Tag Archives: Foreign Aid

Roundup: No, fixed election dates don’t give the GG unconstitutional powers

Posted on by

The “debate,” if you can call it such, over Jagmeet Singh’s decision to undermine Her Excellency Mary Simon by publicly writing her and telling her to refuse the advice of the prime minister who commands the confidence of the Chamber just got more ridiculous, as Andrew Coyne decided to weigh in yesterday (and no, I’m not going to link because hate clicks are still clicks). Coyne contends that the fixed election date law empowers the GG to turn down such a request, and “proves” it by quoting testimony from former justice minister Rob Nicholson at the Senate committee.

No. Just…no.

The logic in Coyne’s argument can’t hold because the Governor General’s role in accepting the advice of the prime minister who enjoys the confidence of the Chamber is the very basis of our constitutional framework under Responsible Government. The only discretion she might have over dissolution is when a request is made shortly after an election – that’s it. Nothing a simple statute, like the fixed election date law, can change a constitutional element, and there is jurisprudence to back this up, particularly the doomed attempts at trying to get the courts to uphold the fixed election date legislation, which they dismissed (including the Supreme Court of Canada). Fixed election date legislation is an empty shell – a bit of theatre and attempt to Americanise our system, and is antithetical to how Westminster systems operate – it shouldn’t be on our books as a result. There is no way that it could empower the GG to do away with constitutional norms to refuse dissolution, and if she did refuse, the prime minister would be obligated to resign, and we’d be in an election regardless. It’s ridiculous and wrong to suggest otherwise.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1422914814494584833

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1422925735472271369

What is even more ironic about this whole situation is that Jagmeet Singh and Coyne himself will often rail that the “undemocratic Senate” shouldn’t be allowed to exercise their constitutional powers to veto legislation, and yet they are demanded that an appointed Governor General exercise powers that she doesn’t actually have under the constitution. It’s bizarre, and it’s a lot of bullshit masquerading as principle.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cue the emergency committee meeting

Posted on by

It wouldn’t be summer if we didn’t have an emergency committee meeting of some sort, and we got just that yesterday, as the Conservatives triggered the recall of the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee with an eye to opening an investigation into Liberals contracting database services from a Liberal-friendly company, headed by a personal friend of the prime minister’s. The party has claimed that this is for constituency services, and that there is no data going to party databases (as has been the case with the Conservatives and their own constituency data in the past), and that all of the rules have been followed, but the Conservatives have a narrative they need to feed, so there it went.

In the end, it got nowhere. The Liberals managed to stymie the proceedings long enough for the Bloc MP to side with them in opting not to pursue the matter, but along the way, they (correctly) suggested that this is a matter best suited for the Board of Internal Economy, which deals with MPs’ resources and allocations, and these payments have been coming out of MPs’ office budgets. Of course, the Conservatives (and to an extent the NDP) can’t put on a public dog and pony show at BOIE like they could at the ethics committee, so of course they had no interest in pursuing that course of action – especially after the Liberals also wanted the Conservatives’ database practices included in their referring the study to BOIE.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t issues that could be better explored here, the chief of which is that political parties are exempt from privacy legislation, so there aren’t many effective firewalls around the use of constituency files. And hey, that would be something that the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee should be tackling, because it’s right in their mandate! One Conservative MP also suggested that perhaps the House of Commons build their own constituency file management system so that parties don’t have to contract their own systems, which may not be a bad idea – but it’s one that BOIE would tackle, not the ethics committee. And the point of this exercise was about the dog and pony show, not anything of substance, which is one more reason why this particular session has turned toxic.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Where is the civilian control?

Posted on by

Something rather unusual happened yesterday in that both prime minister Justin Trudeau, and his deputy, Chrystia Freeland, publicly panned the decision by the Chief of Defence Staff to keep the head of the navy on the job after he went on that golf game with the former CDS, General Jonathan Vance, while Vance is under active investigation for past sexual misconduct. But it’s pretty crazy that this happened given how things work under our system.

