Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

Roundup: Not really elected, not really a betrayal

Posted on by

Alberta Conservative Senator Doug Black announced yesterday that he was going to sit as an independent, and a bunch of tongues started wagging because Black is one of the “elected” (and I do use the term loosely) Senators. A number of people also said a bunch of boneheaded things about the move, and we’ll get to that in a minute, but first, a refresher on the “election.”

For those of you who were unaware, Alberta has run a series of nonsense “consultative elections” for “senators in waiting” a few times, and it’s a process that has been problematic on a number of levels, not to mention the fact that the whole thing is unconstitutional. I mean if you want to elect Senators, then there’s a process, which is the general amending formula of the constitution, meaning seven provinces that represent 50 percent of the population. That didn’t happen, however Stephen Harper appointed from this list. Among the quirks of these “consultative elections” is that the candidates were largely running on the tickets of provincial parties – you know, ones that don’t exist on the federal level, not to mention the fact that the provincial Liberals boycotted an unconstitutional process, and the NDP refused because they want to abolish the Senate altogether. So this last time around you Senators running under the provincial Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose Party, both of whom were pledged to sit as federal Conservatives, never mind that the two parties are different and don’t actually stand for the same things. And did we mention that this is an unconstitutional process? Because it is – you can’t do through the back door what you can’t through the front, never mind that Harper and the Alberta government at the time figured you could.

So what does this have to do with his decision to leave caucus? Well, people like Senator Don Plett are angry, calling this a “betrayal,” while his fellow “elected” Senator Scott Tanas was passive aggressive in his “disappointment” with the move. Plett went so far as to start saying that this was Black’s way of avoiding the whip as he apparently has a terrible attendance record (note: this could be verified, if one actually wanted, and I’m not sure that I care enough to go digging), and moaning that these “votes” have been “deprived of a Conservative representative.” And this is all very much like the floor-crossing debate, which is ridiculous. MPs are elected on an individual basis – our first-past-the-post system gives them enormous agency because they are elected as an individual, even if they are running on a party ticket. They are not there because their party won votes and they are apportioned the seat off of a list (which empowers the party, not the MP). For a senator, however, they are appointed with a great deal of institutional independence, because that is what their job requires of them if they are to be able to push back against a majority government when required, or speak truth to power without fearing for their jobs. And no, Black was not “elected” – he was appointed, despite it being on the basis of a sham “consultative” process. So guess what – with that institutional independence, he can choose whether he wants to sit in a caucus or not. It’s why a Prime Minister should be very careful in the vetting process before they appoint someone (and no, an election is not necessarily a good vetting process, particularly given the way that the Alberta process was run, and gosh, it’s not like bad apples have ever been elected before). So really, the fact that he claims to be “elected” is of little consequence with this move, other than as a kind of “fun fact.” If he wants to sit as an independent, then more power to him.

Meanwhile, Senator Patrick Brazeau’s suspension is now over and he’s back to work, vowing to “clean up” the Senate – which gives one flashbacks of an acquitted OJ Simpson vowing to catch his wife’s killer. And no, Brazeau’s legal troubles aren’t over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Happy Dominion Day!

Posted on by

Happy Dominion Day! In lieu of the usual rant, today I leave you with a few items for your perusal: a look at ten animals that helped shaped Canada, a look back at the creation of the flag, 40 famous Canadians giving their memories of childhood summers, and Maclean’s has 111 stories from Canadians. Now go enjoy the day, to the sounds of my July 1st theme song.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Obama and his populist rant

Posted on by

So, that speech by Barack Obama was quite something. Canada tends not to be a country of lofty rhetoric or grand and eloquent speechmaking, so it’s nice when we get to borrow it for a bit, but it is a bit of novelty. For all of his complementary rhetoric about Canadians and our progressivity, it was interesting to note the places where people in the Commons weren’t all unanimous with the applause (mentions of climate change and LGBT rights certainly didn’t endear the Conservatives), and he was very clever in the way he couched his criticism of Canada needing to do more to pull its weight with NATO, by timing it so that the applause had already started with is line about the great job that the Canadian Forces do when he finished the thought that the world wants them to do more. Clever that.

