Tag Archives: Canadian History

Roundup: Not a looming crisis

Posted on by

Everyone spent yesterday lighting their hair on fire based on this “buried” government report that was full of scary numbers, like growing deficits going out to 2050 that reached the $1 trillion mark, and wasn’t this just the sign of how reckless Liberal spending was, and so on. The headline in fact read “looming fiscal crisis.” The Conservatives in particular tried to push some rather questionable narratives about how much better fiscal managers they were, complete with a little chart that was a work of fiction that Dame Barbara Cartland would be proud of.

Of course, it’s all complete and utter twaddle. For one, the report points to the fact that the debt-to-GDP ratio continues to decline, which means that the economy is growing and the deficit is not proportionally. That is a big deal. And if you believe that the Conservatives would have a trillion-dollar surplus in the same amount of time, give your head a shake because they not only built their “balanced” budget on a foundation of sand in 2015, but they continued to insist that they would cut taxes rather than let surpluses accumulate (and hey, remember how their desire to cut the GST in a hurry left them with a deficit before the 2008 financial crisis even hit? Yeah. Prudent fiscal management there, what with the desire to put populism before good economics). Not to mention, as Andrew Coyne points out, the whole exercise was just that – a paper exercise based on a number of projections on a spreadsheet, not an actual economic forecast, which you wouldn’t actually do for 40 year timelines because that’s literally crazy-talk.

The question becomes, however, does this become a narrative that hangs around the Liberals’ necks like an albatross? They’re already using it as showing why they’re taking a harder line against the provinces demands for increased healthcare spending, and about approaching new spending with caution. But it also lends credence to their project for trying to restructure the economy to kick-start growth that is otherwise sluggish. Will it work? It remains to be seen. But without trying to sound like some kind of apologist, would it kill a single journalist writing the stories around said report to mention the debt-to-GDP ratio? Provide some actual context for those numbers, rather just present the scary trillion-dollar deficit figure and brand it a looming crisis, when it very clearly is not? But that might require something other than the usual kinds of cheap outrage that our journalism tends to peddle, making us all the poorer for it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Desmond’s deserving recognition

Posted on by

The news was announced yesterday that Bill Morneau had chosen Canadian civil rights icon Viola Desmond to grace the new $10 banknote, which is being hailed pretty much universally as an excellent choice, and certainly the one that I had been hoping for when the shortlist was announced. As soon as it was announced, though, we got inundated with a flood of headlines declaring Desmond to be “Canada’s Rosa Parks,” which starts to grate because Desmond’s stand against segregation began nine years before Parks’ did, but she has largely been an unknown in Canadian history. I hadn’t even really heard of her until the History Minute last year (and side note, not only was it a compelling story, but I was pleased to see that Battlestar Galactica’s Kandyce McClure played her), and it was a reminder that yes, we too had segregation in Canada, albeit a subtler one because it wasn’t entrenched in legislation. That Canadians identify Parks before Desmond is part of our problem with our own history, both in that we have a tendency to whitewash much of it, but also that we are so inundated with Americana that our own achievements get lost in it (such as when Upper Canada was the first jurisdiction in the British Empire to end slavery). Of course, part of why Desmond’s case has been obscured in history has to do with the fact that her case was ostensibly one related to tax evasion (for the one cent theatre tax she did not pay to sit in the lower seats despite requesting to pay the higher priced ticket) and her lawyer didn’t push the racial discrimination angle in court. Hopefully, this inclusion will help to rectify this wrong, to restore Desmond’s rightful place in the history books and in the popular consciousness about civil rights in Canada.

Chatelaine has seven facts about Desmond. Former Nova Scotia lieutenant governor Maryann Francis talks about when she was able to give a Free Pardon posthumously for Desmond and the meaning of it for her. Maclean’s digs into its archives to look at Desmond and the issues of racism in Nova Scotia going back decades.

Meanwhile, there have been a few comments about how our wartime prime ministers, Sir Robert Borden and William Lyon Mackenzie King will no longer be gracing banknotes, while Sir John A Macdonald and Sir Wilfred Laurier are moving from the $5 and $10 banknotes to the $50 and $100, with accusations that this means that we’re somehow “effacing history.” The thing is, Borden and King are in plenty of other places in our history books, while a person like Desmond is not. I think we have room enough to learn about the contributions of more than just the great white men of history and making it more inclusive. That’s hardly effacing history – it’s opening it up.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A warning or a betrayal?

