Tag Archives: RCMP

Roundup: Leitch keeps digging

Posted on by

So many hot takes on Kellie Leitch and her need to keep digging when it comes to her “Canadian values” test proposal. Leitch continued to insist that this is a topic worthy of discussion, and proposed yet more “Canadian values” to back up her claim, and this time, those values include “equality of opportunity, hard work, generosity, freedom and tolerance,” with a focus especially on the tolerance part. She also denies that this targets Muslims in any way and doesn’t think that characterisation is fair. So there’s that. Oh, and you can add Deepak Obhrai to the list of leadership candidates opposing Leitch’s position, and Maxime Bernier gave a somewhat muddled response that he believes there are Canadian values but you just can’t test for them.

In terms of pundit reaction, Michael Den Tandt seems to think that Leitch is going nativist for the sake of deepening her fundraising coffers, while Matt Gurney sees Leitch’s proposal as unworkable, but not really offensive per se. Susan Delacourt sees problems for Leitch from the perspective of a party that doesn’t seem to want to embrace a young female leader, though she may have tapped into an anti-immigrant sentiment within the ranks, while Madeline Ashby looks at the inherent contradictions in Leitch’s position. My own Loonie Politics column on Leitch’s campaign looks at the ways in which she and some of her fellow campaigners are picking and choosing which intolerances to run on, and her own tone-deafness about it (which, given today’s added comments, seem to really fit the bill).

In other Conservative leadership news, Brad Trost thinks that he can unite the party around his economic ideas while still running as a social conservative, and Deepak Obhari has filed his papers and is officially in the race.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reporting the terror threat

Posted on by

The government released their 2016 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada yesterday, and there are a few items of note, particularly that there are more Canadians who are suspected of travelling abroad to engage in terrorist activities, more women are joining the cause, and more of them are returning to Canada after some time abroad, all of which needs to be monitored. The biggest threat remains those lone wolves who are “inspired” by terrorist ideology rather than being directed from abroad, because quite obviously it’s much harder to detect and monitor. Apparently it’s also news that Ralph Goodale is calling ISIS “Daesh” in the report, but some terror experts will note that this is just a bit of name-calling. On a related note, RCMP are talking about their roadblocks in the fight against terrorism, which is a lot about the difficulty in turning evidence gathered from partners like CSIS into something they can admit to the courts, which is apparently harder than it seems. I’m not really sure that I’ve got a lot to add on this one, just that despite the various howls from both the Conservatives and the NDP in how the Liberals have been handling the terror file – the Conservatives insisting that the Liberals have given it up and are running away from the fight (objectively not the case), and the NDP caterwauling that C-51 needs to be repealed full stop – that the Liberals do indeed seem to be taking this seriously. While experts have been praising them on their go-slow approach rather than legislating in haste, I think it’s also notable that they are making reports like these public in order to give a realistic picture of what is going on, rather than relying on hysteria in order to try and build public support that way. We’ll no doubt see a lot more from them in the next couple of months as the new national security committee of parliamentarians is set up, and consultations on the state of our anti-terror laws transition into legislation, but this was a good reminder that things are in the works. In the meantime, here are some more thoughts from a real expert on these kinds of things, Stephanie Carvin.