What was perhaps even more interesting and less rehearsed was the rant that Obama went off at the conclusion of the Three Amigos summit press conference, where he pushed back against the use of “populism” when it comes to the likes of Trump, Sanders, and the Brexit vote. While Obama was quick to paint Trump in particular with the terms of nativism and xenophobia, I’m not sure that he really addressed the core of the issue with the rise in populist sentiment that gets hijacked by those nativist and xenophobic elements. Why? Because he was quick to try and associate populism with only the positive benefits of helping the working classes to better themselves, and on the face of it, “populism” is about appealing to ordinary people. The problem is that it has a dangerous flipside about making that appeal in contravention to expert opinion and evidence, which is painted as elitist – something that Obama steered clear of. Meanwhile, populism has already overtaken the political discourse in Canada, when our one-time ideological parties on both the left and the right have abandoned their ideologies in favour of left and right-flavoured populism, eschewing that evidence or clear-eyed policy in favour of selling it to ordinary people, never mind that it would actually disproportionately benefit the wealthy (and yes, that applies equally to Conservative and NDP policy in Canada). When that ethos of casting off evidence and expert opinion reaches dangerous levels, you get the kinds of rhetoric you heard in the Brexit campaign, and with Trump and his supporters, but it’s on the same populist road. So you will forgive me if I don’t subscribe to Obama’s embrace of populism as solely a force for good. It has a dark side that needs to be acknowledged, lest it get as out of control as it clearly has been doing of late.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Idle Brexit musings

Posted on by

While everyone continues to talk Brexit over the weekend, and you have a curious number of Conservative MPs here in Canada almost irresponsibly tweeting gleefully over it, I am forced to wonder if they are not in fact trying to demonstrate enthusiasm for referenda in general, given their daily caterwauling for one on electoral reform in this country. That could be why their messages are so focused on the democratic result of it, as opposed to the substance of what the Brexit vote actually represented. But that’s just idle speculation, so take of it what you will.

Of course, talk of how referenda are terrible at determining issues of substance is also part of why that’s been on my mind, because I am leaning more to the side that the issue of electoral reform would require a referendum because of what it proposes to do, and I don’t trust that the government is going to get useful answers from a series of townhalls and a report from a committee whose composition has been gamed to look “fair” when the person doing the gaming has a specific goal and output in mind. Of course, an electoral reform referendum would be subject to its won particular brands of demagoguery, particularly considering that we have an appalling lack of civic literacy in Canada, and when nobody can accurately depict the current electoral system, we’re going to be subject to some propaganda on the change side of the referendum whose fictions will be as bald-faced as that which the Leave side promised in the Brexit campaign, not that it will matter to the casual voter because it plays into emotions about things that feel and sound “fair” without actually grasping the situation (which is a solution in search of a problem). The last referendum on electoral reform in Ontario largely failed because the government of the day was ambivalent, but the current federal government is not, and that worries me. So it’s something to consider.

Meanwhile, the meltdown happening in the UK’s Labour Party, with a problematic leader who refuses to resign in the face of a full-blown caucus revolt is another object lesson in why membership selection of party leaders is a terrible, terrible system because it gives those leaders an excuse to refuse to be held to account, citing a “democratic mandate” as Jeremy Corbyn is doing right now. And no, adopting the provisions in Michael Chong’s Reform Act where caucus can vote to remove a leader is not actually the solution because it entrenches that parties must elect leaders by way of their membership, and that disconnect between selection and removal creates enormous problems in terms of the legitimacy of the removal process. Accountability matters, and needs to be balanced with democracy. Membership selection of leaders does not provide the needed accountability, and the horrifying lesson of a leader who won’t be held to account is playing out right now and should give everyone pause about the system that we blazed the trail for in this country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Brexit fallout