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau made some comments to Le Devoir about the reduced sense of urgency around electoral reform, and a bunch of people – notably the NDP – freaked out. Trudeau said:

Under Stephen Harper, there were so many people unhappy with the government and their approach that people were saying, ‘It will take electoral reform to no longer have a government we don’t like’. But under the current system, they now have a government they’re more satisfied with and the motivation to change the electoral system is less compelling.

And then comes the parsing of the rhetoric – is he trying to walk back on his election promise that 2015 was the last election under first-past-the-post, or is he trying to give signals to the electoral reform committee as they begin to draft their report after their summer of consultations across the country? To the NDP (and Ed Broadbent of his eponymously named Institute), Trudeau’s comments are a betrayal because to them, he can only deliver proportional representation or bust. Their working premise is that Trudeau was saying that because the system elected Liberals it’s fine, but when it elected Conservatives, it was broken. But I’m not sure that’s what Trudeau was actually saying, because the prevailing popular discussion pre-election was that reform was needed because any system that delivered Conservative majorities was deemed illegitimate – one of those kinds of talking points that gives me hives because it presumes that electoral reform needs to be done for partisan reasons. And to that extent, Trudeau is right, that the sense of urgency has decreased because the Conservatives are no longer in power, so there’s less clamour for it to happen. There is also the theory that what Trudeau was signalling was that there are degrees of acceptable change, and that without as much broad support that smaller change like ranked ballots could be something he would push through (seeing as we all know that the committee is going to be deadlocked).

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/788788763854077952

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/788789074228371457

Kady O’Malley, on the other hand, thinks that Trudeau is signalling to the NDP and Greens that they should be willing to compromise on PR during the committee deliberations, or he’ll deem it a stalemate and either walk away or put it to a referendum, where it would almost certainly be doomed. Rona Ambrose says that it could signal that Trudeau is backing down, which the Conservatives would like (and to be perfectly honest, I would too because the system is not broken and electoral reform is a solution in search of a problem). That he may have found the excuse to back down and admit this election promise is a failure – and then move on – would be the ideal move in my most humble opinion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Beware blinkered history

Posted on by

There is always a danger in trying to look for lessons from history when you do so selectively. This is the case with a column by William Watson in today’s Ottawa Citizen. Watson – an economics professor at McGill and not a parliamentary observer, it should be noted – dug through the 1917 Hansard to look over the debates on bringing in income tax (remember, this was the “temporary” wartime measure that was introduced and then eventually became a permanent thing), and discovered that lo, the debate was so much more serious then and nothing like things are today, ergo Parliament was better in 1917 than it is today.

And then I bashed my head against my desk for a while.

This is what happens when you take a look at a narrow slice of history without actually looking at the broader context or picture. It’s easy to take a single debate and declare a golden age because hey, the government of the day was giving complex answers to complex questions, but that’s not to say that there weren’t antics that took place. Remember that this was not far removed from the days when MPs would light firecrackers and play musical instruments to disrupt the other side during debate. Hell, I was speaking to a reporter who was in the Gallery during WWII, and she said that there was far less professionalism in those days, and MPs who got bored would often break into song during debate. This was also the era before TV, before the proceedings were recorded in audio or video and able to be checked, so we don’t know what the transcriptionists missed. It was also an era where I’m sure that time limits for questions and answers were looser than they are now, and where MPs weren’t playing up for the cameras. Does that make it better? Maybe, maybe not. Parliament was also composed entirely of white men, mostly of a professional background – does that make things any better? You tell me. Parliament had very different responsibilities in those days as well, and government was much, much smaller. Patronage ruled the day, and government was more involved in direct hires of the civil service rather than it being arm’s length. Is this something we want to go back to? Watson kind of shrugs this important distinction off because they had more meaningful exchanges about income tax.

