Tag Archives: Procurement

QP: Politicizing genocide

Posted on by

The benches were nearly full, and all of the leaders were present for today’s exercise in accountability. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, led off by demanding that the government was “shameful” in not declaring ISIS to be a genocide. Justin Trudeau strongly condemned the actions of ISIS, praised our efforts, and noted that they asked the international authorities to weigh on rather than politicians. Ambrose pressed, Trudeau reiterated that they wouldn’t trivialise the word “genocide” by using it inappropriately. Ambrose tried again in French, and Trudeau repeated his point about not making petty points with this determination. Ambrose moved to the plight of Yazidi girls and asking for them to be brought to Canada. Trudeau noted that they use the UN determination of most needy. Ambrose insisted that they weren’t refugees but displaced people, and the Conservatives hollered as Trudeau noted that the previous government diminished the capacity to bring people to Canada. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and lamented the court battle from a veterans group, and Trudeau insisted that they were making changes to help veterans. After another round in French, Mulcair moved onto marijuana decriminalisation, and Trudeau reminded him that decriminalisation won’t stop street gangs. Mulcair repeated the question in English, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Skirting the Charter

Posted on by

It was a late-night sitting in the Senate to deal with more amendments to the assisted dying bill, and in the end, amendments that would include advanced directives in the bill were defeated. Part of the debate was that more time was needed to study the issue, and the mover of the amendments, Senator Cowan, made the very trenchant point that while the bill mandates the government to study the issue within 180 days of passage, there is no guarantee that they will do anything with it other than issue a report that will gather dust, because as we’ve been exploring lately, MPs tend to be rather spineless and because this is a tough “moral” issue, they will refuse to discuss it until forced to by the courts. Again. Meanwhile, a background paper on the bill was released by the justice minister that stated that they didn’t need to strictly follow the Supreme Court’s Carter decision because they were trying to articulate new principles about trying not to normalise suicide among the elderly and disabled. It seems to me that this is the very same logic that the previous government employed in their crafting new prostitution laws, which went around the very issues that the Supreme Court dealt with (the safety of sex workers) and tried to craft legislation that was inherently denunciating rather than which tried to put in place a better regime. That has yet to be challenged in the courts, but it is coming. In this particular case, it does seem like an attempt by the government to try and circumvent clear direction by the Supreme Court on how they have interpreted the Charter in this instance, as Carissima Mathen points out below, it’s not like they can simply say “new law!” and pretend that the existing Charter jurisprudence doesn’t exist, because it clearly does. Is this the way that this government purports to deal with the constitutional dialogue with the courts and push back against them? Maybe. But it also seems like they are flirting with a bill that is unconstitutional to try and keep themselves from pissing off too many interest groups, be they religious or the disabled community, despite the fact that there seems to be clear interest from Canadians that they want this kind of law in place (and in particular, advanced directives if you believe what senators say they are getting in terms of the feedback from Canadians). Of course, they could very well find themselves “forced” by the Senate to provide enough political cover (which I still think is a very distinct possibility), but I am getting the sense that we are now seeing the “campaign from the left, govern from the right” sensibilities starting to emerge in this current Liberal government.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/742528101364551680

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/742531190243135488

Continue reading →

QP: A moment for Orlando

Posted on by

Things got off today with a few statements of condolence and shock around the attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando over the weekend, and a moment of silence in the House of Commons. Neither Rona Ambrose nor Justin Trudeau were present today, Trudeau meeting with the chief and youth delegates from Attawapiskat.

Denis Lebel led off by asking about the terror attack in Orlando and the execution of hostage Robert Hall in the Philippines. Ralph Goodale responded with condolences and assurances that there were no threats to Canadians. Lebel then demanded an electoral reform referendum, to which Maryam Monsef called on all parliamentarians to help the committee do their work. Lebel pivoted again, and asked about a carbon tax. Jonathan Wilkinson assured him that they were focused on growing the economy in an environmentally sustainable way. Andrew Scheer took a crack at that question in English, terming a carbon price an “Ottawa knows best” approach, and Wilkinson gave the same answer. Scheer then accused the Liberals of charging admission for an electoral reform town hall, and Monsef said that they all members were supposed to follow the rules around these town halls. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and raised their opposition day motion topic of marijuana decriminalisation for simple possession. Jody Wilson-Raybould noted that they can’t just decriminalise without ensuring that children could not access it. Mulcair gave it another go in English, got the same same answer, and then he pivoted to take on the scourge of bank fees. François-Philippe Champagne reminded him that the government doesn’t regulate the day-to-day operations of banks. Mulcair asked again in French, and got much the same answer.

