Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

Roundup: Oh noes! Girls in STEM!

Posted on by

Yesterday’s online sniping between MPs had to do with a profile of Conservative MP Rachael Harder in the Globe and Mail. In it, Harder (again) bemoaned that she feels the Liberals are trying to push their own version of feminism and added in some garden-variety whinging that the government apparently has it in for Christians (despite the fact that the PM himself has said that he’s a practicing Catholic). But Harder’s “proof” of how the government is pushing their own version of feminism is – wait for it – the fact that they’re spending money to encourage more girls to get interested in STEM careers. Wow. Such ideology!

I will add that part of the Twitter sniping had to do with the fact that the Liberals blocked the attempt to have Harder installed as chair of the Status of Women committee, and once again, nobody has bothered to point out the fact that as critic, it would not only have been inappropriate for her to be Chair, but it would have made zero sense given that committee chairs are supposed to act in a neutral capacity and not vote unless it’s to break a (rare) tie – something that is antithetical to the role of critic that Harder held. And the fact that Andrew Scheer tried to manoeuvre her into the position was a cynical ploy to make the Liberals look like intolerant bigots (and they took the bait), but nobody dares to call that fact out. Instead, we get Harder and her supporters whinging about how mean the Liberals are to her, while Harder herself seems mystified that a party that prides itself on defending the Charter rights of Canadians would have a problem with an adherent to an ideology that would deny LGBT people full equality and which tells women that they shouldn’t have control over their bodies when it comes to reproduction. You can disagree with it, but don’t act like it’s a surprise that they draw a line there.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1014212083012063232

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1014321593047224321

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fighting to preserve parliamentary privilege

Posted on by

Senator Mike Duffy’s court challenge started yesterday, and the Senate as a whole fought back to have the Chamber excluded from his lawsuit under the rubric of parliamentary privilege. The Senate’s privileges include the ability to discipline its members – and this needs to be reiterated firmly, because as a self-governing body with institutional independence, that’s the only way that senators can be disciplined outside of a criminal process. This is also why there is a differentiation when it comes to the judge asking the hypothetical about the Speaker shooting someone – privilege does not necessarily cover criminality.

Part of what Duffy’s lawyers are trying to argue was that the Senate’s punishment of his suspension without pay should be subject to judicial review because he was acquitted of all charges by the Ontario Superior Court. The problem is that he was found to have broken several of the Senate’s rules, regardless of what the court found, and the Senate is empowered to deal with those breaches as they see fit – not to mention, it was also about making sure that discipline was seen to be done, which was important for a body that was facing scandal and public outrage. This doesn’t mean that they went about it in the best way, however – the pressure (especially coming from PMO, which the Senate leadership at the time capitulated to) wanted to have these suspensions out of the way immediately, and so Duffy’s interventions were cut short, and Senator Pamela Wallin never got her chance to defend herself at all because of the haste. Due process was not necessarily followed, and yes, that’s a problem. However, that is not a problem that can be sorted by means of judicial review, because that would undermine the Senate’s ability to be self-governing (just like the Senate subjecting itself to external financial control like the Auditor General wants would undermine its privileges and ability to be self-governing).

It can’t be understated how damaging it will be if we let the courts start interfering in the operations of Parliament, in either the Commons or the Senate. The constant injunctions to legislation, the threats of lawsuits, the massive breach of the doctrine of separation of powers – it’s not something that we should mess with. Duffy may feel he was treated unfairly – and maybe he was to an extent – but it’s no reason to start pulling bricks out of the wall when it comes to privilege. And if the judge has any sense, she’ll respect that separation and take the Senate out of the lawsuit.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Craven and unnecessary

Posted on by

While Andrew Scheer continues his effort to woo Quebeckers to the Conservative cause, he’s apparently decided to start carrying the Bloc’s water for them, and yesterday morning made the “important” announcement that a Conservative government would ensure that there was a single tax form for Quebec. Which…is a problem that the Quebec government created for itself and could put an end to at any time they choose by returning to the federal tax form that all other provinces use. Scheer insists that this is about listening to Quebec, but it’s just a bit more craven than that, and yes, it’s a promise fraught with problems when you get into the details. It’s also interesting to note that his message changed over Twitter over the course of the day, which makes it all the more curious that he seems to be doing this on the fly.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1011262711034867714

