Tag Archives: Constitution

Roundup: Danielle Smith threatens to use a magical incantation

Posted on by

Alberta premier Danielle Smith has launched a new ad campaign trying to agitate against the federal government over the clean electricity regulations, trying to get other provinces to similarly fight back against them, claiming that people will freeze in the dark, and there will be rolling blackouts, and so on. None of this is actually true, and the fact that energy prices in her province have shot up have little to do with the clean electricity transition than the choices that her government made around how those prices are regulated. She has also lied and said that because the federal regulations use the criminal law powers that energy CEOs will be jailed in 2035 if they still use natural gas—an absolute falsehood that is not only lurid for the sake of scoring points, but ignores that not every criminal penalty is jail, but can mean large fines (because fines over a certain size become the domain of criminal law instead of administrative monetary penalties.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1707491205678858379

The most hilarious part, however, is that Smith is “threatening” to invoke her risible “Sovereignty Act” to fight these regulations, which will do absolutely nothing. She might as well threaten to use a magical incantation for all of the good it will do. Unfortunately, there are far too many credulous journalists and pundits who actually believe that this kind of magical incantation has any power, which is disappointing and allows Smith to continue with her nonsense.

Anyway, here’s Andrew Leach with some actual facts that Smith is missing.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Not a lot of news out of Ukraine yesterday, except for a visit from NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who says that Ukraine is gaining ground in their counter-offensive, while president Volodymyr Zelenskyy continues to call for more air defences, given how many drone attacks they have been under in recent nights.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The reason we don’t have a “First Lady”

Posted on by

In a bid to find an angle on the Trudeau separation story, the CBC gave us a look at how in Canada, the position of prime minister’s spouse is untitled and unofficial—which is true. But nowhere in the piece does it mention the reason why, which is because we’re a constitutional monarchy. That’s pretty much the whole reason why the spouse of the prime minister has no official title or role, because as head of government, the prime minister doesn’t merit the same symbolic weight of a president in a republic, who is their head of state. Hence, their spouse because the “First” lady/gentleman, because they occupy that symbolic position. And there is good reason for why we organise our government like this, because in our system, it keeps prime ministers in check by not assigning them the symbolism or honours, and prevents them from creating cults of personality around it. The arrangement is that our head of state—or more properly, our sovereign—has the power, and the prime minister “borrows” or exercises it on their behalf, and that helps to keep them in check.

To that end, our sovereign is King Charles III, so if we had a “First Lady,” it would be Queen Camila. And could this CBC piece actually point this out or acknowledge it? Of course not. The piece did note that spouses of the Governor General are also granted the use of the title of “Your Excellency,” but it also omitted that there was a practice where we gave the spouse of the Governor General the title of “Chatelaine of Rideau Hall” when it was only women in the role, but it has fallen into disuse. I think we should absolutely revive it, and employ something like Châtelain or Castellan for a male spouse, particularly because they tend to play a fairly active role, unlike the spouse of a prime minister.

One of the good things about the fact that the role of a prime minister’s spouse is that it gives them the flexibility to be as involved or uninvolved as they choose to be. Laureen Harper preferred to remain out of the spotlight and kept her advocacy to things like fostering homeless cats. Sophie Grégoire Trudeau had a public profile of her own before her high-profile marriage and his becoming prime minister, so she could use that profile to pursue her own projects around mental health and wellness that didn’t have to be tied to the government. She did complain that she needed more staff to deal with the volume of requests being asked of her, but I would hesitate before we put some kind of formal mechanisms into place to make this a more official role because we’re not Americans, and these are roles that the Queen and the Governor General and their spouse should be doing more than the spouse of a prime minister.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine is investigating the attacks on grain port infrastructure as possible war crimes. Here is a look at the de-mining work that Ukrainian forces need to undertake on the front lines as Russians have booby-trapped everything, including the bodies of their own dead. And audits have uncovered corruption at Ukrainian military recruitment centres, which president Volodymyr Zelenskyy calls “revolting.”

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1687124892951408641

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inflation falling into the control range

Posted on by

The inflation numbers were out yesterday, and headline inflation dropped to 2.8 percent annualized, which is the lowest in the G7, and back within the Bank of Canada’s control range of 1 to 3 percent (though they have stated they are going to keep measures in place it reaches two percent). There are still hot spots—food price inflation is still fairly high, and shelter costs are also running high, but that’s not unexpected given where things are at right now.