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1410275366292307969

This boils down to Harijit Sajjan and the fact that he’s not doing his job as minister. He is supposed to be the person in Cabinet who does the civilian control, who manages the CDS, and who ensures that the CDS is doing his job properly, but Sajjan hasn’t been doing that job. If he were, then he wouldn’t have been so incurious as to why the investigation into Vance never took off when the former military ombudsman brought forward the allegations, and he would have taken the opportunity to cycle Vance out of the job and put in someone new rather than renew Vance for another term. These are all things were things Sajjan should have done and didn’t do.

Trudeau, however, keeps insisting that Sajjan is the right person for the job, that he’s not part of the old boys’ club, but that’s part of the problem – Sajjan was an active member of the military when he got elected and had to process his resignation papers while he was named to Cabinet, because technically at that point, the CDS outranked him, which is not good when Sajjan is supposed to be exercising civilian control. That’s why we shouldn’t put former military people into the role – they are not civilian control. This can’t be stressed enough. Sajjan shouldn’t have been put in the role, and hasn’t properly done his job since he’s been in it. It’s time for a new minister, and the sooner the better.

Programming note: I am making a long weekend for myself, so no post tomorrow or Saturday. See you next week!

Continue reading →

QP: Not a question, but a direct plea

Posted on by

On what promises to be the second last QP of the spring sitting, the three opposition leaders were all present, while Justin Trudeau as only available remotely, being in quarantine, once again leading only Mark Gerretsen in the Chamber. Erin O’Toole led off in person, in French, where he read a script about the military ombudsman’s comments on ministerial interference in investigations. Trudeau assured him they were working on the structural and cultural change necessary, including appointing Louise Arbour to reviewing the situation. O’Toole repeated the allegations in French, but didn’t phrase it as a question, but turned it into a plea to Canadians to vote out the Liberals. Trudeau repeated his same response in English. O’Toole then turned to the non-story about the Liberals paying for data services to a company owned by a friend of the prime minister. Trudeau stated this was for constituency casework, which was kept separate from political databases, and all rules were followed. O’Toole tried to turn this into an expansive statement about Liberal “corruption,” and demanded to know if any other contracts were given to Tom Pitfield, and Trudeau talked around the Conservatives slinging mud and hoping to see what would stick. O’Toole produced a document that claims that a contract was given to Pitfield, and Trudeau reiterated that the Conservatives were only focused on narratives and not facts, that all parties use case management databases, and all rules were followed.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, in person, and complained about the new border measures announced yesterday, complaining they were arbitrary. Trudeau insisted this was part of a gradual reopening and more stages would be announced soon. Blanchet complained there were more rules than variants, and Trudeau said that while the leader of the Bloc may want simple answer, but they needed to ensure that Canadians were kept safe. 

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and he railed about that military ombudsman’s report, and Trudeau read that they have been committed to structural and cultural change, and that they have taken more concrete actions recently, including some new appointments and $236 million in the budget. Singh switched to French to complain that some benefit were being reduced, and Trudeau recited that they were there for as long as Canadians needed them, and pleaded with the NDP to pass the budget.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Time allocation in perspective

Posted on by

There seems to be both a sense of amnesia and of performative wailing and garment rending as the government – with the cooperation of opposition parties – has moved time allocation on its budget implementation bill, and extended sitting hours for the final few days of the sitting. The sense of amnesia is that this kind of thing happens every June, every single year (and usually again in December), and that’s how things work. There is absolutely nothing unusual about this state of affairs, and its’ very strange that certain media outlets are making this out to be something unusual. It’s not – if anything, what’s unusual is that there are so few bills that they are trying to get over the finish line in the face of opposition that has spent an extraordinary amount of effort fighting these bills with lies, red herrings, concern trolling, and a complete lack of proportionality.