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1011265775573688323

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1011393533343719425

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1011397075932549120

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1011433391986655232

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1011433535368937473

Mental health and Hill staffers

A Liberal Hill staffer, Paul Wernick, went public about a second suicide attempt, brought on by crippling depression and the stress of sixty-hour work weeks that life on the Hill is known for. His story makes some very important points that more Hill denizens should beware of – though he quit drinking years ago, there is a culture of drinking at the myriad of receptions that staffers attend with their bosses, and it can serve to self-medicate the stresses of the job, which is where things can get dangerous. There are resources available for staffers, but they may not be aware of them – Wernick says that he wasn’t, which shows that there’s still work to do when it comes to helping staffers out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Delay for the sake of delay

Posted on by

With Parliament now risen for the summer, The Canadian Press decided to take a look back at the rise in obstruction tactics by the opposition in the last couple of months, and some of it is blatant obstruction for the sake of obstruction. And while a number of the usual pundits decried the piece, I think there are a few things to drill into here – not because I don’t think that there are legitimate uses for opposition obstruction and filibusters (because there certainly are), but what it says about the tone of this current parliament.

There are a few examples cited in the piece about opposition tactics that don’t make sense – the insistence on running out the clock on a six-hour marathon of speeches over the Senate public bill about Latin American Heritage Month that all parties supported (though I’m unsure how, procedurally, a Senate public bill got that many hours of debate because it should have really gotten two under private members’ business), the vote-a-thon tantrum that was cynically designed to simply kill Friday hours rather than make any meaningful points about the Estimates that were being voted upon, or the hours of concurrence debates on committee reports that all parties agreed upon. The piece makes the point that there are concerns that these tactics were designed to force the government to bring in time allocation on more bills in order to get them through, so that they could turn around and accuse them of acting in bad faith after they came in promising not to use time allocation (despite the fact that it’s a defensible tactic under most circumstances).

To a certain extent, this is the government’s fault for coming in trying to play nice and operating under the rubric that all parties can be reasonable and agree to debate timetables. That hasn’t always proved true, and when Bardish Chagger’s proposals around scheduling motions like they use in the UK got shot down (legitimately – it’s not something I would have really supported because it means automatic time allocation of all bills), she warned that time allocation would be used more frequently, and it certainly appears that the opposition parties have dared her to do so with their tactics. But I do find it frustrating as a parliamentary observer that good faith attempts and allowing more debate gets abused in order to try and embarrass the government rather than making parliament work better, and then they can complain when the government has to play hard(er) ball. We already know that the rules in which we structure debate here are broken and need to be overhauled to ensure that our MPs are actually debating rather than simply reciting speeches into the void, and that they in fact can encourage this kind of dilatory behaviour. The measures that Chagger proposed to make Parliament work better wouldn’t have actually done so, but I don’t think it’s illegitimate to shine a light on delay for the sake of delay because it does highlight that there are problems with the rules at present. But we need to get over the kneejerk reactions that calls to do so are about partisan purposes rather than about the health of our democracy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More Bernier fallout

Posted on by

Because we can’t stop talking about the Maxime Bernier “ouster,” if it can really be called that since it was more a demotion than anything, but it still got all of the tongues wagging, and all of the reporters cornering every Conservative they could find. And most of those Conservatives downplayed the whole thing, Erin O’Toole going so far as to say that hey, there are other shadow cabinet changes coming so no big deal. The underlying message was that Bernier “broke his word” about the book chapter, which is a semantic game, but given some of the various dynamics in play, it’s hard not to try and find additional drama into the whole affair.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1006872600994123777