Declaring simply that Parliament was composed of “intelligent, informed adults” in 1917, and the implication that it is not so today, is a grossly blinkered view of history and of civics. I will be the first to tell you that the state of debate today is pretty abysmal when it mostly consists of people reading statements into the record, talking past one another, but that doesn’t mean that MPs aren’t intelligent or informed. Frankly, it seems like Watson is longing for the days of the old boys’ club if you read some of his nostalgic commentary. I’m not sure that’s proof that things were better then, and it certainly should be a caution about taking a blinkered view of history.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A milestone Pride

Posted on by

Though he had committed to it long before the shootings in Orlando, there was a particularly importance to the visibility that Canadian political leaders brought to Toronto Pride this year, and for the first time, a sitting Prime Minister marched, alongside an openly lesbian Ontario premier. For the first time, the Conservative party leaders, both federally and provincially marched, along with leadership candidates Maxime Bernier, Kellie Leitch, and Michael Chong (and Lisa Raitt, should she decide to throw her hat into the ring). Absent however was outgoing federal NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, which is unusual considering how the NDP generally pride themselves on being at Pride. And yes, Elizabeth May was there for her tenth year in a row as well. This year, being in the shadow of Orlando, was a reminder that yes, Pride is political, and the actions of Black Lives Matter Toronto added to that politicisation (make of their tactics what you will). That you had the entire political spectrum in Canada represented for the first time was a milestone worth noting.

In a place where a Pride parade really matters, one happened in Steinbach, Manitoba, after much pushback from the local political leaders, in a place where openly gay and lesbian people have literally been run out of town by harassment and bullying. Visibility is important, particularly in these smaller towns where ignorance and fear go hand-in-hand, making the need to be visible all the more important, lest nothing change.

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: Further conversations on constitutional conventions

Posted on by

In response to my blog post yesterday on the our unwritten portions of our constitution being just as important as the written parts, I had a lot of response over the Twitter Machine, many trying to argue that parties were not an integral part of the system, but historian Christopher Moore took the time out to chastise me for the use of the term “constitutional conventions” when it comes to Responsible Government. But the problem is that Moore is actually wrong in what he tried to argue. To wit:

Smith should look at Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which sets out in plain language that only the cabinet can make and propose the raising and spending of money. That is what defines the role of the cabinet of ministers. It budgets; it plans the getting and spending.  But then there is Section 53, which bluntly states that only the House of Commons can give approval to the cabinet’s proposals for getting and spending.

A few problems with this. First of all, he’s citing the Constitution Act, 1867 and not 1982, and looking at Section 54, there is no mention of cabinet at all:

It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.

As is consistent in our constitution, there is no mention of a PM, or cabinet, because they are part of Responsible Government, which as I pointed out yesterday are part of the unwritten conventions that we inherited from the UK. As is consistent with the rest of the written constitution, only the Governor General is mentioned. And here’s the kicker: the unwritten constitutional convention is that under Responsible Government, the Crown – by way of the GG – acts on the advice of ministers, and for that to happen, ministers must hold the confidence of the Chamber. Ministers via the convention do all executive government in the Queen’s name. It’s not written because it’s a convention, per the preamble, as a constitution being similar in principle to that of the UK. Moore’s contention that it’s not a convention and that it’s embedded in the text does not hold. So while I’m happy to be corrected when I get it wrong (and it happens), this is not one of those times. Also, if you’re going to quote the constitution at me, then quote the constitution. And as for those people on the Twitter Machine insisting that Responsible Government can function without parties, well, it’s possible in a theoretical world with vampires and unicorns, but it will never happen in real life, so trying to disprove it to make a point is pretty much moot. The practice of parties developed for a reason. Maintaining confidence without them is a fool’s errand.

With many thanks to Philippe Lagassé for talking this issue through with me.