Chrystia Freeland called this news a “milestone moment” that Canadians should feel some relief in, while the Conservatives repeated some of their usual talking points. The NDP, naturally, are keeping up with their attempt to blame high inflation on corporate greed, particularly food price inflation, even though the data doesn’t really bear that out, as I pointed out in this thread:

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces struck the southern port city of Odessa, and while most of the missiles and drones were intercepted, there were hits and there was damage from debris. This was considered to be retaliation for the explosion on the bridge linking Russia to occupied Crimea. More strikes are aimed at Odessa in the early morning hours. Meanwhile, with the Black Sea grain deal ended by Russia, the EU is looking to transport more Ukrainian grain by rail and road, while the UN says they are floating “a number of ideas” around how to get that grain flowing again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Opposing amendments at committee

Posted on by

I find myself amused by the ongoing stories that some Liberal MPs may vote against the official languages bill when it comes out of committee as amended, and the constant oh noes! Trudeau is losing control of his caucus! narrative that accompanies it. This said, there are egregious amendments that I have a hard time believing that they’re in order, because they reference provincial legislation in Quebec. For example, the change to the preamble of the bill to acknowledge Quebec’s Law 96 should have no place in federal legislation. There is also an amendment that says that if federal and provincial language laws come into conflict, the provincial law (especially Quebec’s Law 96) takes precedence, which is against every single constitutional practice and statutory interpretation principle in this country, and beyond that, it sets an absolutely terrible precedent for other areas of the law where one level of government tries to impose something on another jurisdiction, and because this one went unchallenged its okay. Yeah, we don’t want that to happen.

As mentioned, these are a result of Conservative and Bloc amendments, and the Conservatives are back to pandering to Quebec voters (and François Legault) by being as shameless as possible in trying to out-bloc the Bloc, and in some cases, they are being supported by the NDP’s Niki Ashton. It stands to reason that if the government objects to a number of these amendments, they can vote them down during report stage debate, and that would mean the whole chamber is voting, not just the Bloc and the Conservatives, so it could be enough votes to ensure that these amendments are left out of the final bill, which would mean this “rebellion” by a few Liberal MPs has done its job. There are still a couple of meetings left for this bill in committee, so we’ll see what the final shape of the bill looks like.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 358:

Russian troops are mounting constant attacks, and are claiming to have broken through two fortified lines in the Luhansk region (but they make lots of claims that aren’t true), while the regional governor denies that Ukrainian troops are in retreat. The Russians have been changing their tactics at Bakhmut, moving in smaller groups, without the support of tanks or armoured personnel carriers, and the Ukrainians are adapting to the new tactics. Reuters has a photo essay of one family’s evacuation from the area near Bakhmut, during which their grandmother died in the van.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1625861957549948929

Continue reading →

QP: Re-litigating the hotel room

Posted on by

While the PM and his deputy were on their way back from Hazel McCallion’s funeral in Mississauga, most of the other leaders were also absent from the Chamber for QP. Andrew Scheer led off, like a flashback, and after a preamble of nonsense about inflation, he demanded to know why the prime minister billed taxpayers for a “$7000” hotel room (that number has been inflated) which he neglected to mention was for the funeral of the Queen. Ahmed Hussen got up and listed housing measures that the government put in place that the Conservatives voted against. Scheer tried again, this time comparing the cost of that hotel room to mortgage payments. Hussen repeated his same response. Scheer then raised the National Post story about trying to stifle disclosure of that information, and this time Rob Oliphant raised that this was for the Queen’s funeral, and that the delegation was appropriate for that occasion. Dominique Vien took over in French, and the cost of the hotel room was back to $6000 and demanded the government cap spending. Pascale St-Onge got up to say that the spending was targeted to those who need it most, while the Conservatives seek to cut that help. Vien and St-Onge went another round of the same with little difference.

Alain Therrien led for Bloc, and he thundered about health transfers, saying that provinces don’t really agree and accused the federal government of chronic underfunding, which is not exactly true. Adam van Koeverden read a statement about how pleased they are with the “agreement.” Therrien demanded over and over about “35 percent!” This time Pablo Rodriguez wondered where Therrien was with all of the newspaper headlines talking about an “agreement.”

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and cited a StatsCan figure about people struggling, and turned this into a demand that the government stop the Rogers-Shaw merger. François-Philippe Champagne said that he wanted more competition in the sector. Singh wondered if that meant that he would oppose the merger today, then switched to French to repeat his question. Champagne repeated his enthusiasm for competition.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A baffling way to fast-track a bill

Posted on by

The House of Commons began their fast-tracked debate on Bill C-39 yesterday, which is the bill to delay the onset of making mental disorder the sole criteria for accessing Medical Assistance in Dying, but even before debate got started, the government moved their motion to fast-track it in the most unusual and frankly unserious way possible. The motion extends sittings to midnight Monday and Wednesday (they sat until about 10:30 last night), all in the service of second reading debate. At midnight or collapse of debate on Wednesday, the bill is deemed to have been adopted at second reading, deemed to have been send to committee of the whole, deemed adopted and reported back, deemed to be adopted at third reading, and sent off to the Senate. The same motion also authorized the justice committee to sit as long as they need to today to consider the bill, and to be given priority of resources (i.e. interpreters) from any other committee for their study. But they don’t actually report back to the Commons (remember it is deemed to have gone to committee of the whole), so I’m not sure what the point of the exercise is.