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1007085698803949568

That Rob Silver tweet may be even closer to home than most people want to admit. I have to say that there have been some pretty spectacular expectations heaped on Bernier, particularly because he speaks to a certain slice of the party, but perhaps in a more superficial way than they want to believe. After all, many of the Ayn Rand-readers are desperate to attach themselves to someone in the party who represents them (never mind that this isn’t a party of libertarians or even economic conservatives, but right-flavoured populists), so he was someone that they could pin those hopes to, ignoring a lot of what he actually said and did. His lack of judgment when he was foreign affairs minister under the Harper government was stunning, both in his intemperate comments in Afghanistan, or with the security of documents with his then-girlfriend. During the leadership campaign, he would sign off on social media campaigns that dogwhistling to MRAs before claiming he didn’t know about the connotations of “red pills” and so on (and knowing who was running that campaign, they couldn’t not know what it meant). And his constant self-promotion in opposition to Scheer post-leadership is another sign of poor judgment. And really, we shouldn’t discount this particular bit of reasoning.

In further analysis on the whole brouhaha, John Ivison keeps his ear to the ground in the caucus and wonders if Bernier’s ouster from shadow cabinet may force a rift in the party given how close the leadership vote was. Chantal Hébert notes that it was probably a matter of time before things with Bernier came to a head (as she suggests he’s not too well-liked among his Quebec colleagues) and that the by-election timing made it something Scheer couldn’t ignore. Andrew MacDougall sees this as a failing by Scheer to manage his caucus, not properly communicating with Bernier when necessary, and keeping him outside of the fold at a time when he should have drawn him in to get his cooperation on the issue at a time when it’s under attack by the likes of Trump. Andrew Coyne similarly sees this as a failing by Scheer, but for the fact that he has bought into the line that caucus must sing from a single song sheet, particularly on an indefensible policy like Supply Management. Colby Cosh sees not only political games from Bernier, but explicit quid pro quo from Scheer for his dairy supporters who (allegedly) put him over the top in the race (though I’m not sure we have any actual proof of this), and that those dairy lobbyists have successfully leveraged intra-party dynamics to their advantage.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A strained partisan detente

Posted on by

There is a strange partisan cold war settling over the nation’s capital, as both government and opposition try to put up a united front against the Trumpocalypse, while at the same time not looking to give up too much advantage, and so they probe areas where their opponents may be weak, but that they won’t look too crassly partisan in exploiting it, kind of like Erin O’Toole did last week when the steel and aluminium tariffs were first announced. The Conservatives and NDP are trying to probe the previous statements about Supply Management “flexibility,” while the Liberals are essentially calling Maxime Bernier a traitor as he starts speaking about his opposition to the system once again. It’s not pretty on either side, and yet here we are.

While Trump has threatened auto tariffs, I’m not sure that’s even remotely feasible given how integrated the whole North American industry is, and those tariffs would not only devastate supply chains, but it would have as many adverse effects on the American industry as it would the Canadian one. Of course, we’re dealing with an uncertainty engine, so we have no idea what he’ll actually do, but hey, the government is working on contingency plans that include further retaliatory measures if these auto tariffs come to pass. As for Trump’s focus on dairy, here’s a look at the size of subsidies that the American dairy industry is awash in. Brian Mulroney, incidentally, thinks this is all a passing storm, for what it’s worth.

Because there are so many more hot takes about developments, Andrew Coyne thinks that there should be debate on how to best retaliate to American threats rather than just rally around the PM. Chantal Hébert notes that Trump has essentially boxed Trudeau in with regards to how he can respond to the threats. Martin Patriquin counsels patience with the Trumpocalypse, so that we don’t go overboard thanks to a few intemperate tweets. Chris Selley notes the sudden burst of solidarity and hopes that they don’t return to bickering over small differences once this crisis passes. Jen Gerson, meanwhile, notes that Trump’s attack are those of a bully trying to pick on a weaker target, but forgets that Canada isn’t weak – we’re just passive aggressive. Gerson was also on Power & Politics(at 1:08:35 in the full broadcast) to say that her genuine fear out of all of this is that it’s all a sideshow designed to turn Canada into some comic enemy for Trump to run against in the upcoming midterms, and I suspect that she’s onto something, and we may be playing into Trump’s hands when if we get self-righteous in our response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford’s win, and echoes of 2011

