Tag Archives: Privacy

Roundup: CETA got signed

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland went to Brussels over the weekend to sign the Canada-EU trade deal (known as CETA), but this was the real signing, as opposed to the several signings staged by the Harper government at much earlier iterations of the process, which they wanted to use to show how pro-trade they were, and how much work they were doing on the trade file. And yes, they did get the ball rolling on CETA, as well as the TPP, and a number of trade deals with a bunch of small countries with tiny economies that do very little trade with Canada, and loudly proclaimed the number (as opposed to the worth of those signed deals). So there’s that. At the signing ceremony, Trudeau also downplayed the delays and praised the democratic way in which it all happened, essentially saying that it’s not a bad thing to raise questions and to have them answered, which is fairly gracious of him (and fits with the overall character of his government to date in acknowledging the challenge function of parliament and the media – though he may want to let his Senate leader, Peter Harder, know, as Harder rather arrogantly doesn’t believe that the Senate needs an official opposition).

Of course, now comes the hard part of implementation, which will doubtlessly have numerous stumbling blocks along the way, and we’ll likely need several reminders about why the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism isn’t actually an attack on sovereignty, and how the improvements that Freeland negotiated to the system are a net positive and will likely form a model for other such systems going forward. We’ll hear yet more cries from the NDP and other left-leaning critics about those concerns, but the deal is moving ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Non-binding unanimous support

Posted on by

Supply day motions – also known as opposition day motions – can be tricky business, and unless the opposition party that moves it isn’t careful, they can wind up giving the government a free pass on supporting said motions without fear of consequence. Never mind that the point of supply day motions is to debate why the government should be denied supply (and hence confidence), these have largely turned into take-note debates on topics of the opposition’s choosing. These free pass motions happened with surprising regularity in the previous parliament, with the NDP frequently offering up mom-and-apple-pie motions that the Conservatives would obviously support the intent of, despite never having the intention to follow through with substantive action on, because hey, the motions are non-binding, and why not look like they support the idea of the motion? And lo and behold, the Conservatives offered up just such a motion around the Supreme Court of Canada, imploring the government to “respect the custom of regional representation” when making appointments to that court, “in particular, when replacing the retiring Justice Thomas Cromwell, who is Atlantic Canada’s representative on the Supreme Court.” While I will quibble with their use of “custom” as opposed to “constitutional convention” (which it really is at this point), this was one of those motions worded just loosely enough that the government could vote for it (and it did pass unanimously, as these kinds of motions often do), and should they go ahead and appoint a non-Atlantic justice to the court, they have room enough to turn around and give some kind of a nonsense excuse like “Oh, we felt that such-and-such diversity requirement was more needed at this point,” or “we felt that the Atlantic nominees were insufficiently bilingual,” or what have you. Or, as the talking points have been turning to, they will point to the number of Atlantic nominees on the short-list and said that they got equal opportunity and were not prejudiced against or some such, and make the merit argument. Suffice to say, there is more than enough wiggle room, and for a party that was so recently in government, the Conservative should have known better than to word a motion in a way that the government can support and later wiggle out of. This having been said, the government has been under enormous political pressure from the premiers regarding this Atlantic seat, so it is not inconceivable that this as a step in walking back from having the nominations being too open, but that remains to be seen.

Continue reading →

QP: The Giorno angle

Posted on by

With all of the leaders in the Commons today, the hope was that the show would be a little less awful than it was yesterday. On the whole, it was. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, reading a plea that the government approve the Pacific Northwest LNG project, and Justin Trudeau dissembles about the choice between the environment and the economy. Ambrose lamented that too many pipeline projects were languishing and getting people back to work. Trudeau reminded her that their pipeline plans didn’t work because they didn’t get community buy-in, added that the Conservative voted against middle-class tax cuts. Ambrose changed topics, concerned about discussions with China that included cyber-security regardless of how many times Chinese hackers attacked Canadian targets. Trudeau stated that previous discussions were always ad hoc, while these new high-level discussions provided a more permanent framework. Ambrose expressed confusion about any extradition talks with China, and Trudeau returned to the same response about high-level dialogue. Ambrose asked again in French, and got the same answer. Thomas Mulcair was up next, asking if the Great Bear rainforest was no place for a crude oil pipeline, but wondered if it would also be one for natural gas. Trudeau didn’t give a clear response, mentioning analyzing various projects. Mulcair then lamented the adoption of Harper-era healthcare “cuts” (note: it’s not a cut, because the funds are still increasing), but Trudeau shrugged it off with talk of consultation with the provinces. Mulcair went another round in French, got the same answer, and then Mulcair moved onto labour rights and demanded that the government support their anti-scab bill. Trudeau spoke about the need for a better collaborative approach.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lessons from Trump

