The Commons had their “emergency debate” on the situation in Iraq last night, using debate loosely, of course. After all, “debate” these days tends to largely mean reading monotonous speeches into the record that were all pre-written and don’t actually debate what has already been said. The NDP hammered away at demanding a vote on deployment, never mind that military deployment is a Crown prerogative and thus not subject to a vote, and in fact, shouldn’t be because it launders the prerogative and the accountability. But if Mulcair wants to give Harper political cover so that he can, in the future, say that the Commons decided on the matter and that they are culpable when things go wrong because there was a vote, well, it makes it kind of awkward for the opposition, no? It’s part of Responsible Government – the Commons has given the government the authority to govern, and if they don’t like it, then they can withdraw confidence. Voting to “make decisions” is not actually their role – accountability is. The NDP were also childishly mocking the Liberals for largely not being there for the debate – except that they only got two speaking slots the whole night, which they used near the beginning, and as we’ve established that it’s not a real debate, it does seem fairly pointless to have a bunch of people there to simply endure repetitive prepared speeches – and make no mistake, they are repetitive – with no real ability to respond or add to what’s been said. But this is the state of our parliament these days.
Tag Archives: Procurement
QP: Four new members
The first day back in the Commons kicked off with the four MPs who won by-elections at the start of the summer — two new Liberals and two new Conservatives. When things got underway at last, Thomas Mulcair led off by asking, in both languages in the same slot, how many members of the Canadian Forces were being sent to Iraq. Harper gave a general figure of Air Force members flying in supplies, and “several dozen” members of the Special Forces for an advisory role. Mulcair asked — again in both languages — why there wasn’t a vote on the deployment. Harper reminded him that a government that has the confidence of the Chamber can deploy Forces, and this wasn’t a combat mission. Mulcair switched topic to working parents with poverty, to which Harper reminded him that labour markets were largely provincial responsibility and there was no need to reinstate a federal minimum wage to create two classes of workers. When Mulcair tried to press, Harper reminded him of all the great things they were doing for families. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and without visibly reading, asked about why the EI tax credit offers more incentives to fire workers than to hire them. Harper insisted he didn’t know what Trudeau was talking about, and when Trudeau spelled it out, Harper fell back to the “45 day work year” canard.
Obligatory note: Newly elected MPS aren't supposed to pretend to resist being dragged into the Chamber. That's just new speakers. #QP
— kady o'malley (@kady) September 15, 2014
Someone shouts "Where's yours, Tom?" #QP #cdnpoli
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) September 15, 2014
Roundup: Back with a countdown
Parliament is back! Yay! Now let’s obsess about how everything is a pre-election narrative, start polling relentlessly, and speculate wildly about the mere possibility that there would be an early election call without any hint of a justification for there to be one! Oh man, aren’t fixed election dates and the year-long campaigning in advance of them just the bestest thing ever?
Roundup: A modest contribution
The NATO Summit is underway in Wales, and Canada is contributing a modest $4 million to assist against Russian aggression – $1 million to helping Ukraine build up its command and control capacity, and the rest to be distributed among three NATO trusts to help strengthen capacities in the Baltic region. Aside from that, it remains unclear what kind of a role Canada will play in the region, and if we will contribute troops to a rapid response force in the area. As for the ISIS threat, the US and UK are discussing potential bombing campaigns, but we’ll see what comes from discussions, though word has it we may be offering military advisors to help Iraqis counter ISIS. The end of the Afghan mission has also been under discussion at the summit.
Roundup: NATO spending commitments
As that NATO summit gets set to get underway in Wales, it looks like the face-saving final communiqué will state that the 2 percent of GDP on defence spending that they hope members will achieve will simply be “aspirational,” since it’s not going to happen with some members like Canada (which would essentially doubling our current defence budget). Stephen Saideman explores why it’s wrong for NATO to focus solely on the spending levels of member countries than it is on capabilities. It also sounds like NATO members are going to discuss making cyberwarfare as much of a threat to member nations as bombs, which is quite true of the modern era. It also sounds like the attention will be split between the threats posed by Russia and ISIS. Michael Den Tandt notes that while Harper keeps sounding tough, there is no escaping that the Canadian Forces are badly under-resourced – possibly as bad as the “Decade of Darkness” – and we can’t have it both ways of doing good work on the cheap. Katie Englehart has more on the broader context of the situation here.