The fact that the government has imposed time allocation on its budget implementation bill is not unusual, and the fact that it’s ten hours – five at report stage and five more at third reading – is also a fairly generous amount of time, especially when considered in parliamentary terms. It’s essentially two more full days of debate for a regular Tuesday or Thursday sitting day. It’s also not really “debate,” and frankly Elizabeth May’s concerns here are a bit precious – it’s MPs reciting pre-written speeches into the record, with little interaction between them, and when it comes to report stage and third reading, there is specific purpose. The bill already had seven allotted days at second reading, which is bananas – second reading should take a single afternoon because it’s supposed to be where you discuss the overall principles of the bill, and then send it off to committee. It spent thirteen hours at committee of clause-by-clause consideration – which, again, is a fair amount considering that most committee sittings are two hours – where they heard from 65 witnesses in pre-study sessions. Five hours at report stage, to discuss whether or not to adopt the amendments agreed to at committee, is an awful lot of parliamentary time. Same again with third reading, where you are giving final consideration before final passage to the Senate, is more than generous – you are no longer debating the principle, or the details – those have all been agreed to.

This narrative that it’s a “gag” and “cutting debate” is overblown in the context of what is being offered here. This isn’t an abuse of time allocation, like we saw in previous parliaments – it’s a legitimate tool in the face of procedural obstruction, and given that this is a hung parliament, the fact that at least one opposition party is agreeing to the use of this tool makes the narrative a bit silly. But that seems to be the way these things get written up, because there is a general ignorance of procedure and what it all means.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some of the misconceptions around C-10

Posted on by

The other day, I made a somewhat snarky comment over Twitter in response to an op-ed in The Line, because people are still making stuff up about Bill C-10. Like, out of whole cloth, complete fiction, because they do not grasp the basic mechanics of regulation in this country.

So, with this in mind, here are a few reminders. Start by re-reading my piece in National Magazine about the bill. Individual content uploaders are not being regulated – only the platforms themselves. The CRTC is not going to takedown YouTube content, and it’s not going to regulate news. If it regulates Facebook, it’s not regulating the algorithm of timelines – it’s only regulating if Facebook is acting like a broadcaster of scripted content, or when they livestream baseball games (which they have done). The reason why YouTube as a platform, for example, is being targeted is because it is the largest music streaming platform in the world, and this is why they want to bring it into the ambit of CanCon regulations, governing both discoverability (so that the algorithm shows more Canadian artists in suggested playlists), and contributing financially to the system that helps provide grants and royalties for Canadian artists. People keep mentioning Instagram and TikTok, but they’re not really broadcasting platforms.

So how does the CRTC determine what counts as CanCon? Well, they have a formula that assigns points to it, and 6/10 or 8/10 points gets particular CanCon status. These are all determined by regulations under the Broadcasting Act. Remember that legislation is the framework and policy direction – the nitty-gritty rules get determined by regulation, and it follows a process of development that involves stakeholder engagement and consultation, and is done at the bureaucratic level. It’s not Cabinet pulling rules out of their asses, nor should it be. You don’t want Cabinet to be putting its thumb on the scale, which is why there is an arm’s length regulatory body, being the CRTC. And it’s not just the cabal of commissioners who are making these regulations either, in spite of what certain people are claiming.

https://twitter.com/G_Gallant/status/1395427604107300867

This brings me to my next point – the very notion that the CRTC is going to police the whole of social media is completely crackers on the face of it. They barely have enough resources to do their existing job (and if you listen to some of the reasoning around this week’s telecom decision, they seem to think they can’t handle doing the work of wholesale internet prices). If you think they’re going to somehow hire an army of bureaucrats to police your tweets, you should be certifiable.

Now, this isn’t to say that C-10 is without problems, because they are there. For one, the Broadcasting Act may be the wrong vehicle for this, as it was about regulating the limited bandwidth for TV and radio. It will be on platforms to adjust their algorithms to make CanCon more discoverable, which is going to be the high-level work, but there are particular concerns around meeting the objectives under the Act, which involve things like “safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,” and whether these platforms will moderate content to try and fit those objectives, and that moderation will likely involve the use of AI, which is where we have particular concerns. And those are legitimate concerns, but they have nothing to do with the Orwellian picture being painted of moderated tweets, and newsfeeds being monkeyed with, or “takedown notices.” The level of complete hysteria around this bill, rooted in a complete ignorance of how regulatory bodies work – and a great deal of partisan disinformation – is making the debate around this bill utterly loony (at least in English Canada). Yes, it’s complicated, but don’t fall for easy narratives.