Continue reading →

QP: The PM is going to Washington

Posted on by

Monday after a constituency week, and the PM was in Toronto to play with a pandas and talk to Huffington Post readers in a video town hall. Rona Ambrose led off, asking about the possibility of the Afghanistan war memorial being cancelled. Kent Hehr responded that the Veterans Affairs was working with Heritage Canada, with more to come in a few months. Ambrose changed topics, asking about Trudeau meeting with the Centre for American Progress, repeating some of their statements about the oil sands. Catherine McKenna reminded Ambrose that they believe that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. Ambrose then changed to the TD Economics projection for ballooning deficits, but Scott Brison was having none of it, reminding her of the debt legacy of the previous government and stated that they would not cut ideologically. Denis Lebel was up next, after a long absence from the Chamber, during which he repeated the Centre for American Progress question in French, and he got the same answer from McKenna in French. For the final question, Lebel repeated the TD question in French, and Brison repeated his own answer in French. Thomas Mulcair next, asking about the upcoming vote on their EI motion. MaryAnn Mihychuk reminded him that they are working hard to reform the EI system to help workers, which was coming shortly. Mulcair repeated the question with some additional notes about EI vote the Liberals made in the previous parliament, but got the same answer. Mulcair changed topics to the softwood lumber negotiations, asking if the PM would take a stand in Washington. David Lametti responded that they were working to maintain stable access in the US market. Mulcair then lamented the lack of new targets or timelines from the Vancouver meeting. McKenna insisted that carbon pricing mechanisms were on the way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Looking to avoid mistakes

Posted on by

The defence minister’s slow rollout of the new plans going forward in the Iraq mission to combat ISIS has been providing the government an opening in which to be attacked by both sides, but when Harjit Sajjan hits back against the government, there have been a few cries by the Conservatives that are a wee bit defensive. When Sajjan suggests that there were failures, the Conservatives wonder aloud if that means the girls who are going to school, or the humanitarian work that’s been done over the years. Sajjan, who was on the ground in Afghanistan for three tours, and has mused openly about looking to avoid the same kinds of mistakes, has plenty of ammunition to choose from. Read any book about the mission, and you’ll find countless examples of problems of poor management, poor communication, and as Sajjan has noted, unintended consequences of actions we’ve taken that helped our enemies in the longer term, particularly with recruitment. That he wants to take the time to get a new mission on the ground in Iraq right is hardly surprising in this context, but everyone demands answers. Meanwhile, Canada’s in the bottom third of allies in NATO for defence spending, which shouldn’t surprise anyone, though it has noted that capability and spending levels are not necessarily the same thing, and that countries who meet spending targets are generally useless.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Overwrought defences

Posted on by

Plenty of developments in the Senate yesterday, all of them resignation related. Manitoba Senator Maria Chaput resigned due to health concerns, Conservative Senator Irving Gerstein has reached his mandatory retirement age, and Senate Liberal Senator Pierrette Ringuette has resigned from the Senate Liberal caucus to sit as an Independent. As part of the tributes to Gerstein, there were some overwrought statements on the Conservative side about the value of political fundraisers, and I will say that I’m not one of those people who has a kneejerk reaction to fundraisers who get appointed to the Senate. Why? Because these are people who interact with the voters as much as MPs do, and have a pretty good sense of what their issues are (if only to exploit them for political gain). It’s like being aghast that there’s politics in politics. Granted, the tone out of the Conservative Senate caucus these days of “See! There’s nothing wrong with being partisan!” isn’t helping their case any, but on a fundamental level they’re right. They just need to tone it down from an eleven to a two or a three. As for Ringuette, I will note that the fetishised tones being used to describe the “desire for an independent Senate” are as equally overwrought as the Conservatives’ defence of partisanship. I was particularly struck by Ringuette going on Power & Politics and declaring that there’s nothing in the constitution that says that the Senate has to be a partisan body, therefore she and others of that mindset feel that there’s no role for partisanship. Where that argument falls apart is that it’s right in the preamble of the constitution itself – that Canada has a political system like that of the United Kingdom, and last I checked, its upper chamber was also a partisan body (and no, this isn’t an invitation to compare the Senate to the House of Lords, because they are very different institutions, but the principle of the upper chamber remains). People who insist that something isn’t in the constitution (*cough*Elizabeth May*cough*) ignore the unwritten parts of it, which are just as valid as the written parts, and it’s not an adequate defence for how they imagine institutions to function. So while it’s good on Ringuette to want to go her own way, I do think that the conversation around independent senators is still in its early stages, and I have no doubt that there are plenty of surprises on the way.

Continue reading →