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/768814441865605120

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/768848309754564609

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/768853486670708738

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/768914845475278849

Continue reading →

Roundup: An important disavowal

Posted on by

Oh, hey – the author of a study on ranked ballots that relied on survey data from the last election has admitted that it wasn’t really a good study because the behaviours of voters would be different using a different ballot system. Gosh, you think? This is the same study and survey data that people have been citing in the blind panic that “OMG it will be first-past-the-post on steroids so obviously the Liberals want it!” because somehow it would give the Liberals 205 seats, based on that singular poll about second choices in the last election. It ignores that the selling feature of a ranked ballot – other than ensuring that a winner will always have more than 50 percent of the vote (no matter that you need to keep redistributing votes until you reach it) is that it eliminates the need for strategic voting, and in Australia it has given the Green and other minor parties a few seats of their own in the House of Representatives, plus allowed their National Party to remain independent of the Liberal (read: conservative) Party. Considering that they have largely relied on coalitions in the last few parliaments has shown that it’s not just geared toward majoritarianism, the way that people have been freaking out about in Canada. That said, why this particular study was allowed to stand considering its obvious design flaw is a bit galling, and this walking back from the results should have come much sooner rather than this committee hearing after months and months of false and misleading media stories proclaiming that ranked ballots would exacerbate the “distortions” of the current system, which have poisoned the well when it comes to having a reasoned discussion on the various systems that are out there. (Note: Those distortions are not real but a result of misreading the results based on a logical fallacy. Also note that I am not actually a proponent of ranked ballots, merely of proper and informed debate on electoral reform, which we have not been getting).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Online voting scare

Posted on by

There was a story on Blacklock’s Reporter yesterday morning that used Access to Information documents to suppose that Elections Canada was moving ahead with electronic voting, despite the fact that the electoral reform committee hadn’t even made any recommendations around it. As it turns out, that’s not what they were up to, but it nevertheless touched off a discussion over Twitter about reasons why electronic voting is still a bad idea, and why never is still too soon to even start contemplating it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Counter-radicalism and reality checks

Posted on by

In the wake of the Aaron Driver near-miss last week, public safety minister Ralph Goodale is set to announce that the government is moving ahead with a counter-radicalization programme, but it looks like the details are still a little ways out. That said, Goodale has been pretty frank that our current counter-radicalisation programmes have little coherence and that’s what he aims to fix over the course of this year. And while we get the musings about what kind of leader Trudeau will be in the face of terrorism, we get his former foreign policy advisor Roland Paris reminding us of what he has done to date (which is not nothing, as his critics have stated). More importantly, however, we need to remind ourselves of the reality of the situation, and for that, I would turn your attention to Stephanie Carvin’s piece in this weekend’s Globe and Mail, which explains why counter-terrorism and counter-radicalism is not as easy as you might think, and provides a good reality check for the kinds of rhetoric out there, and why saying things like “connecting the dots” isn’t actually helpful to any kind of conversation around the subject.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The wrong way to rein in the Senate

Posted on by

Sometimes you read clueless columns, and sometimes the columns are so utterly clueless that you have to wonder how they ever got past an editor in the first place. The Globe and Mail featured one such yesterday morning from Campbell Clark, who asserted that it’s now Justin Trudeau’s fault that Mike Duffy is claiming expenses because cabinet ultimately has control over expenditures.

I. Can’t. Even.

The complete and rank civic illiteracy coming from a columnist in a national newspaper is galling, and looks a hell of a lot like he’s just making stuff up as he goes along. And no, I’m not chalking this up to a mid-August phoned-in column, because this isn’t the first time that he’s made this suggestion before, and it needs to stop. And it’s such an elementary part of civic literacy that Clark is apparently unable to grasp, which is that it’s the job of the legislature to hold the executive in check and not the other way around. In fact, it’s the job of the House of Commons to grant supply to the government for its operation and not the other way around. The Senate most especially exists to serve as a check on an executive that has a majority in the House of Commons. Neither the House of Commons nor the Senate are a government department – they don’t report to the Cabinet, nor does Cabinet control their expenditures because fundamentally they have institutional independence. Can you just imagine what would happen if Cabinet did control their purse strings? It would be nothing but a constant string of threats to cut of MPs’ or senators’ salaries or office budgets if they didn’t fall into line. That’s not how the system works, and Clark’s suggestion makes as much sense as giving cabinet the authority to go after judges’ salaries if they strike down that government’s laws. Add to that, Clark’s suggestion that the government should start clamping down on how much Senators can spend is so ludicrously boneheaded that it boggles the mind. You see, if MPs go after senators’ expenses, then senators will turn around and go after MPs’ expenses, and veto any budget until their independence is no longer being threatened. And why? For cheap optics? The Senate has a job to do, and democracy costs money. If Clark thinks that things work differently under our constitutional arrangement, then he is sadly mistaken, and he needs a remedial course in basic civics post haste because what he’s written is wholly and completely irresponsible. So no, it’s not Justin Trudeau’s government’s problem that Mike Duffy is claiming housing allowances, it’s Duffy’s problem (as we established yesterday). For anyone to claim otherwise doesn’t know or understand how our system operates.