Procedurally, this is bonkers, and furthermore, it just exacerbates the fact that we have a completely broken understanding of what second reading debate is supposed to be in this country. It’s where you debate the overall purpose of the bill, and it should last a single afternoon, with a handful speeches and some debate, and then be sent off to committee where they can do the real work. But instead, our Parliament has decided that second reading debate needs days upon days of canned speeches—particularly on a bill like this where everyone can stand up and say how “deeply personal” the issue is, and where a large number of Conservatives in particular can decry it and repeat a bunch of false assertions and misinformation about what this is supposed to be about. None of how they went about this makes any sense (and I remind you that the bill is one line). If all of the parties decided to fast-track this, there should have been a single speech from each party, and then to send it to committee for actual consideration today, so it can be sent back on Wednesday for final consideration. They didn’t need to contort themselves in this way in order to give everyone speaking time (like they did with the interminable speeches for the invocation of the Emergencies Act).

Once again, this is another signal of how unserious our Parliament is, and that it has devolved into little more than an exercise in reading canned speeches into the record. Nobody is actually being served by this, and our MPs need to grow up and start actually engaging with the material before them.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 356:

Bakhmut and its suburbs are being subjected to heavy shelling as Russia’s new offensive has begun, and Ukraine says that they have fortified their positions in the area. Russians have also struck in Kharkiv, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia regions, and have been fortifying their own positions in the south of the country. Meanwhile, the Secretary-General of NATO warned that Ukraine is using ammunition faster than allies can provide it, and is trying to put pressure on Western defence industries to ramp up production as Russia is with its own industries.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1625178486926196740

Continue reading →

QP: Field-testing a new talking point

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in the building, he didn’t show up for Question Period today, nor did his deputy, but all of the other leaders were present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and decried that the national debt has doubled (ignoring the reason, being the pandemic), and decried that rent and mortgage payments have doubled, worried about seniors, lamented supposed rising crime rates, and then somehow tied this all to McKinsey contracts, because that makes logical sense. Pascale St-Onge got up to agree that it was a difficult period with high inflation, but the government would be there for people who need it. Poilievre wondered if those most in need were McKinsey consultants, and lamented how much the government was spending on consultants (never mind the explosion in such contracts under the Conservative government and in Poilievre’s department in particular when he was a minister). Mark Holland got up to remind the Conservatives that when they were in government, they never talked about poverty or people using food banks, while praising his own government’s record on lifting people out of poverty. Poilievre then accused the government of telling people that they should stop complaining because they’ve never had it so good. Holland called out Poilievre for doing nothing about the situation other than making YouTube videos. Poilievre went on a tear about rental costs—which is provincial responsibility—and red tape preventing housing development—a municipal issue—and blamed the federal government for it. Holland got back up to insist that Poilievre is just amplifying anxiety. Poilievre then accused the government of trying to silence the debate, and demand they fix the problems instead, and Holland reiterated that the government is playing it straight about the problems the country is facing, while Poilievre’s only solution was to tell people to invest in crypto. Poilievre got back up, but had run out of questions. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc to wonder what the Notwithstanding Clause was for if not preemptive use—which is hilariously wrong. David Lametti got up to talk about minority rights, the dialogue between legislatures and the courts, and why the last word should not be the first. Blanchet rambled for a moment before quoting Pierre Trudeau on the Charter, and Lametti reminded him that Charters in Canada and Quebec were about protecting minority rights, and he repeated his point about dialogue with the courts.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and recalled the horrors that were in long-term care homes early in the pandemic and accused the government of doing nothing since, demanding legislated standards—never mind this is provincial jurisdiction. Kamal Khera got up to remind Singh that she was a nurse, and that the government appreciated the work of the Canadian Standards Association in developing national standards. Singh switched to French to lament increased privatisation, and Jean-Yves Duclos insisted they were holding up the principles of access and the public system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fire which gatekeepers?