Posted on by

So, Brexit. If you missed how it all went down, here’s the recap of the evening’s events, a look at the Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty regarding an exit from the EU, a look at other countries who may be next, and speculation about how the Queen is faring in the face of this result. There’s a look at the divisions within the UK, and what psychology tells us about feelings toward immigration and how that influenced the referendum vote. And of course, what the Brexit could mean for the Canada-EU trade agreement, seeing as the UK was one of the driving forces behind this agreement. The results of that referendum seem to have made Quebec sovereigntists chippy about the 50-percent-plus-one threshold, while Jason Kenney’s tweets once the results were announced raised a number of eyebrows. The Prime Minister, however, assures us that our economy is strong enough to be able to withstand the market storms triggered by this event. (And do check out Maclean’s full package of excellent Brexit pieces here).

And then there’s the reaction. Doug Saunders notes that this is the first time that a far-right movement and its xenophobia has won a majority vote in a Western Nation, while Scott Gilmore notes that the Brexit could take a multitude of different forms. Andrew Coyne takes the events as a cautionary tale of countries engaging in self-harm. Paul Wells writes about the case that the EU needs to make for itself in the face of referenda like these, while Andrew MacDougall notes that this referendum, along with the Trump phenomenon in the states, is showing the power of demagoguery over fact and expert advice, which is probably the scariest part of this whole sad and sordid affair.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Duffy expenses redux

Posted on by

Because it’s never over, the saga of Mike Duffy’s illegitimate expenses are back in the news as Senate Administration is demanding that he repay some $16,955 in expenses claimed improperly that were paid for using his third-party contract with Gerald Donohue. And, wouldn’t you know it, Duffy’s lawyer is raising a huge fuss saying that the judge in the trial already declared that these were okay – something senators dispute, saying that just because they were not deemed criminal it doesn’t mean that they were okay, particularly when these expenses were not allowable and that the third-party contract was used to go around the approval process. (Duffy’s lawyer, incidentally, is also hinting that they will demand back pay for the suspension, to the tune of $155,000). But this is where the particular nature of the Senate comes into play, which is that it’s a self-governing body that is protected by parliamentary privilege, and it needs to be in order to safeguard our democratic system. In governing its own affairs, it is allowed to enforce its own rules (which, it bears reminding, do and did exist no matter what Bayne tried to argue in trial). And it is also empowered to enforce its own discipline, which is what the suspensions were related to – not a determination of criminality or a reflection of it, but rather that Duffy (and Wallin and Brazeau) had brought disrepute onto the Chamber and an example needed to be made. Is it fair? Possibly not, but this is also politics. Bayne raised the straw man argument that the 29 other senators whose expenses were flagged by the Auditor General weren’t suspended, which is a ridiculous argument considering that a) Duffy was not part of that process at all; and b) they ensured that there was a resolution process that ended in repayment one way or the other, so nobody was seen to be escaping justice. I don’t think Bayne will find much truck in the courts if he wants to press the issue around Duffy’s suspension or the fact that they are demanding repayment for expenses that clearly were not allowed, but it seems that we may be subjected to more drama around this, possibly for years if they take the matter as far as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Continue reading →