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: Unger vs Black

Posted on by

Further to Senator Black’s resignation from the Conservative caucus, we have a couple of reactions – first, an interview with Black by Jen Gerson, in which Black expresses his excitement for the “uncharted territory” of greater independence in the Senate. Second, a somewhat bitter response from fellow “elected” Alberta Senator Betty Unger, who repeats some of Senator Plett’s accusations about Black’s attendance, and goes on to assert that senators should be in a caucus to give them some kind of accountability. Oh, and then there’s Kady O’Malley, who notes the “disappointment” of Senator Tannas in his response to Black’s decision, in which she reminds them in her own Pollyana-ish way that yes, they can still work together even if they’re no longer in caucus together.

Among the responses are some particular problems with the conceptions of how a caucus can and should operate, and part of that stems from the fairly unique situation of how the Senate was being run under the Harper government. Unger is correct in that being part of the national caucus brings more perspectives and allows more participation (which is one of the reasons why Trudeau’s decision to banish senators from his caucus was short-sighted), but her conception of caucus providing “checks and balances” to senators is a bit mystifying, particularly considering that there is little that a caucus could do to actually control a senator given that they have institutional independence under our constitution. Sure, they can threaten them with being removed from a committee or from participating in travel, but that’s the extent of it, and if a senator feels a particular conviction on an issue, then that’s a risk they can and have taken before.

As for Black, being part of a caucus in the Senate doesn’t mean that he is forced to toe any particular party line, whether they achieve consensus on a position or not. Granted, since he has been in the Senate, it was operating in a more tightly controlled environment because the Conservatives had largely trained their new senators to believe that this was the norm, that they could be whipped, along with some cajoling about how they needed to go along with things under the rubric of “you want to support the prime minister, don’t you?” And that would usually cow them into line, never mind that there are no actual levers of power for a government to assert in the Senate. Black and Unger both have always been in the Senate where they were told that there was this expectation, and now that they are in opposition and the party is in a leadership convention, they are suddenly finding themselves without that same comfortable feeling of obligation to the person who appointed them (never mind their “elected” status – it certainly didn’t mean anything for their “elected” predecessor Bert Brown, who insisted that senators had to dance with the one who brought them). Black obviously decided that he felt freer in this environment and wanted to push it further. That’s his prerogative; Unger feels the need for structure, and that’s legitimate, so long as she knows that she has that institutional independence and that there is no such thing as caucus control for a senator (and I’m not sure that she does, given her Senate “upbringing”).

But honestly – between the fetishisation of “independence” and the wrong-headed notion of “checks and balances” that don’t actually exist, neither are really on the side of the angels on this one.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not really elected, not really a betrayal

Posted on by

Alberta Conservative Senator Doug Black announced yesterday that he was going to sit as an independent, and a bunch of tongues started wagging because Black is one of the “elected” (and I do use the term loosely) Senators. A number of people also said a bunch of boneheaded things about the move, and we’ll get to that in a minute, but first, a refresher on the “election.”