Posted on by

Because apparently there is absolutely nothing else to talk about, we’re going to take lessons about the whole Donald Trump fiasco here in Canada. I’m not quite sure what lessons there are to take directly, given that we have more safeguards in our system of government, starting with a stronger party system than exists in the States, that one would think would do a better job of weeding out a candidate like Trump from running for leadership of a party. While Robert Hiltz lists some better comparisons to Trump in Canadian politics than Rob Ford (hello Pierre Karl Péladeau), I would simply add that part of the problem comes from the ability to vote for a person directly, as in a primary system in the States or a mayoral contest, rather than indirectly as our parliamentary system currently operates. The lesson of Trump, combined as well with the lesson that Jeremy Corbyn in the UK is providing in spades, is that for every charismatic leader like Justin Trudeau that gets elected from an open membership process to great success (so far), there is just as much the possibility of getting a Trump, or an Alison Redford, who skews the party and its dynamic by force of their personality, and like Corbyn, is accountable to nobody and relies instead on the supposed “democratic legitimacy” of the leadership election process. In other words, if we want to take lessons and avoid a Trump or a Corbyn in the future, then we need to stop perverting our Westminster system and return to a system of caucus selection of party leaders, where there is a system of accountability in place that keeps those leaders and their excesses in check (and provides that the leader first have a seat rather than be a complete outsider vowing to “shake things up” without actually understanding how the system works to begin with), and keeps them from getting too powerful at the expense of the rest of the party.

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 →

QP: Applauding and chiding Sweden

Posted on by

Despite it being caucus day, none of the major leaders were present in the Commons today, and I find myself at a loss as to why that would be the case. That left Denis Lebel to lead off, wondering if an announcement on softwood lumber was waiting for President Obama’s visit. David Lametti responded with the usual assurances that they are working hard on the file. After another round of the same, Jason Kenney stood up to attempt to shame the government over their decision to vote against their motion on declaring ISIS a genocide. Stéphane Dion noted that Sweden’s parliament defeated a similar irresponsible motion. Kenney tried again, and third time, but Dion wouldn’t bite, instead reading what a responsible motion would look like. Peter Julian led off for the NDP, decrying the delay in the court case between KPMG and the CRA — not that it’s actually the administrative responsibility of the government. Diane Lebouthillier noted that sometimes there are delays in getting evidence, and stated that the CRA is closing in on tax cheats. Julian asked again in English, got the same answer, and then Hélène Laverdière asked about a report on Afghan detainees, demanding a public inquiry. Harjit Sajjan responded that they take human rights seriously, and they would take any new allegations seriously. Laverdière demanded a public inquiry, but Sajjan wouldn’t bite.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Everyone’s an expert

Posted on by

More amendments to C-14 in the Senate, and the very real threat from senators that they would rather veto a bad law (such as the bill as originally drafted) than let it pass and have to head back to the courts, is prompting everyone to consider themselves an expert on the Senate and how to reform it. After days of clutched pearls by pundits and the odd bit of praise (such as Martin Patriquin’s grudging admission that the Senate is a necessary evil), we’re also starting to get some pretty bizarre pieces out there, like one from iPolitics, where they got a mining company CEO to weigh in on reforming the chamber.

No, seriously.

Apparently, according to this “expert,” Trudeau has gotten it all wrong by creating a situation with “no enforceable rule,” and apparently we’ve never had a situation in the past 149 years where bills bounced back-and-forth between the chambers. Err, except that there have never been real levers by which a Prime Minister could control the chamber, only sentiment on the part of senators in his or her caucus, and we’ve had plenty of situations where bills went back-and-forth, including to having conferences between chambers (a situation which is unwieldy in the current configuration of the Senate). And while Trudeau has made mistakes, he is not to blame for the Senate’s actual constitutional powers, which are currently being demonstrated.

But wait – there’s more!™

Our CEO “expert” says that the solution is not Triple E (thankfully), but rather to reduce senators’ term limits to 12 years, to give provinces a veto on their nominees to represent them, and to ensure that a nomination panel ensures that “a new Senate is younger, more representative and better qualified for the work by credentials and life experience.”

Term limits are a solution in search of a problem because they reduce institutional independence. The problem, identified in the Ontario factum to the Supreme Court reference, is that a senator nearing their term limit can start to curry favour with the government in hopes of a post-Senatorial appointment to a tribunal or diplomatic posting. By ensuring that their end date is age 75, it scuppers those plans and keeps Senators from sucking up. Provincial vetoes? Well, senators are not there to represent provincial governments. They are not even technically representing provinces, but rather regions, and their representation tends to be for minority communities, be they linguistic, ethnic or even religious, which was the express purpose for why the Senate was built in the way that it was. And demands for a younger Senate clash with the desire to get accomplished Canadians to serve in its ranks toward the end of their careers so that they can draw on their decades of experience, and if you look at some of the qualifications of our current senators, they are on the whole a very accomplished group indeed (some exceptions apply).