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 →

QP: Genocide and refugees

Posted on by

Despite it being Thursday, there were no major leaders in the Commons today, which is a disappointing slide back to the poor attendance record of the previous parliament. Denis Lebel led off, referencing their opposition motion on calling ISIS a genocide and demanded support for it. Pam Goldsmith-Jones responded with the government line that the declaration is not a political one but a legal one, and it needed to have the endorsement of the International Criminal Code. Lebel moved onto the possible sole-sourcing of Super Hornets, for which Harjit Sajjan reminded him that the Conservatives were about to sole-source the F-35 fighters, while he had not yet made a determination. Lebel demanded a transparent process, and Sajjan reiterated that no decision was made. Andrew Scheer accused the government of playing politics with military equipment, and Sajjan snapped back that he has been in combat. Scheer then returned to the declaration of ISIS as a genocide, and Goldsmith-Jones repeated her previous answer. Peter Julian led off for the NDP, calling out the government on C-14’s constitutionality, and Jody Wilson-Raybould insisted that they came to the right balance. Julian and Ruth Ellen Brosseau said that the Senate was making the amendments that they had proposed, and to Julian, Wilson-Raybould repeated her answer while Jane Philpott responded to Brosseau that she hoped the Senate would pass it. Brosseau repeated her question in French, and Philpott reiterated that she hoped the bill would pass expeditiously.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Amendments are not some power grab

Posted on by

After hours of debate, the Senate passed the first amendment to the assisted dying legislation to remove the definition “reasonably foreseeable death” and replace it with the language from the Supreme Court’s decision in Carter, and immediately the pundit class erupted in cries of horror and outrage that how dare an unelected body dare to touch the precious words of the elected House of Commons, and that this newly emboldened Senate was dangerously overstepping its bounds going forward.

Oh. Please.

It’s like any hint of context went out the window when it comes to this particular bill, and the fact that you have a Supreme Court of Canada decision that it’s supposed to be in answer to (not that parliament needed to draft a law, mind you). There are serious concerns about the constitutionality of this bill. MPs in the Commons believed it, you have a lower court judge in Alberta that believed so when crafting a judgment around an assisted death request and how the state of this legislation wouldn’t conform to the Supreme Court decision, and now Senators are doing their constitutional duty of weighing the constitutionality of a piece of legislation, and quite rightly, they find it wanting. This is why the Senate exists, and what the “sober” part of “sober second thought” means – that freed from the constraints of having to worry about what voters will think, they can take a more clear-headed look at these controversial bills. And if you get hung up on the “unelected” part, apparently the policy and legislative roles taken not only by the Supreme Court or the various administrative tribunals that exist in this country also should keep you awake at night. (Also, their democratic legitimacy comes from being appointed by a government who has the confidence of the chamber, but you know, it’s not like Responsible Government is anything other than a minor detail).

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/740737440231641088

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/740743223396683776

So what happens next? Once the remainder of the amendments are decided upon one way or the other, the report gets sent back to the Commons, which they will then debate and amend at their pleasure – you know, like democratically elected legislators are supposed to do. The Justice Minister doesn’t sound keen on these amendments “without more safeguards,” but I also take this with a grain of salt because I do believe the government is setting up this narrative of reluctance so that they can show that they have been “forced” to accept what the Supreme Court has laid out by a Senate that could veto the bill if they find it unconstitutional. Because remember, MPs who have electoral considerations don’t like to be seen to take bold steps with difficult decisions when it’s easier to hide behind another body who can take the blame for them. And it’s not like MPs aren’t used to giving abdicating all manner of their roles to other unelected bodies (the courts, Officers of Parliament, and the Senate), this just being one more in a long line of examples. It’s one more reason why I find this concern trolling by the pundit class all the more difficult to swallow. If MPs were actually serious about their jobs, then it wouldn’t be incumbent upon the Senate to be the grown-ups of parliament, and yet here we are.