Posted on by

So, that was an election, Ontario. I’m sure we’ll be full of hot takes, followed by the ritual lamentations about vote-splitting, and there will be a bunch of sanctimonious claptrap about “strategic voting,” but in the meantime, I am reminded of 2011. Why? Because with a Progressive Conservative government and an NDP official opposition, we may find that for the next little while, we’ll see a number of those MPPs talking about how great it is that there’s some real choice in visions in Ontario, and isn’t it great that those mushy-middle Liberals are out of the picture? And while we got a bunch of that in 2011, we also quickly found that the NDP MPs that did get elected in their big wave were not all up to par, and they went on an aggressive lockdown orchestrated by the leader’s office (or interim leader, as the case quickly proved to be). And it was that lack of real competence that ensured that the Liberals still in the chamber quickly became the grown-ups in the room. Question Period didn’t really start until then-interim leader Bob Rae stood up, and he ran circles around both the opposition and the government, frankly. And I suspect that it had something to do with how the Liberals were able to rebuild as quickly as they did – because people quickly started to clamour for a centrist vision that they could rally around. But it also didn’t happen without a lot of hard work, and a leader who emphasised the importance of that. We’ll have to see where the Liberals in Ontario land. As of the time I’m writing this, there is enough fluctuation still that we’re not sure if they will keep official party status at eight seats, and with Kathleen Wynne’s resignation as party leader, that leaves it open to see how these Liberals will get their acts together to provide that centrist voice (which was somewhat lacking under Wynne – who did win her own seat, incidentally). And in the meantime, here’s some advice from Jean Charest about rebuilding a devastated party.

Meanwhile, in hot takes, Justin Ling looks at the hard time that Doug Ford will have when it comes to trying to dismantle the cap-and-trade system in the province as well as fight the federal carbon price backstop, while Chris Selley notes that this is a bit of a blank slate because we have no coherent vision of what the party’s vision really is after their unrealistic platform. John Ivison asserts that this is the dawn of a new era of combative federalism, with Ford voting against everything coming from Ottawa. Paul Wells looks at the immediate problems for both Ford and Justin Trudeau coming out of last night’s election.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Curiously speedy swearing-in

Posted on by

With the final vote in the Senate today on the cannabis bill, there have been a few interesting developments, starting with the fact that the government has been making appointments – there was one on Friday, and two more were announced yesterday, and what’s even more curious is how fast they are being sworn in. The two named yesterday will be sworn in today, while the one named Friday was sworn in Monday is already voting on amendments to C-45 despite not having been there for any of the debate or committee testimony. Normally when senators are named, there are a few weeks between their being named and being sworn-in so that they can get all of their affairs in order, which makes this curious, and like it’s looking like Trudeau has been making panicked appointments with the fate of C-45 in the air. And what’s even more curious is the fact that it’s not the Conservatives who are the problem, since they don’t have the numbers to defeat it, but it’s the independent senators who are no longer voting as a bloc but have swung different amendment votes in different ways.

https://twitter.com/JacquiDelaney/status/1004520578919817216

Of course, Conservatives are already promulgating the conspiracy theory that because the provincial nomination committees are largely vacant that these are all hand-picked by the PMO, but in truth, the PMO is sitting on over a hundred vetted names on the short-lists, and these new appointments are all coming off of those lists, where they’ve been languishing for months. So not a conspiracy – just poor management to the point of incompetence.

Meanwhile, some 40 amendments have been passed, with several more defeated, and the government engaged in a bit of deal-making to assuage the concerns of Indigenous senators who wanted to put in an amendment to delay implementation until more consultation with Indigenous communities had been done. The health and Indigenous services ministers instead offered a number of measures and funds to ensure there was access to production, and culturally-appropriate addictions treatment services. One Conservative senator accused those Indigenous senators of capitulation, before she was slapped back by Senator Murray Sinclair for her patronising tone. One could argue that this means that the government is listening to the concerns that are raised, so we’ll see how much follow-through there is.