For those of you who were unaware, Alberta has run a series of nonsense “consultative elections” for “senators in waiting” a few times, and it’s a process that has been problematic on a number of levels, not to mention the fact that the whole thing is unconstitutional. I mean if you want to elect Senators, then there’s a process, which is the general amending formula of the constitution, meaning seven provinces that represent 50 percent of the population. That didn’t happen, however Stephen Harper appointed from this list. Among the quirks of these “consultative elections” is that the candidates were largely running on the tickets of provincial parties – you know, ones that don’t exist on the federal level, not to mention the fact that the provincial Liberals boycotted an unconstitutional process, and the NDP refused because they want to abolish the Senate altogether. So this last time around you Senators running under the provincial Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose Party, both of whom were pledged to sit as federal Conservatives, never mind that the two parties are different and don’t actually stand for the same things. And did we mention that this is an unconstitutional process? Because it is – you can’t do through the back door what you can’t through the front, never mind that Harper and the Alberta government at the time figured you could.

So what does this have to do with his decision to leave caucus? Well, people like Senator Don Plett are angry, calling this a “betrayal,” while his fellow “elected” Senator Scott Tanas was passive aggressive in his “disappointment” with the move. Plett went so far as to start saying that this was Black’s way of avoiding the whip as he apparently has a terrible attendance record (note: this could be verified, if one actually wanted, and I’m not sure that I care enough to go digging), and moaning that these “votes” have been “deprived of a Conservative representative.” And this is all very much like the floor-crossing debate, which is ridiculous. MPs are elected on an individual basis – our first-past-the-post system gives them enormous agency because they are elected as an individual, even if they are running on a party ticket. They are not there because their party won votes and they are apportioned the seat off of a list (which empowers the party, not the MP). For a senator, however, they are appointed with a great deal of institutional independence, because that is what their job requires of them if they are to be able to push back against a majority government when required, or speak truth to power without fearing for their jobs. And no, Black was not “elected” – he was appointed, despite it being on the basis of a sham “consultative” process. So guess what – with that institutional independence, he can choose whether he wants to sit in a caucus or not. It’s why a Prime Minister should be very careful in the vetting process before they appoint someone (and no, an election is not necessarily a good vetting process, particularly given the way that the Alberta process was run, and gosh, it’s not like bad apples have ever been elected before). So really, the fact that he claims to be “elected” is of little consequence with this move, other than as a kind of “fun fact.” If he wants to sit as an independent, then more power to him.

Meanwhile, Senator Patrick Brazeau’s suspension is now over and he’s back to work, vowing to “clean up” the Senate – which gives one flashbacks of an acquitted OJ Simpson vowing to catch his wife’s killer. And no, Brazeau’s legal troubles aren’t over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Corrosive myths about mandates

Posted on by

It’s official – Theresa May is now the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom thanks to being selected by her party caucus, and thanks to her rival dropping out (after a spectacular media implosion) and she was left with no rival to take to the party membership. (See her first speech here). But that has already started the general nonsense about her being “unelected” or not having a “mandate,” all of which is complete and utter nonsense, as though anyone making those claims doesn’t understand how the Westminster system works – and yes, I’m looking at you, CBC, who used the term in your reporting on her being appointed by the Queen yesterday to the job.

One of the most incomprehensible piece on the subject so far was published in the Guardian, written by Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who seems to be utterly mystified with the way that governments are formed in our shared system of government, or the fact that we don’t elect prime ministers. (He also advocated a bunch of proportional representation nonsense, which didn’t help his arguments any either). Now, while it’s likely that the whole piece was simply his attempt at trolling for the government to call a general election (somehow bypassing the Fixed Term Parliaments Act as though it were no big deal), hoping to reverse their devastating losses from the previous election while running on a pro-Remain ticket, it’s nevertheless shocking just how civically illiterate the leader of a major political party is in print.

There was a great rebuttal to Farron’s nonsense by Robert Hazell, which offers some clarity on the way that Westminster parliaments work, but he makes the very salient point that all of this talk about needing a democratic mandate “has a corrosive effect on public understanding of our parliamentary system, and on legitimacy and trust in government.” And he’s absolutely right, which is why I am especially outraged that media outlets like the CBC are repeating this bilge rather than reporting on our shared system of government as it exists and how it’s supposed to work. Civic literacy should not be a high bar to clear when it comes to reporting on politics, and yet here we are.

Continue reading →