Continue reading →

QP: Hypocrisy and expletives

Posted on by

On a rainy Monday in the nation’s capital, and at the start of a fourth consecutive week of sittings where tempers were getting frayed, there as once again only a single Liberal MP in the Chamber — Mark Gerretsen, of course. Candice Bergen off by video, and she groused that the defence committee meeting was cancelled this morning, alleging a cover-up, then said that the prime minister wouldn’t answer if he would have dismissed General Vance if he knew the nature of the allegations facing him. Harjit Sajjan noted that he appeared at the committee for six hours, and that they also heard from Stephen Harper’s chief of staff about what happened in 2015 when they appointed Vance while he was still under active investigation. Bergen accused the prime minster of not taking the allegations against Vance seriously because of the groping allegations levelled against him around the same time, and Sajjan instead raised that when the investigation against Vance was dropped on 2015, it was because of “pressure” and we wondered who was applying it. Bergen then tried to bring in what the prime minister’s chief of staff knew, for which Sajjan repeated that they knew about rumours against Vance and still appointed him anyway. Gérard Deltell returned to the issue of the defence committee cancelling its meeting this morning, crying that there was a cover up, for which committee chair Karen McCrimmon stated that they were developing recommendations, and there would be another meeting later in the week. Deltell then asked if PMO emails raised the possibility it was an issue of sexual harassment, why they did nothing about it. Sajjan repeated that the leader of the opposition knew of a rumour of misconduct and the Conservatives still appointed Vance while he was under active investigation. 

Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, staying on the topic of the Vance allegations and accused Sajjan of contributing to the culture of silence in the military, and Sajjan recited this lines about taking the proper steps and alerting PMO. Therrien raised the appointment of Louise Arbour, while Sajjan insisted that politicians should not involve themselves in investigations. 

Rachel Blaney led for the NDP, and she too demanded action on the Arbour appointment over action, to which Sajjan repeated again that they are taking actions, including the appointment of a new officer in charge of culture in the military. Lindsay Mathyssen demanded that the recommendations of the Deschamps Report be implemented immediately, and Sajjan said that changing institutional culture is complex.

Continue reading →

QP: Duelling quotes on the Broadcast Act

Posted on by

For a Thursday in the Chamber, we had two Liberals present among the otherwise empty benches — Mark Gerretsen, and Francis Drouin. Erin O’Toole led off, scripts on mini-lectern, and he lamented the third wave and compared our vaccination rate to the US, asking why the government failed on vaccines. Anita Anand replied with a list of vaccine deliveries. O’Toole switched to French to repeat his preamble, but at the last minute, switched the question to the border, but Anand simply repeated her response. Still in French, O’Toole raised the question of what date Canada would achieve 75 percent first doses and 20 percent second doses. Patty Hajdu replied that Canada’s vaccination story was a good one as we are number two in the G20 for vaccines administered. O’Toole returned to English to raise some hyperbolic concerns over the Broadcast Act amendments, for which Stephen Guilbeault read back quotes from Conservatives who claimed the bill initially was not strong enough. O’Toole quoted Michael Geist’s criticisms of the the bill, for which Guilbeault quoted several other organisations who said these concerns were dangerously misleading.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he complained that people in hotel quarantine were getting EI, to which Carla Qualtrough insisted that this wasn’t possible under the rules. Therrien said that TVA reporting disputed this, and Pablo Rodriguez stated that this was a question written before they got the answer, and people who took a vacation could not get government assistance.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded that the most vulnerable get vaccinated first — which is provincial jurisdiction. Patty Hajdu listed assistance that were given to provinces, but did not point out that basic jurisdictional issue. Singh then dismissed jurisdictional concerns around paid sick leave and demanded a magical fix to the federal sickness benefit. Qualtrough responded that they have made programmes available to those who need it— but gave no correction around jurisdiction.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s hand-wavey five-point plan