@Murray_Brewster yep 1% of Canadian interoperable, reliable participation >> 2% plus Greece unreliable, sit at home effort
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) September 3, 2014
Roundup: “Stolen” land for a memorial
An Ottawa architect is raising the alarm about the plans for the site of the “Victims of communism” memorial, saying it’s been “stolen” by the current government. The site, between the Supreme Court and Library and Archives, was supposed to be the future site of a building to house the Federal Court, but the current government has quietly scuppered those plans. That Federal Court building would have completed a triad of national buildings – the Justice Building, the Supreme Court, and the Federal Court building (which had approved designs and was ready to go before the Liberal government delayed the plans). The fact that the plans for that building to have been disappeared without explanation deserves explanation, but none are forthcoming. That such a prominent site is going to host a memorial (and one that is politically driven and is fairly controversial) rather than a significant national building should be concerning, however I fear this is going to be shrugged off like so many of the ways in which the national capital is being constantly denigrated and undermined by the current government.
Roundup: MacKay’s t-shirt choices
Peter MacKay’s judgement is once again being called into question after he showed up at a party fundraiser wearing a t-shirt with the logo of the National Firearms Association on it. He later said it was because he was showing support for an Afghan veteran, but one readily suspects that if an Afghan veteran asked him to wear a t-shirt with a pot leaf on it, say to show support for medical marijuana being used to treat an operational stress injury, I doubt MacKay would go for it. The NFA meanwhile declares that MacKay “believes in freedom!” by which they mean less restrictive gun laws. I’m not sure that MacKay’s explanation will quite get him out of declaring that tacit support.
Roundup: A threatening break-in
Vandals broke into Justin Trudeau’s home in Ottawa on Friday night, while his family slept (he was in Winnipeg at the time). Said vandals also left a threatening note that warned them to keep their doors locked – sitting atop a pile of items including kitchen knives, with several other knives arranged around the house. Oh, and apparently the designation for a public figure to get RCMP protection is up to the minister of public safety, and he’s being a bit evasive on the topic. It’s not only worrying that somebody would take this step, but that there are a whole chattering class out there who is either mocking Trudeau because his family was in danger, or who believe that this is all staged. Michael Den Tandt calls out the social media reaction on both sides – those who mocked Trudeau, and those who pin the blame on Harper, and the fact that none of the opposition parties stop their own partisans from demonizing Harper over social media either. It’s all part of the same poisoned ecosystem.
Sun News audience, folks https://t.co/x2PhDkCUBi cc @mdentandt #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/ABgTtCwTqt
— Alheli Picazo (@a_picazo) August 17, 2014
Roundup: Missing the point about parties
In a piece that bothers me immensely, Susan Delacourt puts forward the notion of abolishing political parties, and then applies a bunch of marginal reasons like branding and narrowing voter pools. The problem is that she ignored the whole point of political parties under Responsible Government – to have a group that can maintain the confidence of the Chamber in the formation of government. Which is actually a pretty big deal and why coalition governments don’t really work as well in our system as they might in others. “Oh, but Nunavut doesn’t have parties” or “most municipalities don’t have parties” people – including Delacourt – will cry, but it’s a nonsense argument because they have a small handful of members, and it doesn’t scale up to 308 MPs on any practical basis. You could not adequately run a government or maintain confidence with 308 “loose fish.” Also, the notion that brokerage is “antiquated” is false – otherwise we’d see all kinds of “bridges to nowhere” riders in government bills to get MPs onside to win support – again something that would be endemic with trying to get the support of a chamber of independents. That’s not to say that there aren’t problems with parties right now, because there are, but the solution is to have more people engaging with them so that the power doesn’t remain concentrated – not to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry, but Delacourt’s argument has no merit.
Roundup: Conflating sex work with trafficking
The hearings into the prostitution bill wrapped up yesterday, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, along with amendments, will take place on Tuesday. Yesterday’s testimony included warnings not to confuse prostitution with human trafficking, which are different and human trafficking already has laws in place to combat it (though there have not yet been many charges). Of course, Conservative MP and booster of the bill, Joy Smith, says that the two are “symbiotically linked,” but again, separate regimes – just like talking about child sexual exploitation has nothing to do with adult sex work, and is a separate provision in the Criminal Code. Amongst the other nonsense that Smith went on Power & Politics to talk about included her assertion that maybe there are “one or two or three” sex workers who do it willingly, despite that being in complete contravention to testimony heard. It just didn’t fit with her established narrative, and as she often does, she rejects it outright. Surprisingly, a group of Anglican clergy have come out against the bill because of the effect it will have on those sex workers when it forces the trade further underground. And then, once the hearings wrapped, Conservative MP Stella Ambler sent out this gem, which pretty much shows you her belief that there is apparently only one side to this whole debate:
Apparently Stella Ambler thinks there's only one side to the debate on #C36. Cripes. pic.twitter.com/pkhcSJGt6m
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 10, 2014