Continue reading →

QP: Concern trolling about tariff compensation

Posted on by

In advance of the arrival of French president Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau was present for QP, along with all other leaders. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and in French, he read some Supply Management concerns. Trudeau replied with the well-worn talking points about how they created Supply Management, would defend it, and took a shot at Maxime Bernier while he was at it. Scheer then switched to English to ask about where the budget contained any contingency funds for possible tariff relief. Trudeau noted that they ensured they had retaliatory measures ready to go, but the wanted to consult to ensure there were no unintended consequences. Scheer concern trolled about the size of the deficit and how much higher it might be with measures to help industries affected by the tariffs, to which Trudeau reminded him that the choice in the election was cuts and austerity or his government’s investments. Scheer said that the budget was built on the back of “borrowing and tax cuts” — getting applause from the Liberals — before he corrected himself and said that he wanted tax cuts for those affected by the tariffs paid for by the revenues of retaliatory tariffs. Trudeau reminded him that they gave a tax cut to the middle class. Scheer then pivoted to demand that the TPP be ratified before the House rises, to which Trudeau praised their record and that they would introduce a bill before the House rises. Guy Caron led for the NDP, railing about the Trans Mountain purchase and retention bonuses for its executives. Trudeau dispatched his lines about growing the economy while protecting the environment. Caron railed that the pipeline was against the principles of UNDRIP, and Trudeau noted that he sat down with affected First Nations communities yesterday, and that he listened to all points of view. Alexandre Boulerice repeated the first question in French, and got the same response in French. Nathan Cullen then stood up to sanctimoniously expound about fossil fuel subsidies, and he got the same response about the environment and the economy. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, this election won’t be good for electoral reform

Posted on by

I know that I really shouldn’t give bad columns more coverage, but I can’t help myself, because this is just the first of many that we are doubtlessly going to see in the coming months – that a Doug Ford win on Thursday could get the ball rolling on electoral reform, at least in Ontario. It’s a specious argument, but it’s attractive to a certain class of voter and wonk, so brace yourselves, because this red herring will be coming at you hard in the coming month.

Part of the problem with this particular column is that it doesn’t really make the argument why electoral reform is the logical follow-through for a Ford-led government, because most of the complaints have to do with how Ford won the leadership instead of Christine Elliott. This is not the fault of the electoral system – it’s the fault of our very broken leadership selection system and would largely be corrected if we returned to the system of caucus selection of leaders that our system is designed for. If we had that in place, Elliott would likely have been chosen because she was in caucus at the time that Patrick Brown challenged for the post (while he was still a federal MP, in case you’d forgotten). That would be two dark chapters in the Ontario PC party that could have been avoided, but I digress. The argument here should be that the Ford gong show should be an object lesson in how we need to restore proper leadership processes, where caucus can select and remove leaders in order to ensure that there is proper accountability and more importantly that leaders can’t throw their weight around, that caucus has more power to keep the leader in check. Sadly, that’s not the argument we got.

The balance of the column is a bunch of whinging that parties got majority mandates with less than 40 percent of the popular vote – never mind that the popular vote is a logical fallacy. It’s not a real thing – it’s an extrapolation that magnifies the sense of unfairness by those whose parties did not win, but it’s not a real thing because general elections are not a single event, they’re a series of simultaneous but separate elections for individual seats, and yes, that matters greatly in how the system works, how parliaments are formed, and in the agency afforded to individual MPs.

The other implicit argument being made in pieces like these, though this pieces doesn’t come out and say it, is that proportional representation will likely deliver us a series of coalition governments by nice leftist parties, and we’ll get solar panels on roofs, and great social programs, and no divisive politics because they’ll be forced to cooperate. Won’t it be great? Err, except that’s not what happens, and if anyone thinks it’ll be nice leftist coalitions in perpetuity, they should perhaps look at what’s going on in Europe right now, and how the populist mood there and in North America would have consequences in our own elections that wouldn’t be mitigated like our current brokerage system does, and that could be an even bigger problem. But that’s not the established electoral reform/PR narrative, even though it should be.

Continue reading →