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole gave his keynote speech at the Conservative convention, and it was…serviceable. It was no rhetorical or oratory feat, but it wasn’t the stumbling, breathy mess that Andrew Scheer tended to deliver either, so there was that. But while he laid out his “five-point plan” for economic recovery, it was mostly hand-wavey and gave no real indication of just what exactly he planned to do, or how. Or, as one description put it, it was all tell and no show. But for as much as saying that the country has changed and the party needs to doesn’t really say how. Reaching out to private sector unions? Okay, sure, but just telling a bunch of blue-collar workers that you’re not “woke” isn’t going to cut it when you’re arguing against better wages and benefits. Trying to appeal to Quebec by out-Blocing the Bloc? I’m not seeing exactly what kind of broader, more inclusive party he’s trying to build other than his usual lip service about wanting more Canadians to see a Conservative when they look in the mirror.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1373031101963382790

While you can see my thread responding to his speech here, the party put out a backgrounder on their “Canada Recovery Plan” shortly after the speech, it’s still pretty hand-wavey. In short:

  1. Jobs – What government doesn’t promise jobs? O’Toole promises to recover the million jobs lost by the pandemic, just as Trudeau has, and while O’Toole says that includes women and youth, he literally spent the rest of the speech deriding the Liberals’ inclusive growth plan as being “picking and choosing who gets ahead,” and a “re-imagining of the economy.” Pick a lane.
  2. Accountability – Promises for new anti-corruption laws miss the point. Stephen Harper rode in on the white horse of accountability, and all it did was drive away talent from political staff jobs. Trudeau’s “ethics scandals” have largely been penny ante, and stem from a belief that so long as they mean well that the ends justify the means. Even more laws aren’t going to change that, and this is just populist noise, trying to rail against “elites.”
  3. Mental Health – I will give O’Toole props for mentioning that this will require the cooperation of the provinces, but he’s also already promised increased health transfers with no strings attached. So, again, pick a gods damned lane. As for his “incentives for employers to provide mental health coverage,” we all know that means another tax credit. As for the national three-digit suicide prevention hotline, the Liberals already started this process, but it’s going to take up to two years to implement.
  4. Secure the Country – Partner with pharmaceutical companies to increase capacity for medicines and vaccine production? Erm, what are you willing to capitulate to them? Blow up PMPRB? Give them longer timelines for intellectual property to keep out generics? These kinds of measures would increase drug prices, and would hugely impact provinces and health plans. More domestic production of PPE? You’re talking about subsidising industries to do that, which doesn’t sound very Conservative, and it sounds like picking winners and losers.
  5. Economy – Winding down emergency supports and targeting stimulus are pretty much exactly what the Liberals are promising. There is no daylight here. As for promising to “grow the economy again” and claiming there was slow growth under the Liberals is 100 percent fiction – the Liberals needed to provide some kind of economic stimulus because Conservative austerity was dragging economic growth. This claim is complete bullshit.

Meanwhile, Paul Wells is heartened that O’Toole has woken up to the reality that his party can no longer continue being a cargo cult for Stephen Harper – but also notes that his plan is light on calories, for better or worse at this stage.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chalk up a couple of own-goals

Posted on by

Political own-goals can be painful but also hilarious, and we saw two of them happen yesterday. The first was courtesy of the federal Conservatives, whose intended shitpost went awry when they wound up praising the Liberal government. It was obviously deleted within an hour or so, but the damage was done, and the day was spent with Liberals tweeting that the Conservatives told the truth for once. Oops.

The other was in Alberta, where a committee was examining the Energy Department’s budget, and questions arose about the spending on the province’s “war room,” whose job is supposed to be pushing back against the supposed “falsehoods” about their energy sector. You may have heard that last week, said war room decided to do battle against an obscure Netflix film called Bigfoot Family that shows a battle against an oil magnate seeking to blow up an Alaskan wildlife preserve. As a result of the war room’s ham-fisted campaign, the movie made the top ten streamed films, and had pretty much the opposite effect of what was intended. Nevertheless, the province’s energy minister, Sonya Savage, defended the attack against the film, and some UCP MLAs were praising the war room’s ability to make a film reach the top ten to be “pretty awesome.” Erm, they achieved the opposite and had more people watch the film they wanted to censor, guys. It’s so mind-numbingly dumb, and I just cannot even.

Continue reading →