So rather than get some CEO to bloviate without any actual institutional knowledge or awareness, perhaps we should all brush up on our civic literacy and learn about the chamber as it currently exists before start weighing in on how to fix something that is not actually fundamentally broken.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A precipitous climbdown

Posted on by

In an attempt to head off a day full of useless circular discussion around the process of the electoral reform discussion, the Liberals offered an epic climbdown and accepted the NDP’s gamed committee configuration, giving up their perfectly legitimate committee control and then patting themselves on the back for looking reasonable for backing down. Trudeau went so far as to say that they felt like they were looking too much like the previous Conservative government, and decided to take a different tone, with all of the usual platitudes about working together and cooperation and so on. Which is a nice sentiment, and they get all of these plaudits for looking reasonable and like grown-ups, but I wonder if they haven’t given up their ability to put their foot down in the future when they need to, lest the process spin out of control, as these things are wont to do. Nevertheless, I will reiterate that this is not any kind of reasonable compromise. In fact, there are a few reactions that sum up my feelings pretty well.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/738384990463918081

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/738409956865642496

And Hiltz is bang on. The Liberals have walked into the NDP’s trap, and this whole process, already a gong show, has just become an even bigger one. The Conservatives are completely apoplectic with outrage, claiming that there was a “backroom deal” to get this deal (when that really doesn’t seem to be the case if you look at how it was unveiled and how the NDP were just as surprised by it). So while the howls for a referendum will continue, and the bogus “proportional” arguments will ring through the back-patting on this whole sordid affair, I will just reiterate this particular sentiment.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another day talking in circles

Posted on by

We’re in for yet another round of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the subject of the electoral reform process, and this time it’s from the NDP who are moving a supply day motion to try and get the proposed parliamentary committee to reflect their particular gamed composition rather than a composition that reflects the House of Commons – which, I will remind you, was elected entirely fairly and correctly under how our system is supposed to operate, where we elect individual seats in separate and simultaneous elections. Demands that the committee should reflect the popular vote ignore the facts that a) the popular vote is a logical fallacy that does not actually exist since there were 338 separate elections and not just one, and b) the composition that the NDP are demanding is not actually proportional to the “popular vote,” as they are giving the Bloc and the Green Party an oversized share of the seats and votes. And rather than just thirty minutes of this endless repetition as we might hear in QP, no, it will be the whole day in the Commons, minus one hour for private members’ business. And we’ll be subjected to the sanctimonious speeches of the NDP (of which they will read the same speech in English and French ad nauseum, only changing the riding names mentioned), followed by baying from the Conservatives that what we really need is a referendum, and the odd interjection from Elizabeth May that she deserves a vote on the committee and that no, we don’t need a referendum because it’s not a constitutional issue (except that certain kinds of electoral reform are actually constitutional issues, albeit likely with the simplest amending formula). And then there are the Liberals, where we’ll get some of the usual saccharine from Maryam Monsef, some sharper rebukes from Mark Holland, and the odd backbencher repeating the talking points about Canadians demanding a change to the system. There won’t be any substantive issues discussed, and while I will be the first to say that yes, process is important, so long as each side tries to game the process to fit their own purposes, we’ll just keep talking in circles and go nowhere. Which, really, is where this discussion should go and we should instead invest in a programme of civic literacy instead so that people can actually learn how the system works. But in the absence of that, I’m ready to declare that we should nuke the whole thing from orbit.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An affidavit in error?

Posted on by

Another interesting twist has emerged in the saga of the satellite offices, and the quixotic quest to have the Board of Internal Economy decision challenged in Federal Court. While the NDP crowed that the court accepting their “expert opinion” affidavit, it seems that the legal opinion given to the Board is that this is a Very Bad Thing that needs to be challenged, because allegedly this sets up some kind of terrible precedent. As well, because the acceptance of the affidavit was by a court official and not a judge – meaning probably a prothonotary – this is also somehow significant and material to the challenge. I’m certainly not an expert in civil procedure, and welcome the comments of those who are, but my own particular reading of this is that this is apparently something that should have been laughed out of court right off the start, rather than allowing a judge to actually get the affidavit, read it through, and then telling the NDP to go and drop on their collective heads in a scathing judgment because there is such a thing as parliamentary privilege and it’s an important concept that parliamentarians govern their own affairs. Which of course may explain why the NDP were so giddy as to alert the media that their affidavit was not laughed out of the room in the first place, even though I will remind you that having an affidavit accepted is a far cry from actual victory. Mind you, I do think that this is an issue of parliamentary privilege (for which I explained the reasons here), so perhaps the Commons’ legal advice is worth noting that it means that the affidavit should have been refused after all. But like I said, I’m not an expert in civil procedure, so I await responses from those in the know.

Continue reading →