Continue reading →

QP: Shifting focus to fighter jets

Posted on by

After the big “family photo” on the steps of the building this morning, and a speech marking the 150th anniversary of the legislature of Canada meeting on Parliament Hill, we got into the business of the day. While Trudeau was on the Hill in the morning, he was on his way to Toronto and absent from QP today. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, and asked about measures to bring Yazidi girls to Canada as refugees. John McCallum noted that refugees are prioritised based on need as determined by the UN, and that he was proud of their record. Ambrose turned to the question of fighter jets, and wondered why they would get new jets if they didn’t use the ones we have to fight ISIS. Harjit Sajjan noted that that he had received a briefing on the mission in Iraq, but didn’t really answer. Ambrose listed off the sins of Liberal procurement past, and wondered how this time would be different. Sajjan retorted that the previous government cut $3 billion from the defence budget. Denis Lebel was concerned about pulling out of the the F-35 programme and how that would affect the aerospace industry in Montreal, and Sajjan noted that no decision had been made. When Lebel tried to press about the other allies who had adopted the F-35, Sajjan noted that they were not fully operational and they were taking the time to make the right choice. Thomas Mulcair led off for the NDP, asking about a statement that Senator Pratte made about the need to pass C-10 quickly. Marc Garneau said there was no deal, but this was about avoiding future litigation. Mulcair wanted assurances that there was no deal, and Garneau plainly stated there wasn’t one. Mulcair turned to tax havens by KPMG, and Diane Lebouthillier noted that there were investigations and court cases ongoing. Mulcair said that if it was in the courts it would be public, but pivoted to the Super Hornets and sole-sourcing. Sajjan repeated that no decision was made.

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: In other news…

Posted on by

It was very nearly a full house for QP, including all of the leaders. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, once again demanding an electoral reform referendum. Trudeau said that he did trust Canadians to discuss complex and nuanced issues, which was why he wanted an open consultative process. Ambrose switched to French to lament the current government’s understanding of the military and his choice in the Super Hornets. Trudeau in turn lamented the sorry state of the Forces left by his predecessors and their botched procurements. Ambrose asked again in English, and got the same answer. Denis Lebel was up next, decrying the lack of progress on a new softwood lumber agreement. Trudeau responded that the previous government neglected the file, focusing fruitlessly on pipelines that went nowhere. Lebel disputed Trudeau’s characterisation, but Trudeau insisted they immediately sought to restore positive relations with the Americans to better deal with these irritants. Thomas Mulcair was up for the NDP, and listed off the opposition to C-14, and Trudeau called the bill an “important step” but that it struck a balance with the protection of the vulnerable. Mulcair insisted it was as false choice, and accused the government of behaving exactly like their predecessors. Trudeau begged to differ, noting the Conservatives ignored the issue, and he praised the work to date. Mulcair demanded that the government at least take amendments from the Senate, and Trudeau said that he looked forward to what the “newly independent and less partisan” Senate would bring forward. Mulcair accused the bill of going against the Charter, and Trudeau reiterate the balance being struck.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Constitutional conventions are constitutional

Posted on by

There was another example of the shocking level of civic illiteracy in our elected officials yesterday as Green Party leader Elizabeth May again trotted out the canard that political parties aren’t in the constitution. She was making a perfectly good point of privilege around the way that independent MPs and those from not officially recognised parties are being adversely affected by rules changes that are being carried forward from the last parliament, and that’s fine, but she’s shockingly wrong about the constitutional status of parties. Why? Because while political parties are not literally in the Constitution Acts of 1867 or 1982, they are part of the grounding framework of our system of Responsible Government, which is in and of itself a constitutional convention – part of our unwritten constitutional inheritance from the United Kingdom. It shouldn’t need reminding but apparently it does because apparently nobody learns civics any longer, but constitutional conventions are constitutional. In fact, they are just as enforceable as elements of the written constitution. And lo and behold, the preamble to the 1867 Act is:

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom

This is exactly where our Responsible Government framework lies. The UK has an unwritten constitution, and its constitutional conventions have stood the test of time, and this is precisely why May and others who follow her logic are dead wrong. Parties are at the heart of Responsible Government because it’s how a government gains and maintains confidence. The system simply cannot hold with hundreds of “loose fish” all vying for attention and reward. (If you try to bring up the party-less territorial governments, smack yourself upside the head because you simply cannot scale up a consensus model from 19 members in NWT or 22 in Nunavut to 338 in Ottawa. It is a complete impossibility). Does that mean that we don’t currently have problems with the powers accumulated by party leaders? No, we absolutely do, but that’s also because we tinkered with the system of selecting those leaders, presidentializing them with massive membership votes rather than caucus selection that keeps them accountable in the Responsible Government tradition. But parties are absolutely essential to the functioning of our parliamentary system, and the fact the written portions of our constitution are silent on that fact is indicative of absolutely nothing. If one relies solely on the written portions and not the constitutional conventions, they are wholly ignorant of our system of government, and need to be called out as such.

Continue reading →