Posted on by

It sounds like Pierre Poilievre is back on his bullshit again (do the kids still say that?) with his “gatekeeper” nonsense, as in releasing another one of his cringey videos where he promises to “fire the gatekeepers” in order to build housing. Except I’m not sure exactly which gatekeepers he’s proposing to fire, because the biggest impediments to building housing are NIMBY homeowners and neighbourhood associations that oppose any kind of densification, not to mention the elected city councillors who enable said NIMBYism. How, pray tell, does Poilievre propose to “fire them”? I’m sure he’ll tell you that he’ll threaten to withhold federal transfers to municipalities that don’t comply, but then you’ve got elected councillors beholden to voters in conflict with the dictates of a federal leader, so that’s going to be fun.

Poilievre also held a press event in Vancouver yesterday where he unveiled plans to consult on a proposal that would allow First Nations to keep more federal tax revenue from projects on their lands—which sounds like a great policy! But it’s vague, has no details, and is almost certainly going to be a hell of a lot more complicated than he’s making it out to be, especially if he’s going to insist that provincial royalties and taxes won’t be affected either. Listening to the language he used, it also sounds like he hopes that this will be the kind of thing that will ensure projects get built, as though the money from this tax revenue will make concerns over environmental or social impacts evaporate, and I suspect he’ll be surprised when they don’t.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 336:

While Russian forces increase pressure around Bakhmut and Vuhledar, it is expected that Germany will announce today that it will send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, and allow other countries to transfer them as well. Meanwhile, more officials have been named and fired in relation to corruption allegations, as Zelenskyy’s government continues their pledge to clean up the graft in government so that they can attain EU membership.

https://twitter.com/cfoperations/status/1617887130625413123

https://twitter.com/uasupport999/status/1618043593285062656

Continue reading →

Roundup: Say no to a Consultant Commissioner

Posted on by

Because a lot of people continue to be wringing their hands over government contracts to outside consultants, we’re starting to hear a few…less than stellar ideas. One of them came from Paul Wells yesterday, while on the CBC’s Front Burner podcast (Wells’ portion starts at 20:46). While there is some good context from Carleton University professor Amanda Clarke on the size of the problem (thread here), Wells is wrong about two particular portions, and he would have avoided this had he listened to my conversation with professor Jennifer Robson on my YouTube channel last week.

The first is the notion that when these consultants’ job is done, nobody is accountable for the work because most of their agreements mean that it can’t be subject to Access to Information rules, which is wrong. Fundamentally the minister is accountable no matter what. It wouldn’t matter if the work was done by outside consultants or the civil servants in the department, the minister remains responsible, and people seem to be forgetting this in their rush to condemn the consultants. The other part where he’s wrong is his idea to create a “consultant commissioner of Parliament” or other such independent officer.

No. Absolutely not.

We already have way too many gods damned independent officers of parliament, who are unaccountable, and to whom MPs have completely abandoned their constitutional responsibilities of oversight. Sure, the media and the opposition want someone independent they can quote on command to say mean things about the government, but that winds up just creating more bureaucracy, and doesn’t help the overall situation, especially as it drags us further down the road to technocracy rather than parliamentary oversight. The absolute last thing we need are more independent officers, and I wish to gods people would stop proposing them.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 335:

Russian forces have continued to pound the Donetsk region in the country’s east. Russians are also claiming Ukrainians are storing Western weapons in the country’s nuclear power plants, but have provided no proof. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is promising personnel changes at both senior and lower levels after high-profile graft allegations, as part of the country’s attempt to clean up its corruption problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A couple of not-that-scathing reports

Posted on by

The Auditor General released two reports yesterday on pandemic befits programmes and vaccine procurement, and they were…not explosive. Really. There were weak spots from the government, in large part because of the haste in which these programmes were designed because of the pandemic, and some inefficiency, but on the report about vaccines, part of the problem with wastage is because of a lack of provincial data, because the federal government hasn’t been able to sign agreements with the provinces. And as we’ve seen all too often, this is the fault of the provinces.

Nevertheless, the Conservatives were salivating over this release and put on a whole dog and pony show to decry that this was a sign that this government’s “wasteful spending” is what is fuelling inflation, which isn’t true, but this is the narrative they have been trying to push, and these numbers were ripe for the plucking. And as they do with every other officer of Parliament, they misconstrued the report, cherry-picked figures, and cranked up the hyperbole, and lo, this was scandalous. But that’s not what the report found. And it also ignores that they voted unanimously to design the benefit programmes this way because it was more important to get the money out the door.

Anyway, here’s Jennifer Robson’s read of the report, and it’s worth your time.

 

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 287:

Another drone strike within Russia set a third airfield ablaze, though the Ukrainians have not claimed responsibility for the attack. (Video here) More Russian missiles did strike civilian targets in Ukraine, but they were said to be less severe than other attacks in recent weeks. The strikes against Russian airfields have Russian bloggers questioning the competence of their government’s defences.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1600135762179018752

Continue reading →