Roundup: To give or not to give Sophie resources

Posted on by

At his session-ender press conference, Trudeau highlighted three carefully chosen accomplishments, gave no additional clarity on the missing and murdered Indigenous women file, and didn’t commit to an open process for fighter procurement. All of that was par for the course, given that it was a lot of back-patting, but also a reminder that there is still a lot of work ahead, and he doesn’t want to look like he’s patting himself on the back too much. What I found more curious was in response to a question that he said that his wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, should be able to have resources to carry out the duties that she has set about to undertake, but that he also doesn’t want to create a formal role for prime ministerial spouses going forward so that there is no obligation for the future. There is a certain amount of sense to this position, but it’s a very fine line to walk. Currently, she has one assistant and is given help from PMO staff on an ad hoc basis, as needed. Speculation with the staffing changes made to the household, particularly around nannies, has to do with creating space on the staff for an additional assistant for Grégoire Trudeau, but we have yet to see that materialise. None of it answers the specific existential question however on the role that prime ministerial spouses play. The reluctance to create an official position is a good instinct to have, especially because it bears reminding again and again that we are already a constitutional monarchy, and we have a royal family to take on these particular roles. In fact, the GG and his spouse also take on these kinds of feel-good roles in the absence of a more present royal family, which leaves very little room for a prime ministerial spouse to take it on. What they have to trade in – particularly Grégoire Trudeau – is a kind of celebrity status, especially as the previous few prime ministerial spouses haven’t had much in the way of a career of their own, and for Grégoire Trudeau, it has become her career to be a public speaker at events and for particular charity groups – and there’s nothing wrong with that. It nevertheless makes for a sticky situation with who pays for the help that such a career entails, particularly if it becomes an important optical consideration that she not be paid for the work (and if she were paid, even on a cost-recovery basis, one can already imagine people hissing “how dare she!” on accepting money from charities no matter that it’s the cost of doing business and standard practice). So we are between that proverbial rock and hard place. I don’t have a solution to offer either than to say that there is no winning, and it now becomes a way of finding the least unpalatable option, and that may wind up being what Trudeau is signalling – resources but the explicit rule that this is not formalising the role in any way. His reminding people that we have a royal family for these kinds of things wouldn’t hurt either so that we can stop this constant “First Lady” talk.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bills left unpassed

Posted on by

While the House of Commons may have risen for the summer on Friday, they did so with an unusual number of bills waiting to pass third reading, not to mention the fact that Bill C-7 on RCMP unionization is heading back to them after the Senate amends it (and those amendments have passed at the committee stage and are awaiting third reading vote). What is most unusual to me is the fact that C-7 was another bill that was in response to a Supreme Court decision that also was granted an extension, and still managed to miss its deadline and remains un-passed. Now, the government is prepared to allow it go un-passed through the summer, despite the fact that while it was under consideration on the Commons side, they insisted they couldn’t make substantive amendments to the bill because of the deadline. That deadline has passed, and they are willing to now let it go through the summer, the sense of urgency suddenly evaporated? How? It makes no sense. And looking at the other bills that they haven’t passed yet, there are two that are both awaiting Third Reading and could have passed if they’d sat for an extra couple of days: C-2 on their vaunted income tax changes, and C-4 on undoing the Conservatives’ changes to labour rights. Why they’re letting these languish through the summer – particularly C-4, which keeps some pretty onerous regulations for labour unions on the books – is frankly mystifying.

I will say that the mood in the Commons was strangely exhausted by the time Friday rolled around, when they hadn’t even been doing late-night sittings up to this point in order to get things passed an off to the Senate (often with the expectation to get those bills passed as well before rising themselves). In fact, normally by this time, MPs are outright feral, and the tone in the Commons could generally be compared to jeering, hooting baboons. Mind you, we had The Elbowing and that associated drama a few weeks ago, and as someone remarked to me the other day (and if I could remember who you were when I had this conversation, I would credit you), they basically peaked too soon this year. And that very well could be. It still makes no sense that they would leave these two bills on the Order Paper waiting for final debate, or not waiting for C-7 to come back from the Senate. But then again, there have been a lot of questionable choices made this spring, so perhaps we should chalk it up to more of that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A test of bicameral wills?

