yesterday as CBC obtained a copy of the orders that the Chief of Defence Staff put out two months ago, which told the nascent task force being assembled to deal with the forthcoming report by former Justice Marie Deschamps on sexual assault and harassment in the Forces, to basically set aside some of the coming recommendations. At this point in the timeline, General Lawson would have seen a draft copy of Deschamps’ report, and he would have had a good idea what was in it for recommendations. Within hours of the CBC report going public, Lawson put out a lengthy press release stating that the Forces would act on all ten recommendations, including the creation of an independent centre for reporting assault or harassment. A few minutes later in Question Period, Jason Kenney also said that all ten recommendations would be acted upon as well. It does make one wonder when any change in these orders occurred, and why Lawson changed his mind – though one can imagine that either the final wording of Deschamps’ report, and how it was received by both the government and the general public, may have forced a realisation that there was a real appetite for cultural change out in the wider public, and that the old way of dealing with issues internally, particularly with its culture of misogyny, weren’t going to cut it any longer. Meanwhile, it should also be pointed out that the Canadian Forces appointed a female commander, Brigadier General Lise Bourgon, to head our forces in Iraq, and more women in high-profile commanding roles can only help in driving home the message that it’s not a macho boys’ club any longer.

Continue reading →

QP: Reiterating a commitment

Posted on by

Wednesday, caucus day, and the benches were mostly full for the second day in a row that all leaders were present. It shouldn’t be noteworthy to say so, but apparently this is the way of things now. Thomas Mulcair led off, wondering about the role of Ray Novak in the Duffy Audit conspiracy — because we’re still on about that. Stephen Harper said that Mulcair’s reading of the court documents was creative, and retreated to the shield of the courts. Mulcair then demanded the statement that Mike Duffy allegedly signed to indicate he was a resident of PEI before he was sworn in. Harper said it was Duffy’s actions who were on trial, and it was before the courts. Mulair then moved to the issue of the slow response to the Deschamps Report on military sexual harassment, but Harper stated that the quote came from a letter written two months before the report was issued. Mulcair demanded action on the items in the report, and Harper insisted that the Chief of Defence Staff was acting on the recommendations, including an independent centre for reporting assault. Mulcair pivoted again, and demanded amendments to the budget to end the tax on feminine hygiene products. Harper insisted that Mulcair’s true purpose was to offer that tiny tax cut while planning to raise the GST. Justin Trudeau was up next, and immediately started plugging his plan, and wondered why the government wasn’t investing in the middle class. Harper responded by misconstruing Trudeau’s “fairness” comment from yesterday, and insisting that the Liberal plan doesn’t balance. Trudeau indicated he looked forward to raising that in the debate, and Harper continued to insist the Linerals want to raise taxes. Trudeau responded by insisting that fairness was helping those who need it, and asked his same question again in French. Harper repeated his talking points about what he claimed the Liberals would take away.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Breaking the debates

Posted on by

The Conservatives have decided that they’re going to opt out of the major broadcasters when it comes to election debates this fall, and will instead entertain the option of independents who don’t have the same kind of widespread broadcast capabilities, by accepting the invitations of Maclean’s/Rogers, and TVA in French. In a way, it’s more of this attempt to portray themselves as poor, put upon underdogs that the “big media elites” are trying to control – as though being in power for the past ten years doesn’t make them elites. There has been this particular undercurrent in pre-election conversation that they want plenty of debates because apparently it’ll be how they can trip up Justin Trudeau (ignoring both the fact that he cleaned up in his party leadership debates, and the fact that the more debates, the more chance that any gaffes will be minimised). It’s also a curious strategy that they would forgo the broadest audience that the major broadcasters’ consortium could provide – and a bit tone deaf as to the reality of the media landscape that they think that it’s just a matter of some university hosting an event and everyone brings their cameras. What it does is twofold – firstly, it’s a power game by the Conservatives to unilaterally pull out of the consortium negotiation process and throw everyone into disarray, and secondly, it’s an attempt to control those debates by creating a proliferation of independent offers that they can then cherry pick when it comes to things like format and hosting choices. It has also been pointed out how hypocritical their position is considering that they very rarely allow their candidates to even attend local debates, so for them to be concern trolling over the state of the leaders’ debates is a bit rich. Suffice to say, it’s throwing a lot of added confusion out there and is setting up a power play that will further break our system more than it already is.

Continue reading →

QP: Repeated questions about sick mothers

Posted on by

Monday, and the only leader in the Commons was a sheepish Elizabeth May, fresh from her morning apology tour after her off-the-rails speech at the Press Gallery Dinner on Saturday. The NDP chose their other, other deputy leader, David Christopherson, to start things off by shouting out a pair of questions regarding the PMO trying to whitewash the Duffy audit. Paul Calandra said it was before the court. Christopherson shouted a question about Senate residency rules for appointments, to which Calandra reminded him of their satellite offices that needed repayment. Christopherson changed topics, and shouted about a mother who couldn’t get sick benefits while on parental leave, while Pierre Poilievre, calmly, said he couldn’t comment on a specific case, but noted they had sympathy for people in cases like that which was why they tabled legislation in 2013, solving it for future cases. Sadia Groguhé asked the same question in French, got the same answer in French, and then Groguhé asked it again, getting yet the same answer. Ralph Goodale led for the Liberals, asking about the trade deficit and job numbers, and wondered why the government would use income splitting to help the wealthy instead of single mothers. Despite Joe Oliver being present, Poilievre responded with talking points about things the Liberals would supposedly do. Goodale gave some talking points about the Liberal plan, Poilievre responded with some fabrications about the fictitious Liberal plan, and when Goodale hit back, Joe Oliver finally stood up, and read some talking points off a cue card.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Harper’s permanent underclass

Posted on by

During a visit by the president of the Philippines yesterday, Stephen Harper took a question from a Filipino reporter about the Temporary Foreign Workers Programme – something that affects a great many Filipinos who come to work in Canada, and how there has been an exodus of those workers whose four-year permits have expired. Harper responded that he doesn’t want to see a “permanent underclass” of workers who don’t have the same rights as Canadians, and that they can become immigrants like everyone else. While that answer sounds pretty high-minded on the surface, the problem with it is that it ignores the changes that his own government put into place and perpetuates. Under Harper’s watch, the numbers of permanent residencies has declined in favour of more temporary work permits, and the other problem is that the current immigration program ignores the fact that there is a need for low-skilled immigrants in this country who can’t get in the door now because we are only looking for highly skilled or educated individuals and their families. That kind of system ignores the long-term investment in the country that low-skilled immigration brings, and has brought to this country when it was a big part of the way our system operated. In other words, Harper’s own government policies are perpetuating a system that will allow these temporary workers for four years, but won’t allow them to become permanent residents, and yet he admonishes them for not using the regular immigration routes. But hey, rhetoric while a foreign leader is present makes everything sound better.

Continue reading →