Posted on by

Whether through stubbornness or pique, the House of Commons voted to adopt nearly all of the amendments the Senate proposed to Bill C-14, with the exception of the biggest and most important one – the one which would eliminate the requirement of a “reasonably foreseeable” death before someone could be granted medical assistance in dying. And then, the Commons more or less announced that tomorrow will be their last sitting day before they rise for the summer, essentially daring the Senate to return a bill to a chamber that has gone home (well, they are supposed to come back on the 29th for Obama’s address), and leaving the spectre of there being no law in place, which has all manner of medical community stakeholders concerned (never mind that the framework of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Carter decision is in place and would ensure that nobody would be charged for providing the service). It’s a little more ballsy than I would have given the Liberals credit for a few weeks ago, particularly before I saw the background paper that Jody Wilson-Raybould released with her…questionable justification for drafting the law the way it was. Now comes the difficult part – will the Senate stick to their guns and insist that the amendments to eliminate “reasonably foreseeable” be maintained if the bill is to remain constitutional, or will they back down because they’ve made their point and the Commons is the elected chamber?

This is the part where I chime in with a few reminders that this is the reason why our Senate exists the way it does – it enjoys institutional independence and cannot be threatened by the Commons so that they can push back on bills they find unconstitutional, particularly a controversial one like this, where MPs are proving themselves to be timid in the face of a Supreme Court of Canada decision that lays out what they deem to be an appropriate constitutional reading of the issue – something the government is basically flouting in an attempt to push back on this bit of social evolution for as long as possible. And as I’ve stated before, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the Commons is waiting for the Senate to “force” them to advance things. Will it turn into a ping-pong between the chambers? Not for much longer, I would say, but it is going to depend on who blinks. If the Senate does dig in its heels on this and insist that doing otherwise would be to let an unconstitutional bill pass, then there is every reason to suspect the government take the “forced into this” option and let the Senate be the punching bag when religious and disability groups complain. There are people suggesting that the Supreme Court should break the impasse, which I would loudly denounce because it’s the very last thing we need. It’s not their job, and it would signal a complete abdication of the rights of Parliament and Responsible Government that our predecessors fought long and hard for. (Also, stop demanding these bills be referred to the Court – legislating is not a game of “Mother May I?”). This whole exercise is why the Senate exists. Let’s let them do their jobs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Save your prayers

Posted on by

As reaction to the Orlando shooting started to roll in, the rote phrase of “thoughts and prayers” was pretty much stock on most public officials’ tweets and posts, including in Canada. The Governor of Florida went so far as to say that now was a time for prayer. And yes, reaction to these kinds of events is now rote and ritualised, and it gets worse with every time that it happens.

https://twitter.com/scott_gilmore/status/742066737995231232

In this particular incidence, however, people calling for prayer are precisely the wrong thing to say. Why? This was a crime directed at the LGBT community (in this instance, particularly gay men), and it should not bear reminding that this is a community that has to deal with spiritual violence directed toward them on a consistent basis. What exactly do you think that calling for prayer for a community that is constantly told that they’re going to hell means to them? Do you think it somehow comforts them to know that the same god who is wielded against them is supposed to be looking after them? Really? As well, the fact that the word “homophobia” is absent from most of the leaders’ statements is a problem in my opinion.

While it’s all well and good to call it domestic terrorism – which it undoubtedly is – the problem with that narrative, particularly with an ostensibly Muslim shooter (that he may have declared allegiance to ISIS being entirely irrelevant) is that it diminishes the act perpetrated against the targeted community. Both Trudeau and Ambrose are supportive of the LGBT community, of that there is no doubt, but for them not to call out homophobia point blank is disappointing, particularly because words matter, and when the word they choose is “terrorism,” it sets up for a specific response, and in today’s climate, that response gears toward Islamophobia instead. Across the Twitter Machine, people insisted that it was Islam who planted the seeds of homophobia in the shooter, which is rich considering how much the Christian right-wing in America uses blatant homophobia (and more recently transphobia) for political ends. But suddenly these same American politicians care about the lives of 50 people gunned down in a gay nightclub (without ever having to say the words “gay” or “homophobia,” natch). Fortunately, things are a little better on this side of the border.

I would like to see more statements like Rempel’s, where homophobia is called out, and there are no calls for prayer; and likewise with Oliphant’s, who reminds people that Muslims are not automatically homophobes or hate-mongers. Words matter. We should ensure that they are used wisely.

Continue reading →